Extreme contrast edits in Lightroom 4 and ACR 7

With the launch of Lightroom 4, Adobe formally introduced a new version of the raw processing engine that powers both Lightroom and Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) 7 plug-in. Known as Process Version (PV) 2012, it represents quite a radical shake up in the way you can now process your Raw (and non-Raw) images.

The new PV 2012 controls offer the ability to create an HDR-ike tonal range from a single image capture.

Adobe has offered several reasons for this change. With earlier process versions - PV 2003 and PV 2010 - there was a degree of overlap between some of the Basic panel tone controls, not to mention confusion among users as to the most effective slider combinations.

In addition, the default tone settings differed for Raw and non-Raw images. Different amounts of adjustments were therefore required depending on whether you were editing a Raw image or a JPEG for example, making it problematic to share settings between the two file types. So on one level PV 2012 is an attempt to make tonal adjustments more straightforward and intuitive to perform.

Above all though, the range of control when editing raw images was becoming somewhat limited by what the PV 2010 (and earlier) adjustment sliders would allow. The sensor performance of today's mirrorless and DSLR cameras make it possible to effectively extract a more extended dynamic range. The thing is, you need the raw processing tools to keep up with these developments. PV 2012 is Adobe's effort to do just that. In this article, we'll compare some of the raw file editing capabilities of PV 2012 against its predecessor, PV 2010.

What's changed in the PV 2012 Basic panel?

In PV 2012, there are still six primary tonal adjustment sliders in the Basic panel, all intended to be used in their order of appearance. But some sliders have been replaced and those that remain have seen changes in functionality. It's important to note that, unlike previous versions, most of the PV 2012 controls are scene adaptive, meaning their behavior - even at default settings - is optimized on a per image basis.

Here you can see PV 2010's
default tonal adjustment
settings for raw files.
In PV 2012, the default
value for each tonal
adjustment slider is 0 for
both raw and non-raw files.

The Exposure slider is effectively a combination of PV 2010's Exposure and Brightness sliders. It is used set overall image brightness. The Contrast slider is now scene-dependent, offsetting its operational midpoint slightly depending on whether you are editing a low key or high key image. 

Brand new Highlights and Shadows sliders offer separate luminance control for midtone-to-highlight and midtone-to-shadow regions, respectively (although there is a degree of overlap between the two). They work in both positive and negative directions and on an evenly balanced scale. So you can lighten or darken the highlights and shadow areas independently, with a +10 move being similar in strength to a -10 adjustment. The Whites and Blacks sliders are used to adjust the end points for the image's brightest and darkest tones, respectively.

Controlling a high contrast image with PV 2012

In the examples below, we'll take a look at the benefits PV 2012 offers over its predecessor when working on a high contrast raw image that contains a wide dynamic range. Here I'll be using ACR 7, which provides the same PV 2012 adjustments as Lightroom 4.

I shot this image from inside the entrance of a church building. This photo was captured in RAW mode and contains just about enough information in the highlight and shadow areas to show the complete tonal range. The challenge of course is how to process the image to extract this information.

In the image above you can see by the histogram I've overlaid that the highlights are blown out and the shadow details are completely hidden. Because this is a Raw file, however, we can extract some data that would have simply been lost in an 8-bit JPEG.

With a little patience it is possible to recover some highlight and shadow detail using PV 2010. I began by reducing Exposure by nearly 1 stop, to -.95 in an effort to minimize highlight clipping. I set both the Recovery and Fill Light sliders to their maximum values - an extreme move - in order to restore even more detail in the highlights and open up the shadows. The Blacks slider was then increased from its default of +5 to +13 in an effort to regain some of the contrast lost by my extreme Fill Light adjustment. I then lowered Brightness to +40 (from its default of +50) and increased Contrast to +50 (from its default of +25).

While the PV 2010 edits are certainly an improvement over the original image, we are left with a somewhat flat looking image with muddy shadows and relatively little contrast in the background areas of the scene. And you'd be hard pressed, too, to argue that the slider adjustments I've described above are intuitive. Let's take another pass at the same file, but this time using PV 2012.

Using PV 2012 controls I was able to increase Exposure to +45 to brighten the overall  image. I also increased Contrast to +36. I used an extreme Highlights adjustment of -100 to eliminate clipping in the clouds and a +100 Shadows adjustment to bring out more detail in the interior shadows. Note that by eliminating highlight and shadow clipping I was then able to actually boost my white point by setting the Whites slider to +10 and lower my black point by moving the Blacks slider to -35. These last steps allowed me retain much more image contrast, which I then increased a bit more throughout the midtone range with a Clarity slider adjustment of +7.

As you can see, the PV 2012 options give me greater control over the tones in the image in a more straightforward, though by by no means dumbed-down manner. In the crops that follow you can see just how much difference there is in using PV 2012 versus PV 2010.

PV 2010 default settings PV 2012 default settings

Notice how much more shadow detail is visible in PV 2012's default settings. This initial rendering obviously provides a better starting point for extracting useful information.

PV 2010 after editing PV 2012 after editing

At first glance the edited results may look very similar. But take a closer look at these crops (click on the thumbnails for a larger view) and you'll see that the PV 2010 image shows distinct halos around the column edges as well as false color in the clouds. Overall, the PV 2012 image offers a much more natural, 'less-processed' looking result.

Click here to continue reading our Extreme Contrast Edits article...

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Comments

Total comments: 168
12
plasnu
By plasnu (Apr 23, 2012)

Am I the only one who prefers unprocessed image?

This is not a trolling. I honestly thought the processed image is overdone and not beautiful at all, so I'm curious what the other people think.

2 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Apr 23, 2012)

Especially once things start going extreme HDR with everything overdone then yes, it is an ugly effect. But, if the lighting edit is done well, then the results are what you get with what the human eye sees, since we can see both bright areas and shaded areas at a location fine, the camera cannot, so processing is necessary if one wants to see the whole scene the way we should be able to

1 upvote
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Apr 23, 2012)

I dislike the processed image. To be sure, most of the HDR examples I've ever seen have only repelled me. I rarely use Shadows and Highlights or anything that produces a similar result, preferring the much more natural look you get with Curves. The original image does need some work with a fairly light hand on the Curves tool.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Apr 23, 2012)

The contrast in the original is too extreme to leave "as is" and still be considered a really good photo, so the question is do you delete it and come back to reshoot later in the day, or do you go all-out with the HDR processing.

For the effect, with the sun right in the frame, if that's the lighting you want, you have little choice but to go HDR. I'm not fussed with the end result, but people seem to go for it...

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (Apr 24, 2012)

You have the choice of using a flash to light up the dark areas and underexposing a little to bring out detail in the sky.

0 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (Apr 24, 2012)

Flash? Flash is really limited to distance and gets even more complicated when you want to illuminate object at 2m, 5m and 10m together for example.

Funny how people mistake this article for showing great artistic photo. It is not, it's just simply an example what is the difference of new and old version pushed to an extreme.

3 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (Apr 24, 2012)

Eh, everything has a set of challenges. The example is a case where flash would give a better result with one click.

0 upvotes
archaiesteron
By archaiesteron (Apr 24, 2012)

You are not the only one; there obviously is some aesthetical "regression" (the word comes from Adorno's work) in people: colors have to be over-saturated, details should all be visible, no blown highlight but full tonal range has to be used, etc. I used to like all these toys; I still shoot raw, but I now perform only a few adjustments.

0 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Apr 24, 2012)

I think that an unprocessed image can and will be better or worse from a processed one. It depends on the capacity, knowledge and choice of the photographer-printer.
I personally believe that if one should work with unprocessed images one could as well ditch digital for film photography with excellent and beautiful results. Many friends of mine use film cameras, and I also use an old Yashica once in a while. It's a wonderful way of shooting, although a little dated ;)

0 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (Apr 25, 2012)

2CaseyComo
Flash would work better in this example? Okaay. Please do tell me, which kind of strobe would you use here? I hope you don't believe on board flash or even any external flash with AA batteries will work here. So how much your external strobe will cost, how much it will weight together with light stand and power source?

0 upvotes
Quantum3
By Quantum3 (Apr 26, 2012)

From ugly to beauty there is a so tinny line that probably, there is no line.

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (Apr 27, 2012)

Xellz, there is enough output in a Nikon SB 700 speedlight to take this shot and illuminate the interior.

0 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (Apr 27, 2012)

It is a really sunny day and pointing camera almost directly into sun (just covered a bit by building), using wide angle lens, space you need to illuminate is quite big, i'm sure it's more than 10m from left upper corner to lower right corner. No way SB 700 will provide enough fill light in those conditions. And more, with one light it will be also quite uneven illumination.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
TJL LTFF
By TJL LTFF (Apr 23, 2012)

Just spent the weekend using LR4 PV2012 to salvage some vacation photos taken in the midday Summer sun in beautiful Sydney in December; brutal lighting. Quicker and more flexible in PV2012; did many photos that I didn't even attempt with LR3.6 PV2010.

Thanks for the article. It will help me finish the job.

5 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 23, 2012)

uraw, then Gimp Levels (sliders), or just curves, in Gimp, or back in ufraw.

Clarity is just Local Contrast.

Vibrance, is just Saturation without color changes. One click plug-ins abound.

Adobe does not stand alone, in our choices.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Vaards
By Vaards (Apr 23, 2012)

>uraw, then Gimp...
>...or just curves, in Gimp...
>... back in ufraw.
For most cases it is even better just to shot JPEGs. (you missed point - Lightroom is really good photo [b]organiser[/b].
Otherwise one can go thru 4220 RAW pics taken at holiday trip just using command line.

2 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 24, 2012)

Command line, really. The file browsers on open systems are better organizers than Lr. Have you ever stopped to think that you may be miss-informed, and that one can't spend just two seconds, in a different program, and through up your hands, and conclude Lr is just prettier. I'm taking about real results, and talking about walking through developing serious work flows, and testing with all major players. Raw, or not. You're talking about screen colors, and marketing. You are right. What's new? What you are doing is saying Lr looks like it might do well, for the first 5 minutes you look at it. I'm telling you, working with ufraw, and Gimp, is overall better, all things considered. Propaganda not excused. Do some of you guys believe everything you are told, by marketing monkeys? Good luck with your "Organizer". LOL. Been there; it's fluff.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Stig Nygaard
By Stig Nygaard (Apr 23, 2012)

Some people commenting seems to miss we are working in RAW here. We don't have the curve adjustment tool in the RAW editor. And if you use the curve adjustment tool in "plain" PS instead, you wont have as much data to work with as we have in the RAW editor.

I don't particular like the look in this demonstration. Looks too much like HDR which I (almost) always find plain ugly. Hopefully the new RAW editor can also do these things without getting that HDR look...

"most of the PV 2012 controls are scene adaptive"
- Hmm, doesn't that give me a problem if I want a series of shot to be processed 100% similar? For example if I want to stitch several shots together to a panorama?...

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Apr 23, 2012)

I suppose that depends on how, exactly, it's adaptive. That I'd like to know.

0 upvotes
Iron Mike
By Iron Mike (Apr 23, 2012)

You could always just use PV2010 for specific shots (to be merged in a panorama for example) if you want to ensure the processing is 100% similar?

0 upvotes
kbozen
By kbozen (Apr 23, 2012)

"We don't have the curve adjustment tool in the RAW editor."
maybe LR not, but Corels Aftershot Pro has a fine combination of curves and levels. using regions on layers you can do also selective editing for isolate adjustments or edits to a specified area of a photo (both blending and subtractive).

1 upvote
pabloban
By pabloban (Apr 23, 2012)

HDR can look nice.

The sad truth is, that the tasteless majority of people simply overdo it.

3 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 23, 2012)

The sad fact is that, with oversharpening and/or overdone HDR, people just don't know any better. It's like a new digital reality where phony is real (and vice-versa, I suppose).

0 upvotes
Stig Nygaard
By Stig Nygaard (Apr 29, 2012)

"We don't have the curve adjustment tool in the RAW editor"

Actually nonsense I wrote there. There is a curve adjustment tool in ACR, but I'm not sure it can be used to "drag in" information outside current set absolute black- and white-points like Recovery and Fill Light does (in PV2010) ?

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Bill1000Evening
By Bill1000Evening (Apr 23, 2012)

I have downoaded the beta version of Photoshop cs6 that includes ACR 7.0, but it apparently is using PV 2010. How can I try a beta version of ACR 7.0 tht includes PV 2012?

0 upvotes
Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Apr 23, 2012)

By default, images you've previously edited in PV 2010, honor that process version. In ACR7, go to the Camera Calibration tab and choose 2012 in the Process pull-down menu.

0 upvotes
Bill1000Evening
By Bill1000Evening (Apr 23, 2012)

Thanks, I appreciate your help.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 23, 2012)

They removed my kind posts, quickly showing how to do this better, in the free Gimp!

Censorship is great, isn't it?

Read this while you can, I guess.

Bye bye DP.

2 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 23, 2012)

Better while still having the ability to process 700 images in 45 minutes without creating any intermediate files and doing so in a completely non-destructive way?

1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 23, 2012)

If you call catalog "heck", non-destructive. Funny, I've not seen open software "destroy", anything. Can you say the same?

Use what you will, but don't tell people what they can, and can't do. I wasn't aware this was a contest. That's very "destructive".

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 23, 2012)

The catalogs are non-destructive, and I haven't had LR destroy any images or metadata.

And I have processed entire 700 image shoots from card download to web site in 45 minutes with LR. Doing the same with a pixel editor is more of a 10-15 hour task.

"I wasn't aware this was a contest."

Really? Who was it that said this above?

"Because there's a better, overall way. This would be a worse way, overall."

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 24, 2012)

You missed it. Are you seriously going to suggest that photos have never been lost to Windows security issues? Nnothing is destroyed, with my easy, Raw work flow, from ufraw, to the Gimp, and output (MUCH better BTW, such as auto JPEG compression, to task). It is so much nicer just to use a .PNG file (serious compression, no losses, shooting data) from ufraw (but you can choose to go straight to Gimp transparently, if you choose; via an auto temp file.) Therefore I make the choice. I can blow away the *.PNG file (I always have Raw. ufraw is quick, profiled. ...and Quicker, if just pulling the embedded JPEG out of it), or I can choose to save it for later. Either to continue editing, or to make different versions. This is NOT a big deal, and my originals always stay, just that! I'd pay good money NOT to have Lightroom catalog heck! If you don't startup, and keep track of several catalogs (nightmare), it becomes practically unmanageable.You'll have to learn a whole, unnecessary scheme!

1 upvote
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Apr 24, 2012)

Neodp, I would love to know the exact workflow you're using to create these terrific images you're talking about; but please, stick to the results, not the ethical side.
Maybe do a blog post and show it to us, maybe do an extensive comparison.
But if you insist on evangelising I really think you're in the wrong place to do that, and really shouldn't blame others of using their prefered workflows and software - which by the way is not what this article is about.

2 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 24, 2012)

Back at you, friend. Just because you bought Adobe, doesn't allow you to dictate. There are many people, who want to know how this maps, to ufraw/Gimp etc... The real question is, why the exclusivity? If you're one to ignore experience, that’s what you will have.

ufraw/Gimp, and all open photo offerings are relevant. You may certainly disagree, but it's still relevant. Therefore, so are open platforms, which I suspect, are the real issues with running these open software, at their full best. Some of you, may not have not done a fair comparison. You are stating untrue "facts".

The only way to fight propaganda, is to run it yourself. If you haven't taken the time, or given it a fair shake, with setup (like color profiling, which being down-loadable for your camera, is just a matter of setting everything to defaults, and known, gamma, and linearity), then you really have no business judging. Many are "evangelizing" their own choice, without knowledge, or a fair trial, and with bias.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Apr 26, 2012)

Fact is you still won't show a blogpost or something that could be equivalent to LR in your posts, just ranting and accusing, not being helpful at all, and not even letting anyone know a possible workflow (WITH EXAMPLES!) on ufraw/Gimp - which I also stated to believe that are very high grade software.

Noone says ufraw/gimp are irrelevant, but some of us have worked with them, and prefer a different workflow. "Prefer", NeoDP, as in "choice".

Your behaviour speaks by itself in the several posts accusing others of being blind, judgemental, unfair, and biased.
Please do yourself a favour, and grow up.

0 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Apr 23, 2012)

This is a helpful demonstration of the differences between PV 2010 and PV 2012. If I were starting from scratch I would almost certainly find the controls in PV 2012 easier to understand and use.

My own problem is that I had figured out PV 2010, and now find it more difficult to understand what the new tools do. For example, I thought (perhaps wrongly) that the Blacks value in PV 2010 represented the 8-bit input value below which all output values were pinned to black. The adjustment made some sense in this context. The new slider, with negative values, doesn't seem to make sense, even if it seems to work fine (though doing something slightly different than the old Blacks slider, I notice).

I'll get there.

0 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Apr 24, 2012)

I used to work on LR3.6, recently moved on to 4.0. Initially I had my doubts, but decided to get the hang of it. I now perceive the new version as much more intuitive and immediate to work on.
I think you'll like it. ;)

0 upvotes
Quantum3
By Quantum3 (Apr 26, 2012)

Don't worry. The Adobe guys kept in mind that, so if you use the 2010 conversion, you actually get the L3 interface inside LR4.

1 upvote
cxsparc
By cxsparc (Apr 23, 2012)

Why not simply use curves adjustment?

2 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Apr 23, 2012)

Because it doesn't do close to the same thing. Curves is applied globally to the entire image. These controls are applied locally. You could, using this approach, start with two pixels of the same tone and, after processing, end up with those same two pixels having different tones depending on what's in their surroundings. This helps greatly to achieve the goal of high-contrast scene processing - intentionally reducing global contrast without losing local contrast.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 23, 2012)

...and the way you do that, is then bump up the "Clarity" slider, in Lr; whereas, you would simply choose a Local Contrast function (or something more advanced), in Gimp. Same thing. Curves are very powerful, and you can do them in Raw (16-bit light data space), with ufraw, and your own customize color profile (say like Velvia), and other local contrast pre-sets (like D-Lightung levels), if you didn't feel like curve wiggling, today. Then, you have levels (sliders) and curves after that, in Gimp. Plus, a million one-click ways, to effect anything you can imagine. Plug-in, and video tutorials are everywhere. Not to mention, all this is free. Unlike others, I'm not trying to sell you anything. NOR LOCK YOU IN. I was a long time Lr user, and the best, is ufraw, and the Gimp. These are hardly the only photo programs I have used, and used extensively, as well. Including the Camera Brand versions. They did not offer better. Curves includes, your local contrasts.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Apr 23, 2012)

Curves doesn't do local contrast like this does. Curves affect a tonal range without regard to the content. These scene-adaptive features are checking out regions of tones...spatial areas. Curves does not do that.

And GIMP does not do raw. Unless these features are in URAW (which I'm not familiar with), the comparison is invalid, because you're losing quality the second you step out of raw to do this, versus ACR.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 24, 2012)

Neodp:

Because of the comments here, I just tried UFRAW, and though it's impressive for free software, it's not upto ACR or Bibble/Afterhot/NoiseNinja, particularly for noise control.

I tried it with both high ISO Nikon D4 and D3s raws and a medium ISO Samsung NX100 raw and the problem is chroma noise, which is not something Denoise deals with well. And Denoise is what UFRAW uses. (I already have Denoise as a Photoshop plug-in so recognize it's limitations; it's good for banding problems at say ISO6400.)

UFRAW is very good free software, but for example still doesn't open Samsung NX200 raw files.

Thanks for pointing it out here.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 24, 2012)

LOL. Misinformation all the way there. Your opinions respected.

It sounds like you forgot to click the ufraw color smoothing icon, and make sure its on. Which means you probably didn't take the time to go through the site, and read the easy settings descriptions. Most should be at their default, and are for special cases (or left for the Gimp). You must remember, all we really need from the ufraw development, is the best adjusted 16-bit light levels (which includes color), and we are mainly just skipping JPEG noise. Plus, many of us find, it's best to set the NR in ufraw (normally) at about 50 to 70, and do the rest, with the stellar, Wavelet Denoise (or others), in the Gimp.

That fact that you "just tried" ufraw makes my point, and clearly. You are judging "books" by their covers.

ufraw is analogous to ACR; that much should be clear.

I have also tested NR programs, and plug-ins, and you should know its more about technique, than any magic dust. Depends on your output goals.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Apr 24, 2012)

ufraw is a universal Raw developer, and so more readily adapts to new Raw files (new sensor dependent, of course). This is why you set it up (once) to your exact camera (or cameras), instead of Lightroom's generic "Nikon" fudging, for example.

I have found that Lightroom, ACR, and all, do not have special powers, that are unavailable in ufraw, and the Gimp. It's a myth, that the output beats anything else. It's pure, marketing snake-oil. That, is a closed, lock-you-in, issue, and it is one of trust. These problems do not exist, with open software. We are not trying to sell you anything. This is about experience, and know-how. That's where your better photo (edit) comes from.

It's not complicated. There are no limits, in open software. There are just more ways.Think about it. You can not say that, about closed-up software, such as Lightroom. Lightroom has more learning curve. There is more than one way, to skin a cat.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 25, 2012)

Neodp:

Sorry buddy, don't see a "color smoothing icon", is that something they hide somewhere odd? Or do you mean the chromatic aberration settings?

Sorry, and this is from experience, Denoise aint that good, though it has its uses.

Next, why on earth do you keep referring to jpegs? Who uses those files?

Again: It's nice freeware but doesn't open many recent raw files and doesn't work as well as Bibble or ACR. And it's really slow.

No I won't go thru the website to discover where all sorts of features could be hidden.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Apr 25, 2012)

Neodp:

Well I found the colour smoothing button, and the results were spectacularly disappointing--down there with Silkypix, or worse.

Nope Denoise didn't magically fix things either.

I have ACR and see no reason to use UFRAW.

0 upvotes
scorpicon
By scorpicon (Apr 23, 2012)

I've done some comparisons between my PV 2010 edits and identical or better results in PV 2012, and I'm consistently using fewer adjustments. I'm really enjoying some old raw shots I thought were worthless.

6 upvotes
Quantum3
By Quantum3 (Apr 26, 2012)

In some opportunities, the conversion from 2010 to 2012 are absolutely different. Watch out if you convert a batch of your pics from 2010 to 2012, because sometimes the conversion is absolutely different (awful).

0 upvotes
Peter Nelson
By Peter Nelson (Apr 23, 2012)

CS2 can do this using the lasso tools and the highlight sliders.

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Apr 23, 2012)

Which means it's a lot more steps. And the highlight/shadow in CS2 is way clumsier than this, and it is not in raw, which means lower quality. There's really no comparison if you've actually tried it.

1 upvote
audijam
By audijam (Apr 23, 2012)

very nice!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 168
12