Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ipf5000  (Read 383349 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 23, 2006, 02:08:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
While waiting for my IPF5000 to arrive, I was looking at the ink capacity vs my EPSON 4800.
The IPF5000 has 12 at 130ml cartridges.  The 4800 has 7 at 220ml.
1560 ml for the IPF5000 and 1540 ml for the 4800.  With less mixing of ink I'm hopeful the IPF5000 will be somewhat lower in ink consumption.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 4800 has 8 at 220, not 7, but the tank capacity is irrelevant. What matters is ml per print and cost per ml. The extent of clogging and cleaning as a function of usage or non-usage is also a big deal on Epson printers. We shall see from operating experience with the Canon how all that shakes out.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
markahiggins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #81 on: June 23, 2006, 02:43:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Folks,

I just purchased my iPF5000 yesterday at Calumet in Cambridge, MA. The print quality is great, but it is non-user friendly. For 2 grand I EXPECT a manual! I expect an override to the flakey LCD panel and I EXPECT to be able to print all sheet paper from the Casette. That's right,  some paper such as the Watercolor is not selectable from the tray and has to be manually fed in one sheet at a time. I want to load the printer up with 20 sheets if I am working.

The positive? Set-up was a breeze and the 16 bit Photoshop driver looks to be very good, but there is a downside to that as well. Who has 16 bit ICC profiles? Will Crane, etc...develop 16 bit profiles? Are the Canon ICC profiles for just the 8 bit? Again, no documentation!

I use some Red River papers and they have profiles for this printer, but when I e-mailed and asked them if they were 16 bit I received a reply in which they state that they are indeed 8 bit ICC profiles and that the HOPE they will not need to develop 16 bit profiles.

My advice would be to profile within the plug-in and use a Gretag Eye-One aor send them off to a profiling service like Cathy's.

I am torn between really liking this printer or just returning it and getting an Epson 4800.
Logged
markahiggins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 23, 2006, 02:46:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll let you know how the Red River Ultra Pro Satin works.

Here is what Red River sent me and a link to download if you use their paper.

Thank you for your inquiry.  The UltraPro Satin profiles are here:
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/profiles/ca...orprofiles.html

The profiles were made on an 8-bit Photoshop setup.  We are as of yet
unaware of problems with 16 bit systems (probably because they are still
rare).  I greatly hope there are no issues because that would mean
re-profiling the entire lineup!

Please email or call with any questions.

Sincerely,

Drew Hendrix
Red River Paper
Inkjet Paper & Ideas
888-248-8774
Logged
jtriebe
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #83 on: June 23, 2006, 02:52:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the review Michael, but I think you still have an internal inconsistancy in your numbers on printing costs, even after the correction. You say that A3 costs are $0.37 and 11X17 are $0.48, but based on the information I have about A3, it measures 11.7 inches by 16.5 inches and that makes it about 3.2% larger than 11X17 inch. Thus either the $0.37 or the $0.48 (or both) are wrong. I realize you're doing this all based on consumptions from another printer, but the cost estimate will vary by one third, depending on which set of numbers one assumes is correct.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #84 on: June 23, 2006, 02:59:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Folks,

I just purchased my iPF5000 yesterday at Calumet in Cambridge, MA. The print quality is great, but it is non-user friendly. For 2 grand I EXPECT a manual! I expect an override to the flakey LCD panel and I EXPECT to be able to print all sheet paper from the Casette. That's right,  some paper such as the Watercolor is not selectable from the tray and has to be manually fed in one sheet at a time. I want to load the printer up with 20 sheets if I am working.

.............................

I am torn between really liking this printer or just returning it and getting an Epson 4800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I recommend - indeed urge - that you send a letter to Canon USA telling them exactly this. I find the only way one makes headway with some of these companies is to make your presence felt politely but firmly in a way that they know if they don't respond appropriately it could cost them.

As for exchanging this machine for an Epson 4800 - be careful - first go down the learning curve, see where you end-up and think hard. The 4800 makes great prints, but the print-head maintenance and printing cost could well be greater than the Canon's, and there is a very high penalty for switching between matte and non-matte media.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #85 on: June 23, 2006, 03:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

So, when will we get it "ALL"?  We wait for the Canon and various sites post "reviews" and they all state they don't like this or don't like that with the printer, but all printers are this way.  At least with Epson we have some history, personally I just haven't had many problems with the Epsons, Canons or HP and use them all for, each for its' own task.

The Canon 5000IPF is the first in a series and it looks like within 1-2 years they will probably iron out the bugs, but by then Epson will have the Epson 5800 out with 24 inks, no changing of cartridges, pigment ink, but it wont take roll paper, it'll be something.  

So we can wait or print and complain.  I say print and complain as Mark has stated and hopefully the manufacturers will listen as we vote with our dollars who really makes the best printers.

Why do people worry so much about print cost?  Since printing my own photos (many years ago) I have noticed a HUGE reduction in printing costs, the savings over the labs is substantial

G
« Last Edit: June 23, 2006, 03:56:00 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4926



« Reply #86 on: June 23, 2006, 03:52:59 PM »
ReplyReply

There are indeed problems with the numbers. It's inherent in trying to develop usable information about a printer that has only been on the market for a few weeks, extrapolating from other data from similar machines, and too little data from this one.

It will all become more clear in the days ahead.

Michael
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #87 on: June 23, 2006, 04:31:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So we can wait or print and complain. I say print and complain as Mark has stated and hopefully the manufacturers will listen as we vote with our dollars who really makes the best printers.

Why do people worry so much about print cost? Since printing my own photos (many years ago) I have noticed a HUGE reduction in printing costs, the savings over the labs is substantial

G
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed. When was anything perfect ever put on the market - if we wait to perfect everything we'd end up using nothing. The issue is whether the bugs can be worked around or lived-with. There is a world of difference between something that actually impairs quality of results or is just a nuissance. The latter should be manageable and correctable (Canon!!!) but the former is another matter. My take on Michael's review is that so far the negatives on this machine are in the nuissance category. That is what I am hoping for when I take delivery of mine - and I am also hoping that Canon fixes them and sends me the fixes!

For a professional who is well colour managed and selling work, the cost of making these prints should be quite a secondary consideration, but operational convenience and efficiency are valuable because that is time and professional time is worth much more than the ink and paper. I'm not selling my work, but still quality of results is also priority number one. That said, I like knowing how much it is costing me to use this technology, and I like knowing the financial break-even points for up-grading or not up-grading, but these items aren't determinative - quality and useability rank first.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2006, 04:33:04 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
markahiggins
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 23, 2006, 05:00:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Well guess what. The printer will not print panoramic size paper in eithe the photoshop plug-in or the regular driver. You can input customized sizes, but for 13x38 paper you only have this size available from the roll feeder. Guess what, I don't have the roll feeder as it was not available when I purcheased the printer. I get an error on the LCD screen saying it's looking for the foll paper feeder and when it can't find it it times out and then asks me to clear the paper. On my Epson 2400 and 4800 I can put the 13x38 sizes in and print sheet paper from Crane, Red River, etc.

I am a landscape photographer and my signature photos are panoramics. I tend to like the Crane and Red River Pano sheets over rolls as the rolls tend to curl more than the sheets. This is a HUGE bug for me.

This is being advertised as a fine art printer and a direct competitor to the 4800. Well, it has a ways to go. A well written manual to start would be nice. Not having double entry of paper sizes from the printer and driver would also be nice.

Oh, from the menu screen on the printer you can only go up to 699mm from the manual feed. Well short of the 965 mm in  the 13x38 paper.  If it came with the roll attachement like the Epson I would not be as upset.
Logged
Andrew Larkin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #89 on: June 23, 2006, 05:10:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
While waiting for my IPF5000 to arrive, I was looking at the ink capacity vs my EPSON 4800.
The IPF5000 has 12 at 130ml cartridges.  The 4800 has 7 at 220ml.
1560 ml for the IPF5000 and 1540 ml for the 4800.  With less mixing of ink I'm hopeful the IPF5000 will be somewhat lower in ink consumption.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Isn't this 11x130ml = 1430ml?

Why discount one cartridge from the 4800 and not also from the Canon?

Andrew
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 23, 2006, 05:13:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Isn't this 11x130ml = 1430ml?

Why discount one cartridge from the 4800 and not also from the Canon?

Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see the point of discounting anything from either, and in any case the number of cartridges and their capacities tell you NOTHING except the number of cartridges and their capacities.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #91 on: June 23, 2006, 05:43:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Indeed. When was anything perfect ever put on the market - if we wait to perfect everything we'd end up using nothing. The issue is whether the bugs can be worked around or lived-with. There is a world of difference between something that actually impairs quality of results or is just a nuissance. The latter should be manageable and correctable (Canon!!!) but the former is another matter. My take on Michael's review is that so far the negatives on this machine are in the nuissance category. That is what I am hoping for when I take delivery of mine - and I am also hoping that Canon fixes them and sends me the fixes!

For a professional who is well colour managed and selling work, the cost of making these prints should be quite a secondary consideration, but operational convenience and efficiency are valuable because that is time and professional time is worth much more than the ink and paper. I'm not selling my work, but still quality of results is also priority number one. That said, I like knowing how much it is costing me to use this technology, and I like knowing the financial break-even points for up-grading or not up-grading, but these items aren't determinative - quality and useability rank first.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark I agree that knowing what the prints cost can be important and I was shooting from the hip a "little" since at work we do print a lot per month (probably 300 11x17 or more) and we have calculated costs, but when we were doing the math the Canons and Epsons were very close, however we use mostly Canons because speed is so important and the Canons are much quicker than the Epsons.  Our problems with prints started when we had clients calling and telling us that their prints were fading (We are a residential design firm and we give clients prints of what their houses will look like after construction) and that they wanted to keep them, so for those people we run prints from our various Epson pigment printers.  I actually still have a working Epson 1280 and quite frankly the print quality of the latest and greatest are NOT substantially better, they just last!  

I will probably wait a month or two and then buy the Canon IPF5000, I agree with you, Michael's review of the printers seems to state the "problems" are not problems, but rather annoyances.

G
Logged
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #92 on: June 23, 2006, 06:10:34 PM »
ReplyReply

There is always a risk for the good and for the bad being an early adopter. Take the risk or don't, and if do, then find and share workarounds - like many of us here are starting (even already have been) doing. Me I choose to trust the quality and flexibility were worth it and that collectively we will work it out and I will be happy. Of course I will find out.

I have found little to no difference in general so far - with profiles made and then images printed in either 8 bit or 16 bit.  I have heard at least one other comment from someone similiar. I project on 16x20 sizes it may show on more or some images, maybe depending on presences of gradiations, large ones, is my guess.

Look at your media guide. It prints out easily. It tells you what choices will use the cassette and what is roll or single sheet. Some of the settings seem to be redundant as for instance: PhotoPaperPlus and Heavyweight Glossy Photo Paper - (PPP) allows me to use the cassette and produce and identical result to HGPP from top tray. And I got this tip from Canon CS - where they are learning just like we are I guess. Rush to market I guess, but then I waited as long as I could, so I believe this choice and circumstances is still better than having the 4800 for me. And I love the ethernet being built in and not having to pay for it.

Trusting,
Gary

Quote
Hi Folks,

I just purchased my iPF5000 yesterday at Calumet in Cambridge, MA. The print quality is great, but it is non-user friendly. For 2 grand I EXPECT a manual! I expect an override to the flakey LCD panel and I EXPECT to be able to print all sheet paper from the Casette. That's right,  some paper such as the Watercolor is not selectable from the tray and has to be manually fed in one sheet at a time. I want to load the printer up with 20 sheets if I am working.

The positive? Set-up was a breeze and the 16 bit Photoshop driver looks to be very good, but there is a downside to that as well. Who has 16 bit ICC profiles? Will Crane, etc...develop 16 bit profiles? Are the Canon ICC profiles for just the 8 bit? Again, no documentation!

I use some Red River papers and they have profiles for this printer, but when I e-mailed and asked them if they were 16 bit I received a reply in which they state that they are indeed 8 bit ICC profiles and that the HOPE they will not need to develop 16 bit profiles.

My advice would be to profile within the plug-in and use a Gretag Eye-One aor send them off to a profiling service like Cathy's.

I am torn between really liking this printer or just returning it and getting an Epson 4800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 23, 2006, 06:17:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been playing with the 5000 now for about a month.  I use mainly glossy paper, some lustre.  I have a 4800, 9800, 4000 and now the 5000.

I don't have the technical expertise of Michael, and his criticisms are well based and right on.  I'm probably going to keep the machine because I do like it and it allows me to locate the 4800 to another home that I work at part of the time, but there are some things I'm not real excited about.

Build quality ... materials used give this printer a little more "plastic" less commercial feel.  Probably not a big deal, but its like some camera bodies vs. others.

Paper tray ... very large and cumbersome to use.  It is a great big huge tray and it is a little bit of a pain to work with ...to put in letter size sheets you must remove the tray from the printer.

Smaller paper sizes ... I like printing a lot of 5x7 (7x10 paper size) cards on Moabs entrada paper, and I don't think there is any way to get this printer to do it at all.  I haven't found one yet. My 4000 did it fine, I haven't tried my 4800 but I assume it will work since the 4000 did.

paper choices ...  I do not like the feel of canon papers and to select a "paper" that is similar is really a pain.  Talking to Canon they did confirm that the "specials" are basically 5 different levels of  ink, and to create a profile they recommended printing a test pattern of pure black box with a pure yellow box in the middle, and determine how how far can go before you see bleed.

When I create profiles (have Eye-One UV system), I get a slightly "cooler" look in some tones on the canon ... not a real problem since you can only see this compared side by side, and the resulting prints are very good.

At this point I do not like the look of B&W but I haven't messed with it enough.  To me it looks "cool" vs. Epson, but maybe it truely is more neutral.  I know I'll have to find a way to warm them up more closely to the epson to get something I like.

My biggest concern is in areas that should have more "micro" detail.  I do quite a bit of multi-shot panorama work, and also work with a p45 on a hasselblad, so I have some pretty nice detail in many areas. I am seeing some "blocking" in regions and loss of very fine detail.  This may be because I've gone too far with my ink saturation so I am re-profiling moving from Special 4 down to Special 3 on Epson Prem. Glossy paper.

If you do a lot of matte and glossy printing this printer is a great option.  If you don't, I'm not sure it really beats the Epson.  However, the 16bit driver is very intriguing, and once I get more familiar with it I may change my mind.

So there you go ... a firm "undecided" fairly useless opinion.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963



WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 23, 2006, 06:22:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't see the point of discounting anything from either, and in any case the number of cartridges and their capacities tell you NOTHING except the number of cartridges and their capacities.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actually since the Canon is only using 11 cartridges at any one time, but the Epson uses all 8 cartridges it seems that is the appropriate method of comparing ...

But I completely agree, how much ink they hold tells nothing useful anyway..
« Last Edit: June 23, 2006, 06:23:13 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 23, 2006, 06:50:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually since the Canon is only using 11 cartridges at any one time, but the Epson uses all 8 cartridges it seems that is the appropriate method of comparing ...

But I completely agree, how much ink they hold tells nothing useful anyway..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fair enough - on a "number used" basis that makes sense, but again, So What? I still don't see where that gets us.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 23, 2006, 06:59:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I will probably wait a month or two and then buy the Canon IPF5000, I agree with you, Michael's review of the printers seems to state the "problems" are not problems, but rather annoyances.

Hi
I will be getting this printer in the next two weeks and reports from the dealer here in Sydney is the Canon IPF5000 has a better colour gamet than the Epson 4800. They sell both Epson and Canon and they feel this is the first Canon printer that is competion for Epson in this price bracket.
    Currently I use the Canon i9950 and i used to own an Epson 1280. In this price bracket the Canon is a much better printer.
Thanks Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 23, 2006, 07:01:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have a 4800, 9800, 4000 and now the 5000.

................................

 I'm probably going to keep the machine because I do like it and it allows me to locate the 4800 to another home that I work at part of the time,  ..................................


My biggest concern is in areas that should have more "micro" detail. 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wayne - an Epson 4800 is not a machine you can use "part of the time". The clogging and cleaning from non-use will become tedious and expensive.

Sample prints I've seen show very fine detail. The droplet size is about the same as Epson's and I believe its native resolution may be higher - but I am treading on uncertain ground here; I would assume the dithering patterns differ between these machines). All and all on the face of it, hard to see why the Canon would produce a less detailed print than a 4800 does. It would be interesting to hear your view of this factor once you think you have all the settings and profiling right and you compare a micro-detailed Epson result with the same micro-detailed Canon result.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #98 on: June 23, 2006, 08:34:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I will probably wait a month or two and then buy the Canon IPF5000, I agree with you, Michael's review of the printers seems to state the "problems" are not problems, but rather annoyances.

Hi
I will be getting this printer in the next two weeks and reports from the dealer here in Sydney is the Canon IPF5000 has a better colour gamet than the Epson 4800. They sell both Epson and Canon and they feel this is the first Canon printer that is competion for Epson in this price bracket.
    Currently I use the Canon i9950 and i used to own an Epson 1280. In this price bracket the Canon is a much better printer.
Thanks Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Are you comparing the i9950 (we own 3 of them, actually the i9900) and the Epson 1280?  I can't say that I agree with you if you are saying the i9900 is a much better printer (from a print quality POV) than the Epson 1280.  We own everything from Canon starting with the S9000 on up and the Epsons from the 1280 (1270 died) on up and none of them are what I would consider "Much Better".  The Canon i9900 is incredibly fast, all the Canons are fast and the Epson 1280 is incredibly slow, but comparing the prints side by side, you'd be hard pressed to say which is better (subjective statement)  Yes the Canon's are a little glossier comparing side by side, but it's minimal.  I really don't believe that overall print quality has changed dramatically from the 1280 on and I still have framed prints from my 1280 that look great.  I even believe that with the dye inks there are some prints that look better from a 1280 than a 1800 or 2400, but again that's just my opinion, YMMV!

G
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 24, 2006, 02:38:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you comparing the i9950 (we own 3 of them, actually the i9900) and the Epson 1280?  I can't say that I agree with you if you are saying the i9900 is a much better printer (from a print quality POV) than the Epson 1280.  We own everything from Canon starting with the S9000 on up and the Epsons from the 1280 (1270 died) on up and none of them are what I would consider "Much Better".  The Canon i9900 is incredibly fast, all the Canons are fast and the Epson 1280 is incredibly slow, but comparing the prints side by side, you'd be hard pressed to say which is better (subjective statement)  Yes the Canon's are a little glossier comparing side by side, but it's minimal.  I really don't believe that overall print quality has changed dramatically from the 1280 on and I still have framed prints from my 1280 that look great.  I even believe that with the dye inks there are some prints that look better from a 1280 than a 1800 or 2400, but again that's just my opinion, YMMV!

G
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
 We own the Canon i9950 which we have had for a year. Our Epson 1280 had a blue cast maby it was a problem one and we had it serviced to. Our first 1270 was a better printer to get prints out. At the moment we are using Jet Tec inks in the Canon i9950 and are getting excellent results plus saving over 80% on ink costs. In Australia we are paying about $25.00 per cartridge (Canon) , with 8x that is $200.00, we just reload the catridges as we go. these inks are made in the UK. Has anyone been using LYSON inks lately? i saw on there web page inks for the Epson 4800.
Thanks Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad