Photoshop How To Use: 25 new messages in 11 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can I get hi-res Google maps?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/3c037ab1fed9303e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 11:55 pm
From: Square Peg

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:09:06 -0800, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <te5kh410ld8d5agesppmhsv57690iv07ek@4ax.com>, Square Peg
><SquarePeg@Round.Hole> wrote:
>
>> I would like to obtain the hi-res version of the images from Google
>> Maps. Is that possible? I am willing to pay a nominal fee.
>>
>> I am able to capture the screen image, but that is fairly low
>> resolution.
>>
>> Thanks for any help or pointers to where else I should ask.
>
>looks like you need one of the non-free versions of google earth:
>
><http://earth.google.com/product_comparison.html>

Thanks for the tip. I'll play around with the free one. If that works,
but is too low res, I'll upgrade to the $20 or, maybe, the $400
version.

According to the Google Earth website, I can get image resolutions of
1,000 pixels (Free or Plus) or 4,800 pixels (Pro). But it doesn't say
what size the image is.

Can I assume that if I want to blow an image up to twice its size on
the screen, that I would need to zoom in until it is double the size
and then stitch the pieces together?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: sigma buys foveon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 12:15 am
From: Mitchell Graston

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:38:03 -0800, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <MPG.23849ef233e5ad7798bf11@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
>Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > not likely to happen for several reasons. one is the difficulty in
>> > manufacturing the chip at that size and the other is the vast amounts
>> > of data that would have to be processed. it would give new meaning to
>> > the word 'slow.'
>>
>> Can't comment on manufacturing issues, but full-colour RGB sensors are
>> clearly the future.
>
>maybe. there are a number of hurdles to overcome. split the pixel in
>three and noise goes up.

Where on earth do you get this nonsense?

If the photons coming in are cleanly being divided up into their respective
energy levels, there is no more base noise than if they were being filtered out
by Bayer filters. The only difference is that you get 4x's the chromatic
resolution per sensor area in the Foveon paradigm.

Must have been something you read in the past from one of the usual (and highly
moronic) resident-trolls. It sounded good to you so you now mindlessly aped (no
offense to apes intended, I find that apes are often more intelligent than
humans) what the trolls originally stated without having enough frontal-lobe
material of your own to think it through clearly.

Perhaps you should go climb back up into your tree and think some more about
what you are typing.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 1:18 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <111120081632486951%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> says...
>
>> not likely to happen for several reasons. one is the difficulty in
>> manufacturing the chip at that size and the other is the vast
>> amounts
>> of data that would have to be processed. it would give new meaning
>> to the word 'slow.'
>
> Can't comment on manufacturing issues, but full-colour RGB sensors
> are
> clearly the future. Since pixels can't get smaller, they have to get
> better and collect more information. Having the full RGB information
> at each pixel is a huge advantage. It boosts the effective
> resolution
> by about 50%.

Uh huh. So why are Foveon sensors so lousy in tests?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 5:12 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <111120082338039379%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam says...

> maybe. there are a number of hurdles to overcome. split the pixel in
> three and noise goes up. nikon has a patent with dichroic mirrors that
> doesn't look like it would be cost effective to manufacture.

Obviously splitting pixels is nonsense. You have to find a way to
capture all incoming photons. With the current Bayer sensors you are
throwing away 2/3 of all incoming photons. What a waste.

> > Since pixels can't get smaller, they have to get
> > better and collect more information. Having the full RGB information at
> > each pixel is a huge advantage. It boosts the effective resolution by
> > about 50%.
>
> it's an advantage but not as much as you suggest, and the lack of
> demosaicing is actually fairly minor.

It makes indeed a big difference. But please let's not start again this
equivalent resolution debate, because this has been discussed to death
already.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 5:15 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <gfe7mt01p2i@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke says...

> Uh huh. So why are Foveon sensors so lousy in tests?

The Foveon one is just one possible implementation and in fact not a
particularly good one. An Asian manufacturer (Samsung?) is researching
on a different approach: three semi-transparent stacked layers of photo-
sensitive material. They are not using silicon as far as I know.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sometimes DSLRs achieve comical/pathetic results
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e8507563c32175c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 12:23 am
From: Eric Stevens

On 12 Nov 2008 05:46:37 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>> Presuming it is true, there are often over monied hacks who buy
>>> equipment, take expensive trips, only to wish they had learned what
>>> they were doing. Just ask the idiots who died on Everest in 1996. I
>>> saw a Nat Geo photog use a 600mm telephoto on a Nikon to shoot animals
>>> in the Arctic and his motions were like ballet, he missed nothing that
>>> I saw. I also went to a airshow last year and watched some poor
>>> bastard with a superzoom P&S fail on about 40 attempts to track and
>>> lock focus and get decent images of the jets. He would have had no
>>> trouble with a DSLR, I didn't.
>>
>>When I see people struggling like that, whether it's for wildlife or
>>jets (I took some good photos of the Blue Angels with the D-SLR), I'll
>>gently explain to them that it's really impossible to get photos they
>>want with that type of camera, and I'll offer to e-mail them my photos.
>
>My favorite example of clueless snapshooters is stadium events where
>the lighting is dim and you see hundreds of camera flashes trying to
>illuminate the field from hundreds of feet away.

Then there is the Niagra falls ...

Eric Stevens

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 5:25 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>My favorite example of clueless snapshooters is stadium events where
>>the lighting is dim and you see hundreds of camera flashes trying to
>>illuminate the field from hundreds of feet away.
>
>Then there is the Niagra falls ...

A while ago I watched someone trying to illuminate Mt. Rainier from
about 10 miles away with the builtin flash at dusk. And she kept
wonderng why the pictures came out so dark....

jue

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 6:01 am
From: tony cooper

On 12 Nov 2008 05:46:37 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

I don't see why that makes the snapshooter clueless. It's the camera,
not the shooter, that decides the flash will fire unless the camera
has settings to retard flash. Quite adequate photographs can come out
of P&S cameras if the field lighting is adequate.

They aren't going to be good photographs if taken from the stands with
most cameras, but some people just want to record that they were
there.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 6:44 am
From: SMS

Ray Fischer wrote:

> My favorite example of clueless snapshooters is stadium events where
> the lighting is dim and you see hundreds of camera flashes trying to
> illuminate the field from hundreds of feet away.

You see this at museums, aquariums, etc., too, where they tell people
that flash photography is prohibited. Most of the people don't know how
to turn off the flash. It was really annoying to watch the Olympics on
TV and see all those clueless people using their flashes, it was
distracting. They should just ban P&S cameras from these venues.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/d7789e423256930a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 12:49 am
From: "Fred"

"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:962326c8-b58c-42c8-911a-50fd9a5dc625@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 7:17 am, "Fred" <fredap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
> recently?

Well, "pan and scan" is actually a disgusting, pre-HD TV version of a
P&S where (like a P&S) a sawed-off runt of a movie or TV is shown so
it will fit on an old 4:3 TV set. The people who prefer this kind of
art mutilation are probably the same as those who prefer P&S's to
DSLRs...

Yes, I meant "point and shoot"!

God knows why I typed "pan and scan", I must have had my TV head on :o)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 4:01 am
From: Steve

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:55:51 -0600, FreelanceFrankie
<frankie@noaddress.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:31:26 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 11, 7:17 am, "Fred" <fredap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Has this newsgroup been renamed rec.photo.dslrbigotsslampanandscans
>>> recently?
>>
>>Well, "pan and scan" is actually a disgusting, pre-HD TV version of a
>>P&S where (like a P&S) a sawed-off runt of a movie or TV is shown so
>>it will fit on an old 4:3 TV set. The people who prefer this kind of
>>art mutilation are probably the same as those who prefer P&S's to
>>DSLRs...
>
>Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
>bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
>continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
>newsgroup-troll and a fool.
>
>
>1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
>existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
>wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
>of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
>gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
>range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
>larger format cameras.

You're so much fun to prove wrong. And yet again, you prove you know
nothing about cameras. Only DSLRs in general give you seamless zoom
range. Most P&S cameras have discreet steps that the zoom must stop
at. So for the whole range that the zoom lens covers, the camera may
have only 6 or 7 actual focal lengths it can ever be at. You push the
zoom lever and it doesn't stop when you let go. It only stops when it
gets to one of it's preset zoom levels.

If you want a seamless zoom range then get a DSLR.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Excessive battery drain (when off) on Canon Powershot A60
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/55794b6aef7bfec8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 12:50 am
From: Al Paca

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:35:25 -0600, TrollManager
<trollmanager@unwantedmail.net> wrote:

>I use longer strips of clear thin mylar so the tab hangs out of the battery door
>to remind myself (and others) to pull it out before use. No need to open the
>battery door to reengage contacts.

Great tip. Thanks.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is this the future?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/005781276d8e357a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 1:17 am
From: "J. Clarke"

If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone will
interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 4:53 am
From: "MJK"

it's not quiet but not cheap !!!

> If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone will
> interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?

> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813

> --John

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 6:43 am
From: John McWilliams

J. Clarke wrote:
> If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone will
> interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?
>
> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813

I liked this comment:

Bottomline: It's cheap cheerful and does what it says. If you want
quality photos, go spend a few hundred on a proper digital camera. If
you want a toy for your iPhone that looks quite ridiculous, get one of
these.

--
john mcwilliams

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 6:51 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

John McWilliams added these comments in the current discussion
du jour ...

>> If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone
>> will interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?
>>
>> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813
>
> I liked this comment:
>
> Bottomline: It's cheap cheerful and does what it says. If you
> want quality photos, go spend a few hundred on a proper
> digital camera. If you want a toy for your iPhone that looks
> quite ridiculous, get one of these.
>
Point well taken. Couple of observations. People are pretty heavily
into instant gratification these days and seem far more interesting
in snap shot photos than quality, hence they generally don't
habitate these hallowed halls. Second, in the continuun between
absolute nubes and Nobel Laureate professional photographers, I
would hazard a guess that damn few of them can even upload their
pictures to their PC, much less name them or post-process them. Few
also have any clue how nor any desire to E-mail pictures to friends
analogous to old fashioned snail mailing of drugstore prints. I use
my just-30 daughter as the quintessial example of what people DO
want to do, which is stick their memory thingy into a kiosk at
Walmart, Meijer, Costco or such and just run off a batch of prints.

P.S. Honda just announced robotic assisted legs theoretically to
help those less fortunate to get around. Who is to say what is or
is not a useful invention. I cite as proof this quote:

"Everything that can be invented has been invented" - U. S. Patent
Commissioner, Charles H. Duell, 1899

I wonder what Mr. Duell would think of the new Chinese better
mousetrap.

Have a great day!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Most people with power would like to use it wisely, if someone
believable would tell them how", Robert Townsend in the book "Up
The Organization"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban. WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 1:36 am
From: "Rev. Diva Schematic"

Stormin Mormon wrote:
> I was looking for a rhyme.
>

That was Hitler's excuse (damnit, Godwin's)! "Dear Jews, sorry I
murdered you all, I was looking for a rhyme. But you have to admit
'Great News, We've Killed All The Jews' was a great rhyming headline in
the Tägliche Nachrichten, and I like a good rhyme."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P&S V DSLR debate here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/d9743709abcda6dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 3:55 am
From: Steve

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:51:10 -0600, Gavin O'Donnel
<godonnel@replyhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:06:31 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks again for proving that you have absolutely no real world
>>photographic experience. Even in sunlight, fill-in flash is a useful
>>tool for any competent photographer. Which obviously you're not. Of
>>course, if you had a decent camera you might be able to hide at least
>>some of your incompetence.
>
>D'oH!
>
>The idiot mouse took the bait!
>
>bait / trap / set / trip / dead-mouse / discard ...
>
>Hey moron, you can't use fill-flash on your DSLR at speeds any faster than its
>X-Sync shutter speed. If you try to use its built-in flash at faster than X-Sync

D'oH!

The idiot mouse took the bait!

bait / trap / set / trip / dead-mouse / discard ...

>setting, first of all your camera won't (or shouldn't) allow it, but even if it
>did then you'll only get part of the frame exposed to the flash. And if you use
>an expensive, heavy, and cumbersome accessory flash that strobes, specifically
>designed for focal-plane shutters to illuminate the full frame during that
>last-century's focal-plane shutter's SLOW snail-paced travel, its flash output
>is reduced in exact proportions for every EV shutter-step faster than its X-Sync
>speed. If your X-Sync speed is 1/250, then if you use 1/500s with a focal-plane
>flash-unit your flash output is halved. Use it with 1/1000s and its flash output
>is quartered. Etc. Oh sure, the flash is still putting out the same amount of
>light, but the faster the shutter speed the less is getting through to the
>sensor due to the narrowed slit of the slow-moving focal-plane shutter's passage
>over the sensor.
>
>Are you smart enough to know the inverse-square law to realize how close you're
>going to have to stand to your subjects at any shutter speed faster than your
>DSLR's archaic X-Sync speed? I hope you take a shower before you do.
>
>What was it that you were saying about idiots' posts proving that they've never
>used any real cameras in real life?
>
>Thanks for proving ... that it be you.

Hey moron, that's for proving you have no real world experience and
don't even know how to use a DSLR properly. No wonder you're stuck
with a P&S. A DSLR is flexable enough to be able to shoot with fill
in flash at it's X-Sync speed. You mean your precious P&S can't do
that? And using a flash that strobes is only a problem with the
pathetically weak P&S flashes.

Thanks for proving once again you have no practical real world
experience and don't even know how to use fill-in flash.

Too funny!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 6:47 am
From: John McWilliams

Steve wrote:

>
> Too funny!

Not faintly amusing. Could you stop replying to the pest?

==
.s

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 7:14 am
From: Gavin O'Donnel

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:55:57 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>A DSLR is flexable enough to be able to shoot with fill
>in flash at it's X-Sync speed. You mean your precious P&S can't do
>that?

All of the ones I use don't have a crippling X-Sync speed limitation and can use
fill-flash at any shutter speed. That's the point I was making about your
limited and crippled DSLR not being able to use its built-in flash in
full-sunlight. The properties of a strobing focal-plane flash (high-speed-sync
flash) as a fill-flash is just as useless due to the inverse-square law and the
properties of a focal-plane shutter.

(Can a mouse's brain comprehend this? No. :-) )

> And using a flash that strobes is only a problem with the
>pathetically weak P&S flashes.

I don't believe it. Just when I thought he couldn't make an even bigger fool of
himself, he goes and does it again.

I should let someone else who wants to play with this flopping-around
mouse-with-its-head-in-a-trap explain to the mouse why it is now begging to be
put out of its misery, with a simple explanation of how a pulsing/strobing
focal-plane flash is not even needed for a P&S camera. Some of the most
inexperienced camera owners out there can easily put this mouse's head under
their boot and step down on it now.

<INTELLIGENT-BOOT>
<PRESSURE>
<TROLL-STEVE'S-MOUSE-HEAD>
<CRUNCH>

LOL

What have we learned today kiddies? ....

1. Steve doesn't know how P&S cameras work.
2. Steve doesn't know how DSLRs work.
3. Steve doesn't know how flash & X-sync works.
4. Steve doesn't know how focal-plane shutter's work.
5. Steve doesn't understand basic photography in daylight.
6. Steve DOES know how to be a know-nothing virtual-photographer resident-troll.

Okay world. I'll let you have this one as an encore freebie. I said I wasn't
going to use him to entertain you anymore, but this one is just so over-the-top
for a virtual-photographer troll I couldn't pass it up. I can't believe that one
of them is even more stupid than an SMS-resident-troll, but I found it!

LOL

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Response to P&S reasons list
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a54d4f54a92e6ebf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 4:00 am
From: "Toby"

>
> You self-deceptive trolls are so amazingly transparent. It's a wonder that
> anyone would take the time to try to educate you. It's not worth it.

Then why do you continue? Out of your compassion and kindness?

Toby

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Slideshow...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/4da42270bc2b2396?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 4:33 am
From: "Joshua Bradshow"

Hi y'all,

I need to extract images from my wedding slideshow, I've found
software called MultiExtractor from http://www.multiextractor.com but it's
paid, do you know any free replacement?

thank you very much
--
Joshua Bradshow aka Bradshow7891 at joshuabradshow_1992@netaddress.com

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 5:22 am
From: Jürgen Exner

"Joshua Bradshow" <joshuabradshow_1992@netaddress.com> wrote:
>I need to extract images from my wedding slideshow, I've found

It might have helped had you told us what file format that slideshow is
in and what operating system you are using.

jue

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 6:10 am
From: "Me Here"

On Nov 12, 7:33 am, "Joshua Bradshow" <joshuabradshow_1...@netaddress.com>
wrote:
> Hi y'all,
>
> I need to extract images from my wedding slideshow, I've found
> software called MultiExtractor fromhttp://www.multiextractor.combut it's
> paid, do you know any free replacement?
>
> thank you very much
> --
> Joshua Bradshow aka Bradshow7891 at joshuabradshow_1...@netaddress.com

Why not ask the photographer for the images? OH I get it you don't want to
pay for the photos, you want to steal them from the copyright owner.

Pay the photographer you cheap asshole!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pro Wildlife Photographers Prefer FX Over DX!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/eb534bd5da6c2966?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 6:35 am
From: John McWilliams

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>>> The whole rationale for 35mm and digital is that its hand holdable.
>>>> none of that lugging around a tripod.
>>>
>>> It is! It just seems that a lot of parrots and other pretenders
>>> simply don't experience it in real life. I have no problem at all
>>> hand holding the
>>> 500/4 and D3 at slow shutter speed.
>>
>> Poast yer proof, pest!
>
> NO! Keep wondering, Son.

I wonder not. I don't think anyone wonders much; although you do have a
couple of fans who may pipe up.

It's up to you to show proof, not us, dodger boy.

--
lsmft

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic