Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 11:56 am
From: Pboud

George Kerby wrote:

>>
>> and another:
>>
>> http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry3821.html
>>
> Wow. Simply unbelievable...
>
> <shakes head in disbelief>
>
> But who wulda thunk that the President of the United States would be
> warranting my new car?
>
> These are the daze...
>
>

and firing the GM's CEO, to the tune of 20 mil in 'retirement'
benefits.. don't forget that part

== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 11:59 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Chris H wrote:
> In message <Mencken-897E5F.09553930032009@news.dsl>, Ockham's Razor
> <Mencken@pdx.net> writes
>> In article <C5F651D7.260C2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/30/09 10:23 AM, in article
>>> Mencken-F66672.08231330032009@news.dsl, "Ockham's Razor"
>>> <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>,
>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper
>>>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>>> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
>>>>>> press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
>>>>>> are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech
>>>>>> doesn't apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
>>>>
>>>> Try telling that to the 16 year old girl who photographed another
>>>> 16 year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces about 15
>>>> years in prison for pornography and a life time of being labeled a
>>>> sexual preaditor.
>>> Cite please?
>>
>> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/explicit-cellphone-photos-could-
>> land-teenagers-in-prison/?scp=5&sq=Sexting&st=cse
>
> Just shows how stupid US law is.

To the politicians _anything_ is acceptable if it's "for the children", even
throwing some kid in jail for showing some other kid something that the
other kid apparently doesn't want to see.

== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 12:17 pm
From: sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:29:46 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn>
wrote:

>>>Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to
>>>your right to photograph any damned thing you want.
>>
>> Photography is a right, but it may be restricted under
>> certain
>> conditions. (US)
>>
>Sorry, but photography is NOT a right, it is a privilige under the
>more general right of freedom of expression.

Could you sight a reference for that? Let's face it, in the
US everything is a right unless it is otherwise restricted.

Let's see, I don't recall any specific reference in law that
gives me a right to blink my right eye in private. So then if I need
a constitutional authority to take a photography, then I guess I need
one to blink my eye.

Think of it like this, my right to swing my arm, ends at your
nose.

Also photography may be a form of expression, but it is also a
method or recording information etc.

== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 12:21 pm
From: "Frank ess"

Chris H wrote:
> In message <Mencken-897E5F.09553930032009@news.dsl>, Ockham's Razor
> <Mencken@pdx.net> writes
>> In article <C5F651D7.260C2%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>> George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/30/09 10:23 AM, in article
>>> Mencken-F66672.08231330032009@news.dsl, "Ockham's Razor"
>>> <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>,
>>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper
>>>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>>> Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of
>>>>>> free press and gives the press the right to publish a
>>>>>> photograph. There are many laws that restrict photography.
>>>>>> Free speech doesn't apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.
>>>>
>>>> Try telling that to the 16 year old girl who photographed
>>>> another 16 year old girl having sex at a party. She now faces
>>>> about 15 years in prison for pornography and a life time of
>>>> being labeled a sexual preaditor.
>>> Cite please?
>>
>> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/explicit-cellphone-photos-could-
>> land-teenagers-in-prison/?scp=5&sq=Sexting&st=cse
>
> Just shows how stupid US law is.

You left out "that", I believe; here, let me help you:
"Just shows how stupid /that/ US law is."

I agree with that, with the "that".

If I'm wrong, the statement has more value in assessing you and your
attitudes than in any useful evaluation of US law. None (or very few)
of which seem to be perfect, and in some instances, absolutely
irrational.

--
Frank ess

== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 1:15 pm
From: Bob

In article <3euvs451k4h3s9b5q0dcir8toldllq33sm@4ax.com>, tony_cooper213
@earthlink.net says...
-:On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
-:wrote:

-:The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
-:something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
-:Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
-:Constitutional rights.

dear invalid:

you actually should do research into the bill of rights,
and in the context in which it was written.
( very interesting ideas )
it does not grant anything.

it explicitly enumerates existing rights of free men.
It recognizes that they exist. It was created
because some of the founding fathers were afraid
that in the future there would be 'governors'
who would not understand this,
and who would take away these rights,
so they explicitly described some of them.

'the pursuit of happiness' recognizes that we are allowed
to do many things which are not explicitly allowed by law.
it is the other way around, we are allowed to do anything
which is not explicitly restricted by law.

think about the difference.
do you need a law passed to allow you to go to a football game?
has any such law been passed?

is there a law that allows you to shop for food?

do you want to live in a place where you can not do something
until the legislature passes a law that allows you to do it?

== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 1:55 pm
From: nospam

In article <uY5Al.46468$HF6.41070@newsfe08.iad>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
> >
> > As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in the UK
>
> Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which delete all
> seldom does.

it rarely fails.

> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could
> recover deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.

perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one moment
he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did not. that's
destruction.

== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 1:59 pm
From: nospam

In article <wL06UEYWwP0JFA5r@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

> >What the UK does is irrelevant.
>
> No it is the only relevant law. What is done in foreign countries like
> the USA is irrelevant.

this took place in the usa, so the only relevant laws in this case are
those of the usa. period.

had it taken place in london then the laws of the uk would be relevant.
but it didn't take place there so they're not.

== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 2:11 pm
From: Ron Hunter

nospam wrote:
> In article <uY5Al.46468$HF6.41070@newsfe08.iad>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.
>>> As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in the UK
>> Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which delete all
>> seldom does.
>
> it rarely fails.
>
>> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could
>> recover deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.
>
> perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one moment
> he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did not. that's
> destruction.
ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.

== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 2:12 pm
From: Ron Hunter

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2009-03-30 01:16:28 -0700, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <1hlvs41epum5c7qtdq1ojqcbrflpcs9q8l@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
>>>> working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
>>>> bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
>>>> the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
>>>> card.(2)
>>>>
>>>> The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
>>>> brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
>>>> undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.
>>>> Both sides have a point.
>>> the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
>>> reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
>>> else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
>>> given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
>>> bystander.
>> No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property. And I
>> suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they could
>> quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.
>>
>> The UK is threatening to make photographing policemen illegal, but so
>> far they have not done so. Although the untrained el cheapo jobsworths
>> they put out as "community support officers" sometimes think such a law
>> exists. Abuses of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act are likely to
>> increase:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm
>>
>>>> (1) Love that cop talk!
>>>> (2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
>>>> around the Menu of any camera.
>> Deleting just the offending ones and then taking a few dozen random
>> shots would probably irreversibly trash the media containing the images
>> he wanted to destroy. Delete all images is far too easily undone on
>> most cameras. People hit the wrong buttons too often.
>>
>>> that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
>>> good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.
>> Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if there
>> was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop should
>> have asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a receipt for it.
>> (at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
> What the UK does is irrelevant. If we are talking about the First
> Amendment, then we are talking about the United States. Last I looked,
> people in the UK do not have a Bill of Rights.

They have an equivalent. BTW, US law regarding property, and most other
legal issues is quite similar to UK law, since it is derived from the UK
tradition.

== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 2:37 pm
From: nospam

In article <ofWdnam4s8D6qEzUnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> >> Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could
> >> recover deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.
> >
> > perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one moment
> > he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did not. that's
> > destruction.
> ONLY if the data were actually lost, which is NOT usually the case.

it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.

the fact that someone might be able to recover it, possibly with a lot
of time and expense, does not mean there's no destruction. and most
people aren't aware of the fact they can recover an erased card or have
any idea where to find the tools to do it. it's clearly destruction of
property.

if someone smashes your car with a baseball bat and you have it
repaired, does that mean he didn't destroy your property?

== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 2:31 pm
From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)

In article <MPG.243af252b3865bab989879@news.verizon.net>,
Bob <Crownfield@verizon.net> wrote:

>you actually should do research into the bill of rights,
>and in the context in which it was written.
>( very interesting ideas )
>it does not grant anything.
>
>it explicitly enumerates existing rights of free men.
>It recognizes that they exist. It was created
>because some of the founding fathers were afraid
>that in the future there would be 'governors'
>who would not understand this,
>and who would take away these rights,
>so they explicitly described some of them.

And, they explicitly included wording to the effect of "The fact that
we've specifically listed a bunch of rights here as being worthy of
notice and explicit protection, should not be taken to mean that these
are *all* of the rights that people possess, or that those other
rights are somehow less valuable."

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 3:33 pm
From: Bob

In article <300320091437296650%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
nospam@nospam.invalid says...
-:In article <ofWdnam4s8D6qEzUnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
-:<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
-:
-:
-:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.

not so.
the data clusters are released but not damaged.
the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.

anyone can recover it.
it is not hard.
it is not expensive.

-:
-:the fact that someone might be able to recover it, possibly with a lot
-:of time and expense, does not mean there's no destruction. and most
-:people aren't aware of the fact they can recover an erased card or have
-:any idea where to find the tools to do it.

google, people. people, google.

problem solved.

== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 3:43 pm
From: nospam

In article <MPG.243b12a437f5fbbf98987b@news.verizon.net>, Bob
<Crownfield@verizon.net> wrote:

> -:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.
>
> not so.
> the data clusters are released but not damaged.
> the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.

to the user, the files are gone. erased. history. no more photos.

> anyone can recover it.
> it is not hard.
> it is not expensive.

no, not 'anyone.' most people are completely unaware that deleted data
can be recovered. plus, it requires time and expense that would not
otherwise be needed.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extendec Zome on the Panasonic FZ28
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a529d412bb80dd0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 12:01 pm
From: "rjpalace@aol.com"

My question is simple, how does the extended zoom work, and is the
picture degraded in any way? Thanks in advance.
Richard

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 1:01 pm
From: "David J Taylor"

rjpalace@aol.com wrote:
> My question is simple, how does the extended zoom work, and is the
> picture degraded in any way? Thanks in advance.
> Richard

IIRC, it's a cropped central image.

Cheers,
David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Battery Replacement
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3395b5eca423c63?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 12:20 pm
From: sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:01:44 -0400, "Ed Mullikin" <edmull2@cox.net>
wrote:

>A technologically challenged widow friend of my wife has a Kodak digital
>camera with a dead INTERNAL battery so that she can no longer have the date
>printed on the photos as she takes them. She wants to do that to her
>photos. The Kodak camera is a DX6490. Yes, I know she can reset the date
>and I know she should just get a new camera but please read the first
>sentence again. She barely knows how to use this one and I do not want to
>try to retrain her. I am moderately competent in such matters as this.
>What kind of difficulty will I be in if I take a scredriver to the case in
>an attempt to replace the internal battery?

I don't know that camera, I have been out of the business
since before digital, but must camera shops will still replace a
battery for you.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 2:17 pm
From: Ron Hunter

Ed Mullikin wrote:
> A technologically challenged widow friend of my wife has a Kodak digital
> camera with a dead INTERNAL battery so that she can no longer have the date
> printed on the photos as she takes them. She wants to do that to her
> photos. The Kodak camera is a DX6490. Yes, I know she can reset the date
> and I know she should just get a new camera but please read the first
> sentence again. She barely knows how to use this one and I do not want to
> try to retrain her. I am moderately competent in such matters as this.
> What kind of difficulty will I be in if I take a scredriver to the case in
> an attempt to replace the internal battery?
>
In all probability, it is simply a button battery. You might try the
kodak site for a user manual, which might mention it.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 2:55 pm
From: Nicko

On Mar 30, 4:17 pm, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
> Ed Mullikin wrote:
> > A technologically challenged widow friend of my wife has a Kodak digital
> > camera with a dead INTERNAL battery so that she can no longer have the date
> > printed on the photos as she takes them. She wants to do that to her
> > photos. The Kodak camera is a DX6490. Yes, I know she can reset the date
> > and I know she should just get a new camera but please read the first
> > sentence again. She barely knows how to use this one and I do not want to
> > try to retrain her. I am moderately competent in such matters as this.
> > What kind of difficulty will I be in if I take a scredriver to the case in
> > an attempt to replace the internal battery?
>
> In all probability, it is simply a button battery. You might try the
> kodak site for a user manual, which might mention it.

I like how you put that: "She wants to do that to her photos." So I
guess there is no persuading her not to?

I would go ahead and open up the camera, but only dissassemble it to
the point past which you won't be able to put it back together. If
you are reasonably adept at doing this sort of thing, and are careful,
it certainly won't hurt.

As Ron said, it's probably a button battery, and if you can find it
inside the camera in the first place (it might be obvious), it should
be easy enough to replace with a commercial equivalent. I couldn't
find anything at Kodak's web site, but I admit I didn't look very
hard.

Good luck.

--
YOP...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D90 defective Matrix metering
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c9335bfe34017e91?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 12:47 pm
From: "PDM"

<snip.
> Perhaps you need to send your D90 back for adjustment?
>
> Cheers,
> David
I've had it 4 days; give me a chance.

PDM

==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 12:58 pm
From: John McWilliams

Chris H wrote:

> The only problem with MACs becoming more popular is that the hackers
> will dust off their Unix viruses and start attacking MACS. :-(

Shibboleth.

There are no viruses affecting *Macs* in the wild, nor is it likely to
occur in the future. There was a substantial $$$ prize for the first guy
or gal to write an effective one, and it didn't get written. The first
geek to bring down a Mac will be enshrined in the most hallowed hall of
hackers n miscreants.

--
john mcwilliams

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 12:54 pm
From: John McWilliams

Chris H wrote:
>
> That said just because one university out of thousands requires 60% of
> its students to use MACS does prove that MACs are a niche market it is
> close.
>
> AFAIK MAC sales globally are at about 4% of PC sales. Granted a lot of
> PC's run Linux but at a guess I would say that 80% PC, 15% Linux, 4%
> MAC and 1% other?
>
> That still makes MAC a niche market. (And I use 2 MACS here)

And a beautiful niche it is, too. But you don't got no MACS... you may
have a couple of Macs....

--
john mcwilliams

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 3:18 pm
From: nospam

In article <76Loo7RpkM0JFAKQ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

> >it's very difficult to write a virus that can propagate on its own on
> >unix without the user knowing.
>
> Really? That is where the term "worm" came from and the first one was on
> Unix. I can dig out the report. I have a printed one and I will see if I
> can find the electronic version. It is probably on a floppy... Hopefully
> a 3.5 not a 5.25 :-)

are you referring to the robert morris worm from 20 years ago? how
many have happened since then?

> You have to remember that up until the late 1990's most Universities
> still used UNIX and Windows did not really start to become really
> popular until the 1990s The University Unix machines were the only
> machines that were really networked and accessible.
>
> So up until perhaps 1990-5 there were probably more viruses for UNIX
> than PC's

'probably' ? got a cite?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: panasonic and summertime.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8923fe3ae03bc133?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 1:29 pm
From: "ben brugman"

This weekend summertime (daylight saving time) started again.

A lot of clocks have to be adjusted. One of them the clock on my Panasonic
TZ3. If I switch to summertime the time does not change. So the alter my
home time I have to adjust the clock and can adjust that it is summertime.

The timezone I am in is Paris, normal time is GMT +1, so summertime is GMT
+2, not so for the TZ3. If the timezone is Paris, it says it is GMT +1,
independ if summertime is selected or not. To me this is wrong. And
furthermore why do they 'support' summertime and the homeclock is not
adjusted by this setting.

Is there a logic to the Panasonic timing system?
Can somebody explain the logic behind this?

Thanks for your time and attention,
ben brugman.

(The manual hardly says anything about these settings).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: courting Trumpeter Swans picture
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e533c5c4593406b2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 1:50 pm
From: orida70

The image is part of a project I started four years ago on trumpeter
swans:

http://roycebair.blogspot.com/2009/03/courting-trumpeter-swans-my-vision.html

As you know, the swans mate for life. I'd love to hear your comments.
Should I continue or give up?

Royce Bair
Your Photo Vision
http://roycebair.blogspot.com/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: nikon DSLR has less high ISO noise?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9ef0837b190a11d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 30 2009 1:59 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:55:08 -0700, "semoi" <fac_187@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>How often do most users actually shoot at these high ISOs?
>Rather than low noise at high ISOs or ever increasing megapixels
>manufacturers should try to improve the dynamic range of sensors, which has
>not budged much compared to other factors.
>Current sensors still have very little latitude for over-exposure.
>Improving latitude at normal ISOs would benefit all photographers far more
>than reducing noise at rarely used ultra high ISOs.

Using a D300, I find I am losing my dislike of shooting at higher ISO.
I only think once before shooting at 1600. I find the benefits outway
the problems of larger lens apertures and slower shutter speeds. I
have been known to shoot at even higher ISO :-)

Eric Stevens

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

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

Monday, March 30, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic