Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What is ACR calibration REALLY doing?  (Read 60319 times)
PeterLange
Guest
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2007, 09:42:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Peter,

Thanks for the kind words.

According to the HSB of the Photoshop color picker and the Imatest results output to a CSV file for analysis, the ideal HSB values for the skin patch are 32, 28, 61. The HSB values for ACR without calibration are 25, 24, 70 and with the calibration they are 20, 22, 76. So the calibration worsens the skin color by 7 degrees of hue. So your observation is a good one.

Since skin tones are a crucial memory color, the results of the calibration are not all good. 
Bill,

Many thanks for the additional data. I have to agree that even for a state-of-the art camera (sensor), the combined hue error: /dH-Red/ + /dH-Lightskin/ can easily be 10 deg. or more. So the Fors script may have its value e.g. for Ferraristi (people who like these fast red cars) ...

Best regards, Peter

--
« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 09:45:37 AM by PeterLange » Logged
PECourtejoie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2007, 09:04:15 AM »
ReplyReply

"Could it be that the hue-accuracy of this memory color is sacrificed to get dead-on Red..."
Peter might be on to something... according to this: http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/01/photos...e-real-history/ , we can maybe say the opposite, that the pure reds have maybe been sacrified for the (ears) skintones in ACR?
 J/K
« Last Edit: September 20, 2007, 09:04:55 AM by PECourtejoie » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2007, 12:44:39 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW, here are the ACR calibration values I've gotten for red hue and saturation from the Fors script, by camera model:

Olympus SP-350:
-19, -3

Canon 10D:
-6, +16

Canon 1D-MkII:
-20, +27

Canon 1Ds:
-12, +70

I'm not sure I buy into the Adobe conspiracy theory though. I have no opinion regarding why the red hue/sat values aren't distributed arouind zero, but I don't really care. There's a lot to be said for the notion of going to a job with several cameras and getting closely similar and acceptaby accurate color from all of them straight from the RAW converter. For me, the practical benefits of getting reasonably consistent and accurate color regardless of whether it was shot by an assistant with a P&S or myself with a DSLR are high, and making conspiratorial accusations about the people & companies who made it possible seems a bit counterproductive.

What I'd like to see discussed instead is ways to improve the process, like by integrating the calibration/profiling process directly into ACR, so that one can shoot a RAW of a Color Checker or other known reference target, and be able to either cook up new calibration values, or create a custom profile to replace the internal ACR ones on a by-camera basis straight from the Calibration tab. I'm sure that would speed up the calibration/profiling process at least 20-fold, and probably improve the color accuracy greatly as well. Have a list of definition files for the standard and enhanced Color Checkers (as well as other common profiling reference targets) in a documented format, and be able to add new ones at will simply by dumping them in the right folder. Hell, make it a cooperative effort between Adobe and the profiling target makers, so that each target comes with its own definition file containing actual measured patch values to eliminate the problem of variations between batches. I'd gladly pay to upgrade to CS4 for that feature alone.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2007, 12:54:41 PM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2007, 02:53:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... I'm not sure I buy into the Adobe conspiracy theory though. I have no opinion regarding why the red hue/sat values aren't distributed arouind zero, but I don't really care. ...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140743\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not just that the red hue/sat values aren't distributed arouind zero. For all the Nikon and Canon results posted in this thread, the red hue/sat corrections are in the same direction (my 1DII is -23/+48).

DPP 3.0.2.6 is doing a better job with regard to the ColorChecker red square (#15) than ACR 4.2, before or after running  AcrCalibrator 1.1.

Ken
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2007, 03:14:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's not just that the red hue/sat values aren't distributed arouind zero. For all the Nikon and Canon results posted in this thread, the red hue/sat corrections are in the same direction (my 1DII is -23/+48).

Statistically speaking, those statements are exactly the same. If the distribution of values is centered above or below zero, then the probability of negative values is going to be higher than positive ones, or vice versa. In this situation, the center point of the distribution of values is significantly away from zero, so that most of the values are have the same sign. One requires the other mathematically.

But before breaking out the tinfoil hats over this, comparing a decent sample size of Olympus, Konica-Minolta, Pentax, Fuji, Sigma and other camera brands would probably be a good idea.
Logged

kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2007, 04:02:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Statistically speaking, those statements are exactly the same. If the distribution of values is centered above or below zero, then the probability of negative values is going to be higher than positive ones, or vice versa. In this situation, the center point of the distribution of values is significantly away from zero, so that most of the values are have the same sign. One requires the other mathematically. ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It appears to me that as far as ACR and AcrCalibrator are concerned, the reds in   all the Canons tested so far,and all the Nikons (with a different raw format) are too orange and need correction in the magenta direction. IOW, Canon and Nikon both got it wrong the same way. DPP seems to indicate otherwise.

There have been various comparisons of the accuracy of raw converters but I haven't seen an up-to-date one. Some years ago, Don Lashier compared ACR, C1, and DPP; and ACR didn't fare too well.

[a href=\"http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=20503&gal_col=2]http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=20503&gal_col=2[/url]

Ken
Logged
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2007, 12:16:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Have read this thread even though it's technical information is WAAAAY beyond my scope (I've only been shooting digital for less than a year).
Not sure if this is of any help, but I have heard it said that Nikon and Canons are designed to create pleasing colors for Asian skin tones.

Does this help explain the aforementioned results?...or is that just a load of racist hogwash with no basis in reality?
I'm just throwing it out there in the hope that it could explain the color differences with Canon and Nikon cameras. Please don't interpret it as an admission of belief in the rumour about how these companies try to create pleasing Asian skin tones. I don't know if that's true, it's just something that I as a noob have heard mentioned other forums and took with a grain of salt.
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2007, 02:01:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure if this is of any help, but I have heard it said that Nikon and Canons are designed to create pleasing colors for Asian skin tones.

Does this help explain the aforementioned results?...or is that just a load of racist hogwash with no basis in reality?

It's hogwash, but not necessarily racist. The internal profiles used by ACR are created by Adobe, not Canon or Nikon.
Logged

PeterLange
Guest
« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2007, 05:04:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Could it be that the hue-accuracy of this memory color is sacrificed to get dead-on Red..."
Peter might be on to something... according to this: http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/01/photos...e-real-history/ , we can maybe say the opposite, that the pure reds have maybe been sacrified for the (ears) skintones in ACR?
 J/K

Sense & Simplicity of ACR Calibration … was the title of a post which I placed some long time ago in the Adobe forums. Purpose was to share a quite simple, manually operated procedure for ACR Calibration. Some points may still be of interest:

Guiding principles:

1.) In the course of ACR Calibration, it is hardly possible to compute a best-fit matrix space by just nailing the three primary patches i.e. red, green and blue.  Background is as follows: When the spectral response of a real-world sensor deviates from an ideal linear-combination of CIE XYZ weighting function, colors and RGB data released from Bayer interpolation deviate from their ideal position (within a matrix space as a subset of CIE XYZ) in a quite idiosyncratic way. There are no obvious systematic shifts in terms of hue and saturation. For example, get the red patch right, and the hue of skin tones becomes worse… (see above).

The latter is one problem with the Fors Script which just analyzes the three primary patches. This may make sense if your camera is considerably different from the one profiled by Thomas Knoll (device-to-device deviations). However, if your camera is somewhat close to the camera which was used by Adobe, the Fors Script will just violate Mr. Knoll’s profiling efforts. At least that’s obvious for me from quite a bit numerical analysis.

Anyway, it’s of course possible to compute a best-fit matrix by minimizing the color error for many colors. But then, we are having memory colors which are more important for us than others - and that’s an individual thing. So any procedure for ACR Calibration which doesn’t call for an input by the user about preferred memory colors is prone to fail in practice.

2.) There is no need to linearize Camera Raw i.e. to match the grayscale first, for the purpose of subsequent ACR Calibration.  This is not only unnecessary, at the end it leads to a high-sat look due to the RGB tone curve (and it’s side effect on color saturation) which in practice is applied on the top – mainly via Brightness and Contrast settings.

That’s the second problem with the Fors script and again there is evidence that the in-built Thomas profiles already absorb this more or less unavoidable boost of saturation from such sigmoidal RGB curve which is needed for a pleasing tonality.

Anyway, the Calibrate Tab sliders actually do what the labels suggest. They adjust the red, green and blue Hue & Saturation for these primary colors with decreasing influence on secondary colors, respectively. While this is done behind the scenes on a CIE xy basis, there are enough similarities with the HSB color model to trace respective changes via HSB readings.

In other words, given that ACR calibration is 2D per primary color, why bother with a 3D fit.
----
 

Proposed procedure:

/> Reset the Main Adjust Tab and in particular all tonal controls to ACR 2.x defaults i.e. Shadows (Blacks) 5, Brightness 50 and Contrast 25.  Everything else zero and Curve Tab linear.

/> Nail the second gray i.e. patch #20 of Gretag’s ColorChecker to RGB= 190 by means of click-whitebalance and the Exposure slider (All numbers referring to ProPhoto RGB).

/> Address the color patches in pairs of one primary color and one corresponding memory color. My choice is: Red #15 + Light skin #2, Green #14 + Yellow-green #11 and Blue #13 + Blue sky #3.

Adjust the Red Hue slider of the Calibrate Tab to get the HSB-hue somewhat right for both, the Red patch #15 and Light skin patch #2. In all probability this will require to make a compromise. It’s a balance. Continue with the Green Hue slider of the Calibrate Tab to get the HSB-hue somewhat right for both, the Green patch #14 and the Yellow-green patch #11. Same with the Blue Hue slider and the respective patches Blue #13 and Blue sky #3.

Same principle applies to the adjustment of saturation, at least as far as the Red Saturation is concerned.  With the Green Saturation my preference is to stay a bit under-saturated in order to prevent fresh green grass from getting too vivid. With the Blue Saturation my preference is to have it a bit over-saturated in order to get a deep blue sky. However, that’s not really essential. You can also strive for a somewhat accurate calibration of saturation while making such tweaks later on via the HSL Tab.

Finally, re-exercise through all sliders in order to eliminate interactions. My experience is that finally only more or less small adjustments are needed. A kind of minimum invasion which tells me that this approach is quite close to the logic of Thomas Knoll’s profiling software.

As for the target values for Gretag’s ColorChecker, the following numbers given in terms of HSB hue & saturation were derived by averaging the simulated charts as offered by ColorRemedies as well by BabelColor. Perhaps you have better ones, if not, the following ones should not be so bad:
red patch # 15: H= 10°, S= 62%
# 2 light skin: H= 30°, S= 28%
green patch #14: H= 101°, S= 45%
# 11 yellow green: H= 75°, S= 56%
blue patch # 13: H= 248°, S= 60%
# 3 blue sky: H= 230°, S= 29%

Again, the numbers are referring to HSB readings in ProPhoto RGB. In the past it was necessary to convert from ACR to Photoshop in order to access HSB readings. So in the course of above described procedure it was necessary to do repeated RAW conversions while proceeding step by step. However, while I have not yet arrived with latest version of Camera Raw I can not say if HSB readings are now accessible in ACR. Would be nice.

That’s it - really not as complicate as it may sound. It’s however nice to see from above quoted article that Mr Knoll also had to go through a learning curve.

Peter

--
Logged
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 01, 2007, 10:18:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Yikes - this is just a hobby for me....maybe it's time to explore B&W more fully
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2714



« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2007, 02:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sense & Simplicity of ACR Calibration … was the title of a post which I placed some long time ago in the Adobe forums. Purpose was to share a quite simple, manually operated procedure for ACR Calibration. Some points may still be of interest:

Guiding principles:
2.) There is no need to linearize Camera Raw i.e. to match the grayscale first, for the purpose of subsequent ACR Calibration. This is not only unnecessary, at the end it leads to a high-sat look due to the RGB tone curve (and it’s side effect on color saturation) which in practice is applied on the top – mainly via Brightness and Contrast settings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Peter,

In his ACR for PSCS2 book, Bruce Fraser suggested that if the grayscale adjustments are not made as per his calibration method or the Fors script automation, the colors will be wildly off and the results will be unpredictable. His suggested brightness and contrast values yield a very flat image. When one does the calibration, the Color Checker patches match reasonably well, but when one restores brightness and contrast to their normal default values, saturation is markedly increased as you suggested. Experts can and do vary in their opinions.

This is shown by some Imatest plots that illustrate your findings. Readers should refer to the Imatest web site for information on how to interpret the charts. However, values radiating outward from the white point have equal a* and b* color values (no tone shift), but increased saturation (chroma).

ACR defaults:



After calibration with Fors script, using script grayscale values:



With ACR defaults restored, but using the calibration:


One could decrease saturation when using the calibration (easier than adjusting color balance), but I have never been comfortable with this. When I get the time, I will try to implement your suggestions. Is your essay still on the Adobe site and can you give a link if so?

Bill
« Last Edit: October 01, 2007, 02:28:28 PM by bjanes » Logged
PeterLange
Guest
« Reply #51 on: October 02, 2007, 07:20:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... Experts can and do vary in their opinions.
This is shown by some Imatest plots that illustrate your findings....

One could decrease saturation when using the calibration (easier than adjusting color balance), but I have never been comfortable with this. When I get the time, I will try to implement your suggestions. Is your essay still on the Adobe site and can you give a link if so?
Bill,

You’re right that there are different opinions and options. While many fundamental threads on this subject are hardly accessible any more, let me take the opportunity to re-compile some aspects I kept in mind. Referring to ACR calibration or profiling in general, two main strategies are as follows:
a.)  to calibrate a lineareized state and to accept a subsequent boost of color saturation which is introduced as a side effect from the pleasing (RGB) tone curve needed to compensate for dynamic range compression.
b.)  to strive for somewhat accurate HSB hue & saturation in conjunction with a realistic tone curve being already in place. Obviously, this requires to ignore the dimension of brightness in the course of calibration, which is quite easy because the Calibrate Tab hasn’t brightness sliders anyway. That’s the nature of matrix primaries. As mentioned above, I'm more in this second camp.

Anyway, why HSB? HSB hue & saturation, both together, are representing the intensity ratios of R:G:B.  That’s actually the only attribute which is left from the spectral intensity ratios of the original color. Exposure which operates in terms of linear scaling just changes HSB brightness. Multiplier do not change ratios [aR:aG:aB = R:G:B]. As a matter of principle I would not discard this information i.e. accurate HSB hue & sat. too early. Whereas Brightness is subject to many changes anyway – i.e. the almost unavoidable tone curve and finally the monitor’s luminance not matching the original scene.

From a perceptual point of view, option b.) gives a more neutral starting point which I prefer for portrait and skin tones, while landscape often requires a push of color saturation. This is then a decision by purpose, using a dedicated saturation slider,  and often the specific needs are different for different colors, tonal sections or areas in an image. However, it’s of course possible to proceed the other way round starting from option a.). So let’s look for possible references:

As far as I can tell, the in-built ‘Thomas profiles’ are closer to option b.) than to a.). Means that the uncalibrated state should not look as “exploded” as with above diagram showing the calibrated state after the Fors script was applied, plus the default tone curve. I think this is basically in line with with the before/after Imatest plots offered above. Accordingly, option b.) requires less strong settings in the Calibrate Tab compared to option a.). So with option b.) it should be more a kind of minimum invasion.

I'm sure you know, however, as a side note it may be worth to mention that ACR can be linearized by setting the tonal controls to zero and selecting a linear tone curve. IIRC, this was even confirmed by Thomas Knoll in the meantime. Whereas the implementation of linearization with the Fors script is quite worrisome – i.e. trying to adjust 4 interacting parameters based on only 6 measuring points. This can be seen as the reason why we find such exaggerated tonal adjustments which then effect color again. Some times ago I experimented with the Fors script: If the respective section of the script was not completely disabled the script will produce weird tonal settings even if the given tonal values are defined as the target and the given tonal settings are defined as the starting point. Oops.

Another reference FWIW: I’ve recently analyzed the colors of my digicam, yes just a digicam, however equipped with Canon’s digic IIII processor. Referring to JPEGs’ from in-camera conversion, colors were found to be surprisingly accurate in term of HSB hue & saturation.  Not kidding. Compared to earlier generations of the digic processor they have apparently dropped over-saturation  – at “normal” shooting mode.  It’s now accessible via “My Colors” or “Positive Film” if the user wants so.  Emulation of positive film boosts saturation, however, even in this case skin tones seem to be masked.  This may require confirmation with the 40D (if I’m going to order; not yet sure), though Micheal Reichmann’s comment on the 40D seems to point in the same direction.


My original post on this subject obviously already dropped from the Adobe forum archive. However, this discussion here is more detailed anyway. For the theoretical part I recommend Simon Tindemann’s website (see below link). It may seem that he strives for option a.) but his special Luminosity curves leave HSB hue and saturation unchanged. Another, third option and long story. Option b.) is offered with the “use XMP” option of his script – not sure if it works with latest version of Camera Raw. One point I wanted to make with above post is that a manually operated procedure can still be up to the task. Hope the description is understandable. For me, this is more in the tradition of Bruce Fraser’s original procedure, which definitively was a milestone for systematic use of Calibrate Tab, then the Fors script which even does not precisely represent Bruce’s method. Another long story, and many good advice – by guys like Allen Pacheco or Ethan Hansen – was ignored by Mr. Fors at times when he struggled with scripting. Anyway.


Take care
& best regards, Peter

--
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tindeman/raw/color_reproduction.html
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2714



« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2007, 09:25:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The latter is one problem with the Fors Script which just analyzes the three primary patches. This may make sense if your camera is considerably different from the one profiled by Thomas Knoll (device-to-device deviations). However, if your camera is somewhat close to the camera which was used by Adobe, the Fors Script will just violate Mr. Knoll’s profiling efforts. At least that’s obvious for me from quite a bit numerical analysis.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,

The OP wanted to determine if the calibration adjusted mainly for camera to camera variation in color response, or if there was a systematic error in the original calibration. The approach taken by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe was asssumed the former. However, the OP's hypothesis was that most calibrations resulted in similar results, suggesting that there was not that much variation in camera to camera. Subsequent data provided by users seemed consistent with this hypothesis. In this case, according to your analysis, the calibration would violate Mr. Knoll's profiling efforts.

The issue was never resolved satisfactorily.

Quote
Anyway, it’s of course possible to compute a best-fit matrix by minimizing the color error for many colors. But then, we are having memory colors which are more important for us than others - and that’s an individual thing. So any procedure for ACR Calibration which doesn’t call for an input by the user about preferred memory colors is prone to fail in practice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Skin tone, blue sky, and green foliage are important memory colors. Increased saturation is often desired in landscape work (Velvia look), whereas these attributes are not desirable for portraiture. It might be that one profile can not cover both these situations. Perhaps Mr. Knoll's profiles are a reasonable compromise.

Quote
Again, the numbers are referring to HSB readings in ProPhoto RGB. In the past it was necessary to convert from ACR to Photoshop in order to access HSB readings. So in the course of above described procedure it was necessary to do repeated RAW conversions while proceeding step by step. However, while I have not yet arrived with latest version of Camera Raw I can not say if HSB readings are now accessible in ACR. Would be nice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The latest ACR does not support HSB, but there is a useful online calculator by [a href=\"http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/AcrCalibration/RGB2HSB.html]Rags Gardner[/url] that will give the HSB values for given RGB values of the working space. However, real time feedback is not available. The points you raise here and in your subsequent post are worthy of further investigation and discussion.

Finally, if one's camera does not differ that much from the one Mr. Knoll used to build his original profile, the calibration may not be advantageous in some situations.

I am still absorbing the points of your reply to my post. I certainly appreciate your taking the time to post such a sophisticated analysis.

Bill
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #53 on: October 04, 2007, 12:26:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting thread.

I don't use the Fors method anymore with my 5D, but a 'long hand' method that suits the type of work I do - mostly fine art catalogues.

In any given copy setup, I shoot one frame that includes a basICColor grey card along with a Gretag CC.

The basICColor card is used for the neutral balance - far better than using any of the patches on the Gretag CC since none of them is strictly neutral.

After adjusting the Gretag CC greyscale a la Fraser, I then adjust the eight colours on Gretag CC that have equivalents in ACR4's HSL tab.

The difference is noticable and better.

Since I can now do it in under five minutes, I do it every time rather than saving the settings.

Just my tuppence worth.

D.
Logged
ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #54 on: October 06, 2007, 07:56:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Well here's another data point, and it lines up with all the others Barry has gathered.  I calibrated my 20D, shooting the CC chart in sunlight where I do most of my shooting.  I was put out with the orange-ish reds that ACR put out.  Using the Rags Gardner script, I came up with the calibration parameters

tint: 0
red hue: -16
red sat: +28
green hue: 0
green sat: +8
blue hue: +6
blue sat: 0

I mean really, the default rendering of reds on ACR is a joke.  Just compare them to ANY other raw converter -- the others I have tried are C1, DPP, Silkypix, Bibble.  The reds are simply better from any other raw converter.  Adobe is so pig-headed about this; it's like Apple stubbornly maintaining that the one-button mouse was superior (though at least they finally saw the light).
Logged

emil
PECourtejoie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #55 on: October 29, 2007, 05:45:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Peter, thanks for the descriptive answer to my attempt of humour (I do know that the ear was used at the beginning of ACR's birth was not used for color calibration)

Your posts reminded me of Kodak's raw development tool, where we could use a product look (logos, thus often primary colors) or a portrait look.

Getting a "one size fits all" Camera Profile does not seem a good idea in that regard, (different color temperatures, body to body variation, subjet captured) and Thomas Knoll was once again very wise by letting the user calibrate for the given situation, or look that he/she is trying to acheive.

I wonder if the "Magne Profiles" take this in consideration (but one would need many of them: product under tungsten, portrait under sunlight, etc.)
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad