Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Artwork Repro in the MF World  (Read 7033 times)
phero66
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« on: January 05, 2011, 10:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been shooting artwork for local artists and art grads for 5 years now and my setup has gradually evolved from 35mm slide to a Canon 5D and now a 1DSMKIII.  I briefly owned a betterlight setup, but found both it requirements for light and vibration too strict for practical application shooting in artist studios shared with machinery or near construction.  I know 35mm is not the norm for repro, so I apologize in advance if its mere mention offends!  However, by adopting a strict workflow, primes (corrected for light falloff, distortion), zig-align, Colorchecker SG, Monaco Profiler for Input Profiles, and custom lights using Philips CRI 98 bulbs I have just about reached the extent this setup has to offer, and while it does what its intended very well, I know its limits and I want to offer my clients more, even if I don't have the budget of a Museum or full-time Art Repro Shop. 

My price range is in the 10k range, plus a bit for lens or other required gear.  I'm not sure what makes the most sense at this point, retrofitting my Linhof Kardan RE body, a Mamiya RB67 Pro S that I inherited, or skipping both and getting  a technical type camera.  Of the 3 the technical seems the most attractive but I do own the Kardan already and can zig-align the front-rear standards to get enough lens to sensor plane precision (in theory, but it is one more thing to do on each shoot, kind of want a more elegant solution).  Movements are not really important, just really great sensor to lens parallelism, and a view finder bright enough that I can check focus and setup the zig-align hassel-free (with the 1DS I live by Live-View).

Lens:
I need about 50mm or a little wider and something with macro, around 100mm is fine (all 35mm equivalents).
In the Rodenstock realm I believe this would be a 105mm f/5.6 Apo-Sironar or perhaps just a 120mm f/5.6 Apo-Macro-Sironar.  I'm not sure what I should go with if a MF body solution is more practical.

MF Back & Software:
Thinking about Multi-Shot, but modern backs out of my price range, would have to buy something from 2002 era and that makes me squeamish (I think this would be a Sinar 43h or 53m).  I am really drawn to the "purity" of a 100% RGB recording, but I have never seen side-by-side comparisons to know just how much better it is for what I do, and if the results were so stunning at the pixel level that my clients would swoon Smiley  I should note that I rarely shoot fabric, so it wouldn't be for moiré, I just want to make the most pure color calibration profiles from the camera that I can, apply them in RAW before export (which I can't do at present without running C1), and get un-interpolated pixels so that fine detail look much better at the pixel level.  I have also read briefly on the forum that many who use multi-shot also use broncolor strobes for consistency.  I don't have that luxury, but I do have exceedingly high CRI rated bulbs, and if the ballasts are stable enough wouldn't they work just as well?  To make my case I know of betterlight users who use the same tubes, and if there were problems with consistency their camera would definitely find it.  Anyways, if not Multi-shot then a used P45 or Leaf counterpart?

For Exposure Reference this is what I generally shoot at:
Lighting: Philips CRI98 Fluorescent bulbs, Cross-Polarized, exposures range 2-3 seconds @ ISO 100, f8
Monaco Delta CMC Error with current setup, 1.2 unpolarized, 2 with polarization.

What are others using in similar situations?  Thanks in advance!

-John

 
Logged
bradleygibson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 829


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2011, 11:23:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I would have suggested a multi-shot digital back (particularly one with microstep/16x capability) , but your concerns about vibration might make that not a viable option; if they can be rectified, it might be the perfect fit for you price, and capability wise.
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2011, 02:38:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm doing some art repro work for galleries and know there are several others here on the forum with significantly more experience than I have who hopefully will add their perspective.  I use a rollei 6008AF body with the 90mm apo macro, 150apo macro or 55mm PCS lenses that have low distortion.  I try to use the 150 when possible but often there is not enough space in the gallery to get back far enough and the distance necessitates more powerful strobes.  I started with the phase p20 back which actually worked quite well for starters.  Later I added the ixpress 528c multishot back and that really is impressive. I can only report with my set up, but  I shoot it in both the multishot and microstep modes in the galleries downtown and so far have not had issues with vibration. On this camera the mirror does not cycle between shots and the lenses have leaf shutters so there's almost no camera shake between shots. The difference the multishot makes is totally worth it since it really reveals the texture of the work. I would look for a used sinar or ixpress multishot back definitely and not worry about vibration - even in single shot mode the backs will outperform your Canon 1Ds3 in detail, DR and color accuracy.  I also use the cross polarization method but with profoto strobes instead of hot light as I like to be able to overpower any other lighting that can not be controlled in the galleries.  I would also like to have something to help with getting the camera axis aligned but in practice this is too time consuming. Typically I'll set up lights in one spot and the gallery assistant and I will walk the paintings over and hang in the lighted area. Sometimes you are lucky and the paintings are all the same size but more often they are not and I end up moving the camera to fill the frame with the painting to center it vertically.  I shouldn't admit this but if I mess up a little bit, I'll rotate and correct perspective in PS after the RAW conversion because it seems that the losses in IQ are tiny. The bigger issue is lighting evenly and larger work presents problems with the cross polarization technique.   I have a technical camera, the X-Act2, but don't bring it to these jobs for those reasons - its just too cumbersom.  Your typical work set up may be different enough that a technical camera makes more sense for you. 

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2011, 02:39:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been using multishot for this kind of application for years (I don't do a lot of art BTW! several a year. Most of the work I do involves fabric). The older multishot backs deliver similar quality as the newest ones but there are several things you should be aware of.

I am talking about Imacon/Hasselblad multishot backs since my experience with Sinar/Jenoptik is very limited.

The Imacon 384/528 are excellent pieces of equipment however:

1) You need to work via an Imagebank. Some don't find this a real problem some do (actually the cable and the connection to the back are works of art and I would applaud if something similar with firewire could be achieved).
2) The older Imacons have no DAC. This might be problem when you do not use high quality lenses like the Schneider Digitars in the form of CA.
3) The latest software version of Hasselblad does not support microstep (16shot). You have to use Flexcolor for that (which I always found an excellent piece of software, very few applications are as stable and reliable as Flexcolor however a lot of people seem to be complaining about it).

The 384/528 are well within your budget at this time.

The next step could be the CF22/39MS. These backs you do not need to use an imagebank. On a view camera you only need a battery and be either tethered via firewire or use CF cards. When used with H bodies you have the benefit of DAC (without level III, ultrafocus)

These backs are at the limit of your budget but well worth considering.

The final step could be the H3D39MS. This back/camera provides you with practically all of the stuff that is currently also in the latest model. This will be several K above your budget. You do have to use either an imagebank or work tether when using a view camera. You also do not have the flexibility of being able to use adapters to fit the back on various other brands of cameras (like the 384/528/CF22MS & CF39MS).

The H3/4D50MS is totally beyond your budget.

To give you an indication of the quality of the older backs. My CF39MS is only marginally better than my 384 used to be (quality per pixel) but a lot more convenient IMO. My CF39MS beats the IQ per pixel of my H4D60. There are many area where the H4D60 is blowing the 39MS out of the water but if the object is not moving and I can use multishot the 39MS is definitely better than the H4D60.

I have always used various sorts of Elinchrom lights and even plain daylight and never found an issue with color consistency doing multishot (other than the obvious like changing light due to moving clouds in office or things like that).
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 05:59:49 AM by Dustbak » Logged
tom_l
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2011, 12:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I think most system and backs >=22MP will give your superior resultats in controlled situations.
I do a lot of artwork in fact, but did not decide to go the multishot way back then when the P25 came out.
The ideal setup would of course be to do everything in studio, on a Sinar P3 cam with multishot back and electronic shutters and everthing.
The real life situation is that you will get a phonecall and will be asked to shoot the same day in a strange independant gallery or a tiny local museum or centuries old buildings without much space but huge windows. So the real deal is to have a decent MF body with 3 lenses, a laptop and 2 1500Ws strobes (I use the Multiblitz Xeno because they are quite local and easy to service here, they have anti-UV protection glasses too) with pola-filters. You may not need them with longer lenses, but with shorter lenses you get a lot of reflections.
The Zeiss 120 macro and 180mm on a Blad (and Digitar on the Bicam) are my favourite lenses for this. Beware of floor reflections on big abstract paintings.
Color reproduction is just so much better on a MFBack, there are brand differences of course, I still have the P25 (hope to upgrade next year), love the resultats, but clearly see color differences with compared P45 and P65 that get better and better.
In art reproduction, you always want to do better:

Dx sensor -> Fx-Sensor -> one shot back -> multi-shot -> scan back - kruse scanner or similar
more pixels, high tech shutters, continuous light
but on location, I'm sometimes just happy that my camera is reliable, the manual shutters run flawless, my flashes work under nearly all kind of ambient lighting with fast shutter speeds.

tom


Logged
phero66
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2011, 12:51:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Erik,

Thank you for your feedback, its good to hear the 16-shot mode is not impossible on location work.  I'm curious though about the Rollei setup, it seems to run as much as a small tech camera with 1 or two lenses.  Since you are on the 528c how do you correct for lens light fall-off other then manually in photoshop - or do you find just no need based on the lenses you have selected?  With the Canon I can auto correct falloff in DPP, which is very handy.  Distortion I do with PTlens. 

It is very hard to get perfectly parallel to any surface, and I hear you on not wanting to add any more time to the setup process.  But the truth is, if you utilize a geared head/column (which I don't have now but did with the betterlight), its actually faster than trying to run a line from the wall and staring hard at grid lines.  Even with my very best effort I too had to make slight adjustments in photoshop, but even in small amounts it softens the detail of pixels - your setup probably affords more latitude.  Now with the Zig-Align I find the artwork to not be perfectly square more than any error on my part.  Anyways, I would be more than happy to demo the Zig-Align if you want to check it out, were both in the same city.  We would need a step-up ring from 58mm to whatever your main lens is, or we could just shoot it on my setup.  I would love to see the 528c in action too.  PM if interested.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2011, 01:42:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
Yes that would be great to check out the zig align.  I'll send you a PM in a minute.   First let me answer your question about falloff.   The rollei macro lenses are quite fantastic with almost no distortion and very little vignetting (less since most digital backs are crops) but whatever little there may be, I adjust for with the lights to begin with.  For the work I am doing and the fees I collect this makes sense.   I think there are software packages that normalize the light intensity across the frame and this would be really an extra step worthwhile for museum jobs etc.  The biggest problem I have had is working in tight spaces with wide angle lenses and strobes.  The cross polarization seems to work less evenly with wide lenses and larger art in tight spaces sometimes leaving glare on the outside edges of the work. I'm using a B&W Kassemann filter on the lens. Anyone have tips?
Eric
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
phero66
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2011, 01:51:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Dustbak, extreemly informative, the Imacon 528c looks like a very good deal. 

To by-pass most lens issues that software correction is made for, I would need something like Rodenstock or Schneider right?  Ideally I would like a system that corrects very easily or needs none at all, and a light easy transport - is that just wishful thinking?

So it looks like I have two routes:
1. 528c w/ Tech body like WRS/similar w/ 1-2 lenses, photoshop for vignetting, etc.
2. CF22MS w/ V/H1/H2 Body, lens correction through Phocus
3. Ultrafocus sounds great...but..$$$, guess the same is achieved in the techbody...
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2011, 02:20:21 PM »
ReplyReply

You are right in your options. Personally I would go for the 22/39MS together with a H2(F) body. This setup is completely geared towards multishot. The Rollei Eric uses is also a good option I think, the shutter in the Rollei lenses is also electronic if I am not mistaken (Eric?). You can also use the 384 or the 528 on either of these. A 6008 plus 528c will be not that expensive I reckon.

Option 1 is difficult with multishot unless you get electronic shutters with your tech body. The electronic shutters and the controller make the whole point of getting something really portable a bit of a moot point.

The ideal light easy transportable thing is called the H3D39MS with a HCD35-90...

AH.... 1 thing. It is so obvious to me that I have become kind of blinded by it. For multishot you always need to be tethered to a computer.
Logged
phero66
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2011, 02:38:52 PM »
ReplyReply

That is what I was hoping on the Rollei lens wise, perhaps for multistep you really need that electronic leaf shutter... or is the shutter held open the whole time and the back just blinks on an off for each exposure...

Quote
The biggest problem I have had is working in tight spaces with wide angle lenses and strobes.  The cross polarization seems to work less evenly with wide lenses and larger art in tight spaces sometimes leaving glare on the outside edges of the work.

Hmm could be bounced reflections or the lights are not out wide enough due to the tight rooms one often finds in the city.  If it is the wall reflecting light back in bringing along some cheap felts to tac to adjacent walls helps, same for floor or behind you if that is an issue... maybe someone else has a better idea, I rarely shoot wider then 50mm on the 35mm format.

The software I think you are referencing is called Equalight, and it works rather well (sometimes), but it is picky and you have to carry a gigantic sized (I assume the reason for location because its big), pristine, foam board with you to shoot a light fall reference image.  Some might say you can blur your way out of small dents and dings, and it can work, but more often for location stuff I don't bother anymore, easier to shoot the wall blank with no artwork and then build level adjustment layers in photoshop.  Maybe version 3 is more forgiving.  This isn't a big deal in studio, but out on location a bear for big work.
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2011, 03:56:06 PM »
ReplyReply

At the moment the best equipment is a Hasselblad H4D50 MS. The latest technology, we achieve 200Mpix. (6 shot) is phenomenal attainable sharpness, color fidelity is excellent. We have the ability to control the exposure parameters directly from the software, even when using the camera on the optical bench. (modern digital lenses with electronic shutter). It is currently the first choice of reprographic equipment for the Lab. (Archives, library collections, galleries, museums) If you are looking for new equipment for such applications, it is the best hardware currently produced. There is one company that claims it has produced equipment that beats any DigitalBack in MultiShot technology. But the results are not satisfactory.

Best regards,
Design Freak
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2011, 04:00:00 PM »
ReplyReply

That is what I was hoping on the Rollei lens wise, perhaps for multistep you really need that electronic leaf shutter... or is the shutter held open the whole time and the back just blinks on an off for each exposure...


I'll have to have a look next time, but I'm nearly sure that the shutter opens and closes in between frames.  In the 16 shot or microstep mode it actually collects about 19 or 20 frames - the extras are for calibration of some sort.   With some cameras it goes really fast probably just a few seconds between frames.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2011, 04:01:14 PM »
ReplyReply

At the moment the best equipment is a Hasselblad H4D50 MS. The latest technology, we achieve 200Mpix. (6 shot) is phenomenal attainable sharpness, color fidelity is excellent.

Do you know if there will be a CF-50MS available?
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
phero66
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2011, 07:36:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You are right in your options. Personally I would go for the 22/39MS together with a H2(F) body. This setup is completely geared towards multishot. The Rollei Eric uses is also a good option I think, the shutter in the Rollei lenses is also electronic if I am not mistaken (Eric?). You can also use the 384 or the 528 on either of these. A 6008 plus 528c will be not that expensive I reckon.

Option 1 is difficult with multishot unless you get electronic shutters with your tech body. The electronic shutters and the controller make the whole point of getting something really portable a bit of a moot point.

ideal light easy transportable thing is called the H3D39MS with a HCD35-90...
AH.... 1 thing. It is so obvious to me that I have become kind of blinded by it. For multishot you always need to be tethered to a computer.

I still would tether and travel, I just don't want the bulk of a 4x5 when I have no need movements.  I really like the idea of DAP though, kind of hard to give that up since I already make use of the canon version in DPP.  Since no one has weighed in with their use of a WRS/Arca type body and Digital lens I suppose DAP or the equivalent is even more important these days...

Forgive me for a dumb question, but I have not used a MFB yet soo... the electronic shutter is necessary because the back can't just fire through its 16 shots from a mirror lockup/bulb mode like setting...right?  And one would need very stable/precise/repeatable exposures for each 16 shots, hence the electronic shutter. Also without a electronic shutter, and if the back could not complete it sequence without tripping the shutter for each shot, then I would be forced to manually cock the camera each time and cause some minor/major shifts resulting in microstep artifacting. If this is the case, then the H1/2 3d/4d is going into mirror lockup and still activating its non-leaf shutter 16 or so times right?  It must be very stable.

-Design Freak-
What Digital lenses are you mainly using?  I like the fact Erik has access to a T/S type for the wide end, keeps the quality up at the edges but with H your tied to HC right?

-Tom-
The P25/45 is in my range and C1 gives me everything I want color workflow and lens correction wise, I know it is not what museums would run to, but your right about location work, other then tethering its got to be light and nimble.  I have not given up on single shot, they at least seem to be easier found and with phase not discontinued so frequently.  And with single-shot the camera body/lenses can be manual.  I guess I just have to "see" the multishot workflow impact and the resulting benefit.

I value everyone's comments, thank you for chipping in and making this decision easier.

Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2011, 01:19:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed the back needs a shutter to fire 4 or 16 shots. It cannot work by opening up a shutter and 'activating' the sensor 4 or 16 times. On the Hasselblad, which has a shutter in the lens, the mirror flips up and the shutter fires 4 or 16 times. It has very little vibration (practically none) making it an excellent choice for 4 or 16 shot applications.

Yes, DAC is very important to me. The Hasselblad HC lenses are not as good as Digitars or Rodenstock HR but they are very good and with DAC there is no, absolutely no CA! Distortion is also practically gone after DAC as well as vignetting.

With manual shutters you need to cock the shutter everytime in between shots and indeed risk movement, it can be done but it needs even more discipline.
Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2011, 03:33:04 AM »
ReplyReply

At the moment the best equipment is a Hasselblad H4D50 MS. The latest technology, we achieve 200Mpix. (6 shot) is phenomenal attainable sharpness, color fidelity is excellent.
Best regards,
Design Freak

I'd love to see a real-world proof for such a bald statement...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2011, 06:43:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd love to see a real-world proof for such a bald statement...
Leaf Aptus II-12 does not meet the requirements, the Phase One P65 + as well. The only competitor is the evolution Sinar 86H. Hasselblad has a whole system, Hasselblad is more versatile, less expensive Hasselblad, Hasselblad is more user friendly. In the end gives you the opportunity to reach 200Mpix. Hasselblad is also the most frequently implemented a system of this type in institutions such as: Libraries, Archives, Galleries, Museums. It probably means something.

Best regards,
Design Freak
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2011, 07:00:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Leaf Aptus II-12 does not meet the requirements, the Phase One P65 + as well. The only competitor is the evolution Sinar 86H. Hasselblad has a whole system, Hasselblad is more versatile, less expensive Hasselblad, Hasselblad is more user friendly. In the end gives you the opportunity to reach 200Mpix. Hasselblad is also the most frequently implemented a system of this type in institutions such as: Libraries, Archives, Galleries, Museums. It probably means something.

Best regards,
Design Freak

Some folks have little doubt. FWIW, the Art Institute of Chicago uses (I believe) the Leica S1, perhaps one of two in operation worldwide. And they do just fine. Probably means something too....
Logged

Geoff
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2011, 08:38:40 AM »
ReplyReply

The P25/45 is in my range and C1 gives me everything I want color workflow and lens correction wise, I know it is not what museums would run to, but your right about location work, other then tethering its got to be light and nimble.  I have not given up on single shot, they at least seem to be easier found and with phase not discontinued so frequently.  And with single-shot the camera body/lenses can be manual.  I guess I just have to "see" the multishot workflow impact and the resulting benefit.

Just installed a Museum P45 in Miami Beach using a copy stand and an AFD body.

Multishot has some technical image quality advantages for art reproduction - there is almost no doubt of that.

Like anything else you have to decide if that advantage is large enough to justify the additional time/money/storage/hassle. (note my bias since my company does not represent any multishot backs). Multishot raw files require much longer to capture and care must be taken against vibration or movement, the files are several times larger, take longer to process, can only be processed in their respective software packages.

A P45 would make a very flexible and powerful tool, doing a very nice job for art reproduction, as well as many other photographic applications. The software (Capture One) is very highly regarded and the workflow very good.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2011, 08:43:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Leaf Aptus II-12 does not meet the requirements, the Phase One P65 + as well. The only competitor is the evolution Sinar 86H. Hasselblad has a whole system, Hasselblad is more versatile, less expensive Hasselblad, Hasselblad is more user friendly. In the end gives you the opportunity to reach 200Mpix. Hasselblad is also the most frequently implemented a system of this type in institutions such as: Libraries, Archives, Galleries, Museums. It probably means something.

Best regards,
Design Freak

Sounds like you've done some testing and research as you seem so confident...you still don't provide any proof or share any known facts...and since you've mentioned the Aptus-II 12 it's the only product at that level that is in production and that is deliverable

None of this is relevant anyway since the OP was looking for a 10K solution on his RB...

Yair
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad