Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ipf 8300 or epson 9890?  (Read 18439 times)
bradleygibson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 829


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2011, 08:24:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Another vote for the Canon.  I ran for years with the Epson 4000 and ImagePrint.  The output was stellar, once the clogging was resolved.  My experience almost completely matches hcubell's.  Now I have an iPF8300 and I just hit 'print'.  Very nice.

Shark_II's advice re: time saved is a real boon.  I used to run photographer co-ops out of my studio and the first 40+ minutes of each session was devoted to unclogging the printer (we were obviously distracted and discussing our work, not babysitting the printer).  A real pain.  It took me a long time to even consider switching from Epson, given the quality of the output.  Now, it will take me a long time to consider switching back.

Unless you need the Epson straight paper path for rigid substrates, I strongly recommend the Canon.
Logged

Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2011, 08:31:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you all. I now feel confident buyint the canon saving the 1500$ (which will give me 3 print heads)

What about costs of ink, same for canon/epson?

How much ml does either machine consume?

What about the best price for 12 700ml cartridges i can get out there?
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2011, 08:32:49 AM »
ReplyReply

You are raising a real good question. I, for one, would like to hear more from Epson about why nozzle clogging continues to be an on-going issue. I'm particularly intrigued by the fact that I hardly had ANY with my 3800, but with my new 4900, after months of accumulated experience, I am seeing more of it than I expected based on using my 3800 for three years in the same room, same environment - still not nearly as bad as the 4000/4800 were and it cures easily, but still more than I expected, based on all the work Epson has been doing to mitigate this problem and their advertising. The problem is that ALL these corporations are very non-transparent when it comes to issues of ink wasted in maintenance and clog performance, so it's hard for individuals to disentangle the norm from the machine-specific.
I wonder if the clog issue is model specific.  I had an Epson 2880 for 18 months and ran through multiple sets of cartridges (they are really small, about 12 ml) and never once had a clog.  Because of ink costs I moved up to a 3880 a year ago and again, have not had a clog to date.  I've grown pretty complacent about this machine, often not doing a nozzle check prior to doing a series of prints (I know one should always check things).  I don't know what the installed base is out there in terms of the number of Epsons versus the number of Canons but we constantly read about Epson problems much more than Canon.  Of course this alone cannot be taken as a statistically representative sample.  Curious indeed.
Logged

ippolitois
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2011, 08:44:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I've followed this thread with a lot of interest, and it seems that Epson really hasn't solved the clogging issue at all and why would they? They are in the business of selling their liquid gold and by the sounds of it, a lot of it goes in the maintenance tank, only to be replenished once again by the faithful. I for one believe it's a intentional design intent. Surely, this problem has been around since my 660 days and after so much grief, I rolled that thing to the curb. Every subsequent Epson printer I've had, it clogged just as good as the 660 did, and at the most undesirable time.  A good example is with my 4000. Right in the middle of a print run, it decides to do a self cleaning and then automatically I loose a complete color! This is like clock work and apparently a known issue and the good news is it can't be turned off. I have to spend hours trying to unclog it if I'm desperate to get the job done. Otherwise, I now stop the printing and do a puddle cleaning and resume printing the next day. It's sad that the newest generation printers still do the same thing. Thank God the maintenance tank is large enough to accommodate all the cleaning cycles needed and Epson engineering has given us so many choices of cleaning systems too!

The good new is that we now have alternative to the Epson. Canon seems to have listened to all out cry's for help and have brought out  products that work and work without doing puddle cleanings and wiper blade maintenance. It seems that replacing the heads on a Canon are easy compared to the Epson and it's the same price. I hope Canon comes out with a replacement for the 5100 soon because I would really like to see what unattended printing really feels like. I'm too scared to send too many prints to the queue in fear of seeing many magenta, or blue or green pages when I come back. What's it like to have reliable unattended printing? Is it good?

Hopefully soon, I can finally roll that beast to the curb once and for all. I don't have the gall to sell it to anyone.

Finally it appears we have real choices.

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

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2011, 08:58:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if the clog issue is model specific.  I had an Epson 2880 for 18 months and ran through multiple sets of cartridges (they are really small, about 12 ml) and never once had a clog.  Because of ink costs I moved up to a 3880 a year ago and again, have not had a clog to date.  I've grown pretty complacent about this machine, often not doing a nozzle check prior to doing a series of prints (I know one should always check things).  I don't know what the installed base is out there in terms of the number of Epsons versus the number of Canons but we constantly read about Epson problems much more than Canon.  Of course this alone cannot be taken as a statistically representative sample.  Curious indeed.

My experience is that clog behaviour is model-specific and it takes some months of use to assess it properly. My 4000 was horrible, the 4800 better, the 3800 excellent, and the 4900 somewhere between the 4800 and the 3800 - small clogs if idle for a few days and no big deal to clean-up. Never had a clog yet mid-print in the 4900 which would produce a noticeable impact.

The installed base of Epson must be much larger than Canon, because Canon was very much later to the game, had an early disaster on their hands with the ipf5000, and Epson had a lot of incumbent advantage. It's probably starting to even-up as the more recent Canon printers seem to be very good performers, produce high quality prints, priced competitively and people look at alternatives.
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2011, 09:09:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I've followed this thread with a lot of interest, and it seems that Epson really hasn't solved the clogging issue at all and why would they? They are in the business of selling their liquid gold and by the sounds of it, a lot of it goes in the maintenance tank, only to be replenished once again by the faithful. I for one believe it's a intentional design intent.

Paul

I don't believe in those conspiracy theories. No company has an interest in the bad press Epson has been getting over years of printer clogs, and they know better than we do that eventually technological competition can come back to bite them. In fact they say so themselves in their corporate strategy documentation, some of which you can download from corners of their websites. I think the cause of this problem's persistence is more related to technical constraints and their decision to perfect their basic technology rather than make a fundamental U-turn, because they seem persuaded based on their research that this technology provides the most accurate lay-down of ink and the highest resolution of image detail. So in the mindset which may prevail there, and I'm hypothesizing here, a judgment may have been made that the clogs are a reasonable trade-off for maintaining the merits of the basic technology, and they would pour resources into trying to heal the clog problems within the framework of that technology. They've been more successful with some models than others, from what I've seen and read, but why I don't have any idea.
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
Shark_II
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2011, 10:46:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with Mark, no conspiracy here.  But I believe Epson became complacent.  And Canon is going to eat their lunch if they stay that way.

Tom

PS:  Although I am a hard-core Canon guy now, feedback from Epson 3800 owners seems to be that the clogging problem was pretty minimal.  What is the big difference in technology that keeps Epson from translating that apparent desktop printer success into their large format printers?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2011, 10:54:08 AM »
ReplyReply


PS: ......... feedback from Epson 3800 owners seems to be that the clogging problem was pretty minimal.  What is the big difference in technology that keeps Epson from translating that apparent desktop printer success into their large format printers?

As a happy former 3800 owner with very few nozzle clogs over three years, and now a 4900 owner with a return to nozzle clogs, I ask myself - and Epson - exactly the same question, and I'm not getting any clarity on it. It makes me suspect that the gaps in the nozzle print-outs maybe are not clogs, but ink droppage from the head. I understand the design of the head and the ink feeding systems are not identical between these models, but from there to really explaining it, no transparency.
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
Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2011, 12:09:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I had a 2200 that would clog at inopportune times. It was especially difficult in the winter, when it would get very dry. I finally had to run a humidifier and the problem became much less of an issue, as was the case when the weather warmed up and the humidity rose. It seemed like the clogging became a significant issue around 28% relative humidity and lower. That printer failed and I bought another one (both used) and to my delight, it was much better in the winter. Still, there were issues periodically, but they were far fewer. Something had obviously been wrong on the first one.

I wanted to print larger so I bought a 3800. I was pleasantly surprised at how seldom I had nozzle clogs. They happened, but it was very infrequent. Still, I would always run a nozzle check before starting a print session and a few times it avoided a ruined print. Over two or three years I think I lost one or two prints to a nozzle clog mid-stream. Relative to my 2200's, the 3800 clogged very little and was a great printer. It's a lot of printer at an attractive price, and I'm about to convert it run custom monochrome inks.

I bought the 8300 to print on canvas, and to take over my colour printing. I've had it up and running since early January, during our low humidity season, and it's been flawless. In fact, I went almost two months before I realized I had never done a nozzle check. I ran one just to be sure, and it was fine. I haven't bothered to run another.

That's been my clogging experience with three Epson printers and one Canon, fwiw, in essentially the same printing environment. To be fair, I really need more time with the Canon, but my experiences with it are in alignment with the user reports I've read.

Terry.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2011, 06:11:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The nozzle check pattern definitely represents a non-delivered droplet, Mark.  Whether that's because of a blockage, lack of ink (air buble, although very unlikely), failure of the head to fire, or some other reason will obviously vary, but it's definitely due to a droplet not being delivered to the media.

It's also important to remember that this corner of the web is photographers, which does not represent the largest portion of large format printer users in the market for *any* of the manufacturers (particularly not for HP and Epson), so any statistical analysis of "complaints" here isn't representative.

Ink usage, though, is a bit like pixel peeping.  When I drive my car, I can get instantaneous fuel consumption data that is accurate to the second, but what I really want to know is my average over longer distances in different conditions because the instantaeous data from range from 0.0l/100km to over 40.0l/100km depending on if I'm coasting or if I've slammed the accelerator down from the start, whether on a hill up or down, so and so on.  In the same way, what you really want to know, is how many prints you can get from a set of cartridges and, if you do have wastage from bad prints, the frequency and cost of that as a percentage overall.

If you look at the proofing market, which makes ink and printer usage in the photo market look small, then that is a reasonable guide to reliability and consistency.  Some of these users check colour multiple times a day, or even with every print (FOGRA for example).

By comparison, I have printers that don't get used for weeks or even months and then do a few prints or do dozens.  Most pro photogs would be some where in between.

One technology masks the issue (not in a devious or bad way, just a different technology) and one doesn't, but instantaneous results are far less useful than long term ones.

Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2011, 07:05:25 PM »
ReplyReply

The nozzle check pattern definitely represents a non-delivered droplet, Mark.  Whether that's because of a blockage, lack of ink (air buble, although very unlikely), failure of the head to fire, or some other reason will obviously vary, but it's definitely due to a droplet not being delivered to the media.

It's also important to remember that this corner of the web is photographers, which does not represent the largest portion of large format printer users in the market for *any* of the manufacturers (particularly not for HP and Epson), so any statistical analysis of "complaints" here isn't representative.

Ink usage, though, is a bit like pixel peeping.  When I drive my car, I can get instantaneous fuel consumption data that is accurate to the second, but what I really want to know is my average over longer distances in different conditions because the instantaeous data from range from 0.0l/100km to over 40.0l/100km depending on if I'm coasting or if I've slammed the accelerator down from the start, whether on a hill up or down, so and so on.  In the same way, what you really want to know, is how many prints you can get from a set of cartridges and, if you do have wastage from bad prints, the frequency and cost of that as a percentage overall.

If you look at the proofing market, which makes ink and printer usage in the photo market look small, then that is a reasonable guide to reliability and consistency.  Some of these users check colour multiple times a day, or even with every print (FOGRA for example).

By comparison, I have printers that don't get used for weeks or even months and then do a few prints or do dozens.  Most pro photogs would be some where in between.

One technology masks the issue (not in a devious or bad way, just a different technology) and one doesn't, but instantaneous results are far less useful than long term ones.



Phil, I agree with all of this. Indeed I can see from the data I'm collecting on the 4900 that a long period of time will be needed to "average out" the imprecision of the way in which Epson allows the data to be reported. There was a time - in the days of the 4000 - when one could measure ink consumption for prints or for cleaning quite accurately from the data provided on the nozzle check sheets; but that kind of transparency has long disappeared. I think my numbers on consumption per sq.ft. actually printed are OK - it's the remainder that isn't. In any case, I don't think ink is the big ticket cost in making a print. I print on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, which is perhaps the most reasonably priced of the high quality baryta papers here in Canada. Even then, a Super A3 (13*19 sheet) printed with a margin of at least an inch per dimension, is costing me $1.02 for ink and $2.70 for paper. At my current usage rate and with the assumptions I've made about machine cost amortization, capital consumption per Super A3 is $1.62, so of the three cost categories, ink is the lowest. When I think back of what it used to cost for colour enlargements during the film era, we're doing real well nowadays on cost and quality. I don't think anyone comparing printers for purchase should spend too much time focusing on second-order differences between brands with this kind of data. What matters more is print quality and usability considerations.
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
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #51 on: June 20, 2011, 12:34:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been printing about 30 feet of canvas every day for the last 3 weeks on my iPF8300.  I have not lost a second to any printer related issue whatsoever.  No clogs, no banding, none of that stuff.  It has itself elected to run brief nozzle cleaning sequences on perhaps 3 or 4 occasions, took maybe 2 minutes each time.  That's it.  Did I say canvas?   Dirty, dusty, bumpy, uneven, head swiping canvas?  The 8300 takes it in stride.

It just sits over there in the corner and spits out prints when I ask it to.  Switch on, print, switch off.  No begging, groveling, pleading, cajoling, or cursing involved.  No elevated blood pressure.  No 1/2 to 1 hour long cleaning "events" at 02:00.  No filthy fingers from cleaning the wiper.  No breathing Windex fumes.

All I have to do is feed it cartridges and media, and I don't even have to mess around getting the media straight!

Back in my 9880 days that would have sounded like Inkjet Heaven.

But yes, the 9880 never messed up a print in progress, except once when it halted mid-print asking for a cartridge change and I was OTL.  So credit where credit is due.  The 8300 seems to handle the almost-empty cartridge issue by refusing to start a print if there's not enough ink to finish it, which I think I prefer, it lets me leave the room if I wish.
 
Logged
ippolitois
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2011, 02:35:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been printing about 30 feet of canvas every day for the last 3 weeks on my iPF8300.  I have not lost a second to any printer related issue whatsoever.  No clogs, no banding, none of that stuff.  It has itself elected to run brief nozzle cleaning sequences on perhaps 3 or 4 occasions, took maybe 2 minutes each time.  That's it.  Did I say canvas?   Dirty, dusty, bumpy, uneven, head swiping canvas?  The 8300 takes it in stride.

It just sits over there in the corner and spits out prints when I ask it to.  Switch on, print, switch off.  No begging, groveling, pleading, cajoling, or cursing involved.  No elevated blood pressure.  No 1/2 to 1 hour long cleaning "events" at 02:00.  No filthy fingers from cleaning the wiper.  No breathing Windex fumes.

All I have to do is feed it cartridges and media, and I don't even have to mess around getting the media straight!

Back in my 9880 days that would have sounded like Inkjet Heaven.

But yes, the 9880 never messed up a print in progress, except once when it halted mid-print asking for a cartridge change and I was OTL.  So credit where credit is due.  The 8300 seems to handle the almost-empty cartridge issue by refusing to start a print if there's not enough ink to finish it, which I think I prefer, it lets me leave the room if I wish.
 

WOW! That's sounds like heaven to me! You're one lucky guy. Unfortunately, my Epson is not as nice to me as your Canon is to you, but with the knowledge in this thread,  I now know it's possible to walk over to the print button and walk away.

I need a 17" printer. Is the IPF5100 a good choice or should I wait until they announce a 5300 or equivalent x300 series? I wasn't in the market, but I've almost had it with this monster. I just wish for carefree printing. I'm no longer in denial but I see clearly the reality of my situation and I'm tired of fighting it. My time is more valuable than spending hours trying to unlock the mysteries of this printer.

Thanks in advance.

Paul
Logged
badbluesman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #53 on: May 14, 2012, 11:55:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I am also agonizing over the same purchase decision: 9900 or 9890 vs. iPF 8300.  I have owned previous Epson and Canon printers and I prefer Canon for mechanics, functionality, and BW printing.  But recent test prints that I had done lead me back to Epson for color.  I ganged up 9 color files on 13x19 and had them printed on 9900, 9890, iPF 8300, and HP Z3100 (my files are 16-bit Adobe RGB 1998 color space).  All of the people who printed for me are making their own icc profiles.  The best overall color and best match for my calibrated monitor was the 9890!  The 9900 had better greens than the 9890, but overall its color was more anemic and of a less match to my monitor.  The Canon color was really over the top- almost too much gamut and too much saturation. A highly exaggerated red flush in face tones was the most worrying problem, since I am about to do an 85-print exhibition with faces in nearly every frame.  Other Canon color distortions in my test print include an overall yellowish warm cast that is not on my monitor, sky blues rendered as hot tropical blues, fluorescent greens, and a generally poor monitor match.  The 9890, with its smaller gamut, had the best overall skin tones and the best overall monitor match in my test prints.  Its only minor deficiency is that some greens are not quite up to those seen on the monitor and in the 9900 print.  However, this only applied to man-made greens; foliage was identical in the 9890 and 9900 prints.  I don't shoot that many man-made green subjects.  I shoot far more faces.

Some of you who posted mention having both the iPF 8300 and 9900 printers.  I would like to read your responses to my test results above.  I would also like to read your comments about relative ink usage between the two printers.

Thanks in advance.
Logged
Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #54 on: May 14, 2012, 01:20:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I am also agonizing over the same purchase decision: 9900 or 9890 vs. iPF 8300.  I have owned previous Epson and Canon printers and I prefer Canon for mechanics, functionality, and BW printing.  But recent test prints that I had done lead me back to Epson for color.  I ganged up 9 color files on 13x19 and had them printed on 9900, 9890, iPF 8300, and HP Z3100 (my files are 16-bit Adobe RGB 1998 color space).  All of the people who printed for me are making their own icc profiles.  The best overall color and best match for my calibrated monitor was the 9890!  The 9900 had better greens than the 9890, but overall its color was more anemic and of a less match to my monitor.  The Canon color was really over the top- almost too much gamut and too much saturation. A highly exaggerated red flush in face tones was the most worrying problem, since I am about to do an 85-print exhibition with faces in nearly every frame.  Other Canon color distortions in my test print include an overall yellowish warm cast that is not on my monitor, sky blues rendered as hot tropical blues, fluorescent greens, and a generally poor monitor match.  The 9890, with its smaller gamut, had the best overall skin tones and the best overall monitor match in my test prints.  Its only minor deficiency is that some greens are not quite up to those seen on the monitor and in the 9900 print.  However, this only applied to man-made greens; foliage was identical in the 9890 and 9900 prints.  I don't shoot that many man-made green subjects.  I shoot far more faces.

Some of you who posted mention having both the iPF 8300 and 9900 printers.  I would like to read your responses to my test results above.  I would also like to read your comments about relative ink usage between the two printers.

Thanks in advance.

If the tests are not done with the same paper, profiling system and monitor its kinda pointless.
Logged
Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #55 on: May 14, 2012, 01:21:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I've used my ipf 8300 for about a year now and its spot on all the time.
Logged
bupalos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #56 on: May 14, 2012, 05:37:53 PM »
ReplyReply

After going through 2 of Epson's "permanent" heads in 2 years (both out of warranty, no satisfaction from epson at all) I will be installing an 8300 tomorrow. I'll post back on my experience if it will be of help.

There was a lot to love about the 7900, but ultimately random clogging ate up a ton of time, ink, and paper on ruined jobs, and the dead heads (that really cost around 2G to have replaced) forced me off of it. I hope I can find happiness with canon.
Logged
chaddro
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #57 on: May 14, 2012, 06:12:48 PM »
ReplyReply


It just sits over there in the corner and spits out prints when I ask it to.  Switch on, print, switch off.  No begging, groveling, pleading, cajoling, or cursing involved.  No elevated blood pressure.  No 1/2 to 1 hour long cleaning "events" at 02:00.  No filthy fingers from cleaning the wiper.  No breathing Windex fumes.


LOL! Nicely put. Still like my 9890! Wish it behaved like my 3800 (which never clogs).

BTW, I think my MUCH neglected 7800 'clogs' less than my 9890!?!?!?!?!
Logged
Jozef Zajaz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2012, 01:03:11 AM »
ReplyReply

LOL! Nicely put. Still like my 9890! Wish it behaved like my 3800 (which never clogs).

BTW, I think my MUCH neglected 7800 'clogs' less than my 9890!?!?!?!?!


Ah the ipf 8300 never clogs Smiley
Logged
bupalos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2012, 06:08:37 PM »
ReplyReply

OK I've got my 8300 up and running and the initial verdict is....

Love it. In a production environment, I think it's a no-brainer because this thing is WAY less fiddly than my 7900 was. I was very concerned about paper handling, and that's proving to be overblown. It's using less ink for the same jobs I was running on the 7900 by about 30%.

Yes, the Epson paper handling is nicer. Yes, the Canon feels like it's made by a parsimonious elf out of recycled pop bottles. But the bottom line is I'm already cranking prints out faster and more reliably (both from the point of view of workflow and raw printing speed) with spot-on color. Successful jobs are right there on the hard drive and can be replicated instantly and exactly. When I tell the thing I want to do something, it doesn't sit there and warm up for a full minute before I can even make the request. No more "ink cartridge error." No more changing blacks. No more "sorry I decided to run a cleaning just because, please wait and listen to your ink go down the drain for the next 4 minutes."

Top end print quality is equal but slightly different. Shadows are opening up on some things with the canon, but the gamut on the bright end (think sunset with a light sky) is a spec less zippy if you sit and stare. As reported, the canon ink is more durable. On Ilford's baryta, both printers can simply blow you away.

I had a particularly unlucky experience with epson heads and permanent clogging (and incredible repair costs), but even apart from that I'm pretty sure I'm going to be saving ink, paper, and TIME with this guy and I'm really really pleased.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad