Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CS3 ability to open jpegs in Raw  (Read 20801 times)
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2007, 08:16:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The point isn't there's an option or that we shouldn’t be able to handle JPEGs like raws with metadata edits. The point is, the current implementation is super sloppy.

We haven't even discussed what a poor engine ACR is for handling this kind of work considering it's doing all processing in a linear gamma very wide gamut space and has to convert all gamma corrected JPEGs and Tiffs to this tone response curve then back to simply apply the edits. A good deal of JPEGs are going to fall apart in a bad way using this process. ACR's engine was designed for linear encoded high bit raw data. If you don't know the vast differences between that and a rendered gamma corrected JPEG, we need to start a new thread and start the education process.

JPEG and rendered metadata editing is useful. Doing it in ACR, even if you fixed this kludge of a workflow and user options is still a very bad idea. Its as Bruce said, a clever hack.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
Yes, but isn't the internal working space of Lightroom also linear with ProPhoto chromaticities, and don't some of these limitations also apply to Lightroom?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
Lets just say he saw the writing on the wall.
Yup they do. The only main difference is the way in which its all presented to the user.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In the editing of a JPEG with either Camera Raw or Lightroom, the editing is done in a linear space with the chromaticities of ProPhotoRGB. That means that the 8 bit gamma 2.2 JPEG is converted into this space for editing with either program. Why is the process clumsy and destructive with ACR but not with Lightroom?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2007, 08:23:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In the editing of a JPEG with either Camera Raw or Lightroom, the editing is done in a linear space with the chromaticities of ProPhotoRGB. That means that the 8 bit gamma 2.2 JPEG is converted into this space for editing with either program. Why is the process clumsy and destructive with ACR but not with Lightroom?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its clumsy in ACR for the reasons specified above (the UI and user experience).

It's equally destructive in both products with an 8-bit JPEG.

Photoshop should be the metadata rendered toolset OR both ACR and LR should treat rendered images and raw's differently.

Right now, ACR/LR is built best for handling linear encoded high bit raw data.
Right now, Photoshop is best built for handling gamma corrected images both high bit and not.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2007, 09:26:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Right now, ACR/LR is built best for handling linear encoded high bit raw data.
Right now, Photoshop is best built for handling gamma corrected images both high bit and not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That makes sense, and the corollary of this is that Lightroom and ACR are not the best tools for working on gamma corrected JPEGs and TIFFs, especially those with a bit depth of 8. However, some operations such as white balance are most easily done in a linear space and use of LR/ACR would make sense in these situations. Would you agree?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2007, 10:38:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, some operations such as white balance are most easily done in a linear space and use of LR/ACR would make sense in these situations. Would you agree?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know for a fact that WB on rendered images in LR is fundamentally better/easier than using a gray balance technique in Photoshop. There are two profiles based on different illuminants that allow some interesting tweaking to the WB. I do have to say, in the rare cases I've shot (by mistake) half of my images JPEG and the rest Raw under odd, mixed lighting, I wasn't very happy with what I was able to accomplish in LR to fix the JPEGs. I even have some web galleries where I'm pretty sure, anyone looking closely can see which are which:

[a href=\"http://www.digitaldog.net/Xrite_Party/index.html]http://www.digitaldog.net/Xrite_Party/index.html[/url]

A valuable lesson here. If you hand your camera to someone to use to shoot, be sure they didn't set it to shoot JPEG when its returned, a problem in some of these images.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2007, 12:18:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know for a fact that WB on rendered images in LR is fundamentally better/easier than using a gray balance technique in Photoshop. There are two profiles based on different illuminants that allow some interesting tweaking to the WB. I do have to say, in the rare cases I've shot (by mistake) half of my images JPEG and the rest Raw under odd, mixed lighting, I wasn't very happy with what I was able to accomplish in LR to fix the JPEGs. I even have some web galleries where I'm pretty sure, anyone looking closely can see which are which:

http://www.digitaldog.net/Xrite_Party/index.html

A valuable lesson here. If you hand your camera to someone to use to shoot, be sure they didn't set it to shoot JPEG when its returned, a problem in some of these images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Theoretically, WB in a linear space should be easier, since all that is required is to apply a linear multiplier to the red and blue channels. If you have already applied a gamma correction, the WB correction becomes nonlinear and different multipliers need to be applied to the channels for different points along the TRC, especially so if the TRC involves a contrast adjustment along with the gamma correction. As I understand it, ACR and LR simply undo the gamma correction when the editing is performed and then reapply it for output. As with all data conversions, data may be lost in the process.

In his discussion of the white balance and calibrate adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw, Bruce Fraser states (page 31, Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2) that it is simply impossible to replicate these adjustments in Photoshop. One has to be careful when using the word impossible, but more difficult might have been a more appropriate choice of words.

The color balance in most of the shots of the Xrite party is two yellow for my taste, but perhaps that was the best that could be done under difficult mixed lighting conditions. A better test of white balance of JPEGs in Lightroom would be when the lighting is from one source but with the wrong color temperature. Still there might be difficulties since you have only 8 bits with to work rather than the 12 bits in most raw files.

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2007, 12:47:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup, the images are a bit on the warm side on purpose since that kind of feels like what the room was like. But I had a heck of a time correcting out a lot of this on the JPEGs and I think you can see how ruddy they look compared to basically the same moves from raws.

As to Bruce's quote, I would think its accurate indeed. Note that at the time, he was referring strictly to raw, linear encoded data.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jbrembat
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2007, 01:54:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know for a fact that WB on rendered images in LR is fundamentally better/easier than using a gray balance technique in Photoshop. There are two profiles based on different illuminants that allow some interesting tweaking to the WB. I do have to say, in the rare cases I've shot (by mistake) half of my images JPEG and the rest Raw under odd, mixed lighting, I wasn't very happy with what I was able to accomplish in LR to fix the JPEGs. I even have some web galleries where I'm pretty sure, anyone looking closely can see which are which:

http://www.digitaldog.net/Xrite_Party/index.html

A valuable lesson here. If you hand your camera to someone to use to shoot, be sure they didn't set it to shoot JPEG when its returned, a problem in some of these images.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Andrew,
 in my opinion no good WB may be performed in camera space. In Photoshp you are able to avoid color casting, but I think that color apparence is different from what is perceived from human visual system.

In my opinion interpolating or extrapolating using 2 curves at very different color temperatures does not accomplish a great result.

In my opinion the color correction must be done in a color space that simulates cone response in a  chromatic adaptation.

Look at a photo of yours balanced with a single click in PhotoResamplig

[a href=\"http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1337/cfrvc1.jpg]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1337/cfrvc1.jpg[/url]


Jacopo
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2007, 04:44:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As to Bruce's quote, I would think its accurate indeed. Note that at the time, he was referring strictly to raw, linear encoded data.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew,

You are not following my argument. When Lightroom or ACR works with a JPEG or TIFF file, it applies an inverse gamma function to convert into a linear space, and the resulting file is then treated in the same way as a raw file. Bruce's statement applies in this context to both to the raw, linear encoded data as well as the file converted into a linear space. White balance can be achieved at this time in a way that is very difficult to to in Photoshop with a gamma encoded file.

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2007, 04:53:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew,

You are not following my argument. When Lightroom or ACR works with a JPEG or TIFF file, it applies an inverse gamma function to convert into a linear space, and the resulting file is then treated in the same way as a raw file. Bruce's statement applies in this context to both to the raw, linear encoded data as well as the file converted into a linear space. White balance can be achieved at this time in a way that is very difficult to to in Photoshop with a gamma encoded file.

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm perfectly aware of this. I'm also perfectly aware of Bruce's reservations about doing it this way as opposed to handling the original gamma correct files as such and NOT converting them to a linear encoded space, a big honking one at that, just to apply metadata edits to files that are not in such a color space.

Yup, one might argue that WB in a linear encoded space is the way to fly. That person argued that WB should be applied to Raw files not rendered images who's WB is already backed into the image.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2007, 05:19:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Look at a photo of yours balanced with a single click in PhotoResamplig

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1337/cfrvc1.jpg
Jacopo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And here it is balanced with a single click in Adobe Camera Raw

[attachment=2542:attachment]

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2007, 05:30:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And here it is balanced with a single click in Adobe Camera Raw

[attachment=2542:attachment]

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both work (they both do a decent job or removing the warm cast I actually wanted <g>).

The issue is, many of the JPEG's look downright ugly (not a tech word) compared to the Raws when I try to correct them. And sorry guys but the image you're working on wasn't a JPEG but a Raw originally. I guess it's not as obvious which images in the gallery are JPEGs.

If you like, I can place a JPEG and a DNG from the same location on my iDisk and you can work on them. I found that correcting the severe casts (worse since it's ISO 3200) was far more effective and produced much better appearing images from the raws while the JPEGs simply didn't have the correction latitude and produced ugly images.

And, in camera JPEGs are going to respond better (according to Bruce) in this editing environment than non camera generated JPEGs. But that's another story.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2007, 05:35:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Image #15 in the gallery was shot as a JPEG (by mistake). Three people, woman in black and white dress etc.

I had to do some serious desaturation and other tweaks and it still looks butt ugly plus the highlights are gone (highlights I know I could have recovered from raw). Its flat too. This would be the JPEG you'd want to play with. Too me, it stands out as ultra ugly compared to the others, even if you don't accept the warm tones of the shots which I like since it was how I recall the scene.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2007, 07:59:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Image #15 in the gallery was shot as a JPEG (by mistake). Three people, woman in black and white dress etc.

I had to do some serious desaturation and other tweaks and it still looks butt ugly plus the highlights are gone (highlights I know I could have recovered from raw). Its flat too. This would be the JPEG you'd want to play with. Too me, it stands out as ultra ugly compared to the others, even if you don't accept the warm tones of the shots which I like since it was how I recall the scene.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew,

It would be an interesting exercise in white balance if we had the original JPEG. I was not aware that a JPEG produced in camera was any different from one produced in Photoshop after having rendered the image in ACR. I do know that many P&S cameras roll off the shadows in an attempt to hide high noise.

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2007, 08:26:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andrew,

It would be an interesting exercise in white balance if we had the original JPEG. I was not aware that a JPEG produced in camera was any different from one produced in Photoshop after having rendered the image in ACR. I do know that many P&S cameras roll off the shadows in an attempt to hide high noise.

Bill
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can do, its on my iDisk. And it's pretty darn ugly!

File name is:

PMA2007_07March09-44.JPG

My public iDisk:

thedigitaldog

Name (lower case) public
Password (lower case) public

Public folder Password is "public" (note the first letter is NOT capitalized).

To go there via a web browser, use this URL:

[a href=\"http://idisk.mac.com/thedigitaldog-Public]http://idisk.mac.com/thedigitaldog-Public[/url]

For comparison, the image you two were working on (a DNG) is also in the root folder of my public iDisk. It's called PMA2007_07March09_064.dng

If you want to totally neutralize both, by all means do so. I didn't spend a lot of time on these images but I also got frustrated quickly trying to get the JPEG to look even close to the DNG.

As for camera generated versus non camera generated JPEGs, the differences are a few. For one, there's a specific compression that's not too far over the top and the data has (as yet) undergone no editing other than the Raw to JPEG in camera conversions. There's probably less noise than say a scanned image that's been manipulated and then converted to JPEG.

Bruce had this to say about JPEGs:
Quote
A JPEG has already had a third of its luminance data discarded, and
then been tone-mapped into a gamma-encoded space. Note that this
invariably involves more complex mapping than a simple gamma
conversion-in-camea JPEG generally has a pretty steep contrast curve
imposed, and liberties have usually been taken with the endpoints.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1411


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2007, 08:28:15 PM »
ReplyReply

This is an interesting discussion, but I haven't seen anyone mention what I see as a major advantage of the JPEG in ACR workflow, and that is batch processing. Sure, I can do whatever changes I need to a JPEG in Photoshop with no need for ACR. Yes, the tools in ACR and Lightroom work significantly better with RAW files than they do with JPEGs. But if I have a remote camera shooting JPEGs, and all 1660 exposures are a half stop underexposed, this is going to make it a whole lot easier to correct one of them, then apply that correction to all the others at the same time, and save them out with the correction. (Sure, I can create a Photoshop Action for this, but I like creating Actions for things I do on a regular basis, not for one-offs.) This is the same workflow that I use for RAW files anyway, so it's not a major hassle for me to fix all those durn jpegs. (Yes, this really happened.)
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2007, 08:32:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can do, its on my iDisk. And it's pretty darn ugly!

File name is:

PMA2007_07March09-44.JPG

My public iDisk:

thedigitaldog

Name (lower case) public
Password (lower case) public

Public folder Password is "public" (note the first letter is NOT capitalized).

To go there via a web browser, use this URL:

http://idisk.mac.com/thedigitaldog-Public

For comparison, the image you two were working on (a DNG) is also in the root folder of my public iDisk. It's called PMA2007_07March09_064.dng

If you want to totally neutralize both, by all means do so. I didn't spend a lot of time on these images but I also got frustrated quickly trying to get the JPEG to look even close to the DNG.

As for camera generated versus non camera generated JPEGs, the differences are a few. For one, there's a specific compression that's not too far over the top and the data has (as yet) undergone no editing other than the Raw to JPEG in camera conversions. There's probably less noise than say a scanned image that's been manipulated and then converted to JPEG.

Bruce had this to say about JPEGs:

A JPEG has already had a third of its luminance data discarded, and
then been tone-mapped into a gamma-encoded space. Note that this
invariably involves more complex mapping than a simple gamma
conversion-in-camea JPEG generally has a pretty steep contrast curve
imposed, and liberties have usually been taken with the endpoints.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew,

Thanks for making the original JPEG available and for the quotation from Bruce. I downloaded the JPEG and found that any easy WB correction in ACR is impossible. I think the reason for this difficulty is that the blue channel is clipped in the midtone and shadow areas, and these clipped values are lost and beyond recovery.

This view shows the woodwork (presumably white) in the background. The blue channel has a good bell shaped appearance:
[attachment=2547:attachment]

Here is the histogram from the lady's face with the blue channel clipped:
[attachment=2546:attachment]

I think that Bruce's comments are right on and explain the problem. To illustrate the point, here is a shot that was taken in raw under tungsten illumination, but rendered into 8 bit aRGB with daylight WB and saved as a JPEG. This is an attempt to duplicate  an in camera JPEG with daylight WB (as compared with the default TRC of my Nikon D200, the roll off in the shadows is less with ACR defaults than with camera defaults). The blue channel is clipped at the shadow end, even though the image is slightly overexposed as shown by the clipped red channel at the highlight end:
[attachment=2548:attachment]

And here is the same shot rendered into 16 bit aRGB with a linear tone curve and the black point set to zero and saved as PSD (so that it can't be opened in ACR--apparently once a TIFF is opened in ACR, it always opens in ACR even if you want to open it in Photoshop). There is some clipping in the blue channel, but much less than the JPEG. WB correction of the saved TIFF with ACR is relatively successful with ACR, whereas WB correction from the 8 bit JPEG is poor. The clipped blues are lost and this produce a yellow cast in the clipped areas.
[attachment=2549:attachment]
« Last Edit: May 24, 2007, 08:54:22 AM by bjanes » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2007, 08:39:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the reason for this difficulty is that the blue channel is clipped in the midtone and shadow areas, and these clipped values are lost and beyond recovery.

That and the fact that I'm at ISO 3200 all add up to a mess. I'm glad I wasn't alone in finding this a piss poor image to correct. The Raws are a lot easier to deal with thankfully. Also, this was just a bunch of fun snapshots so thankfully, I'm not too upset by the switch mid-shoot to JPEG. But it does make me appreciate Raw!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jbrembat
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2007, 05:59:47 PM »
ReplyReply

This is my analysis:
the Andrew's photo shows an evident clipping in highlights. The dynamic range is too wide. Is raw shoting the answer? May be yes, may be not. In any case raw may give some more chance.
Is the clipping in all channels?
Look at the following images. Red, green and blue channel.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6417/redchannelzs0.jpg
http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/1701/greenchanneldp6.jpg
http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/3298/bluechannelxl6.jpg
The blue channel shows more details on the door, revealing an hidden part of the problem.
The photo is, for my taste, too red, but trying to recover does not yield good results in oversaturated areas.
In this areas colors are "completely false".


Bjanes photo is not color balanced, as he stated. In this case will be better to look at the histograms after WB, as wrog WB produces wrong colors.
I think that lights are far away from tungsten as the correction must be performed far from planckian locus. Anyway the histograms, after the WB.  
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4364/historl1.jpg

Jacopo
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2007, 07:00:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is my analysis:
the Andrew's photo shows an evident clipping in highlights. The dynamic range is too wide. Is raw shoting the answer? May be yes, may be not. In any case raw may give some more chance.
Is the clipping in all channels?

The blue channel shows more details on the door, revealing an hidden part of the problem.
The photo is, for my taste, too red, but trying to recover does not yield good results in oversaturated areas.

In this areas colors are "completely false".

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The highlight clipping in the highlights around the lights is not significant, since they contain no important image elements and may be allowed to blow out. The problem is that the blue channel is completely lacking in data in the midtones and shadows. It might possible to reconstruct the blue channel via calculations from the red and green channel, but Photoshop can not make something from nothing.

Quote
Bjanes photo is not color balanced, as he stated. In this case will be better to look at the histograms after WB, as wrog WB produces wrong colors.
I think that lights are far away from tungsten as the correction must be performed far from planckian locus. Anyway the histograms, after the WB. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The photo was not supposed to be white balanced. The whole point of the exercise was to emulate what would happen with an in camera JPEG when exposing a tungsten illuminated scene with daylight white balance. The test with a linear TRC and 16 bit conversion was to track down the source of the data loss in the JPEG.

The illumination is not far from the Planckian locus as shown in this screen capture in ACR. I preset the white balance with a reading from a white card.

[attachment=2553:attachment]

You completed the exercise by showing that a decent white balance was possible from the shot with the wrong color balance.

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2007, 07:14:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm pretty sure the camera was set for Auto White Balance. Been a long day, a glass of wine and I can't find any EXIF data that tells me that this is indeed the case but that's usually how I have the camera set since I'm always using raw and it doesn't really matter (expect of course in this case where my camera was hijacked and I ended up with a few nasty JPEGs).

Going back to the original point of this set of posts. We have a baked JPEG that's pretty butt ugly for a number of reasons and a DNG shot under similar conditions which seem to be more pliable in being corrected in Lightroom. Remember, the initial point was, trying to adjust a JPEG is a lot harder to do than a Raw (duh) but also, is it 'better' to attempt to fix this kind of file in a raw converter like LR or use Photoshop? This is a severely ugly image but one I suspect isn't that rare. We have two possible tools, Photoshop and LR/ACR, at least in the context of this series of posts. Its possible neither can fix this mess, the image is too far gone? Does anyone have a clear idea which tool would be better at bringing this JPEG back into a somewhat acceptable color apparence? Does the WB tool in LR really help or is it too far gone? Is converting a baked gamma encoded JPEG into a linear color space just so we can use LR's tools the right solution?

I don't expect a single image will answer these questions but they are questions I think need to be asked.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad