Previous news story    Next news story

Is Instagram 'debasing photography'?

By dpreview staff on Jul 19, 2012 at 19:41 GMT

Mobile apps like Instagram are 'debasing real photography'. That's according to writer and broadcaster Kate Bevan, in an opinion article on British newspaper The Guardian's website. In the article, Bevan argues that filter effect apps like Instagram, 'spoil pictures - they get in the way of the image and they distort the story the picture is telling'.

Calling these filter effects 'the antithesis of creativity', Bevan claims that 'by adding a faux-aged look to [a picture], we in effect add a history, a longevity to the image that it intrinsically doesn't have'. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

A genuinely old photograph or a modern snapshot with a 'retro' filter applied? Can you tell?
(Picture: Kate Bevan)

(From The Guardian)

Comments

Total comments: 291
1234
Barend
By Barend (Jul 26, 2012)

For small images just for facebook etc. This is an ideal web app and for free.
http://www.pictureplaza.nl/editimage/

0 upvotes
Owen Samuelson
By Owen Samuelson (Jul 26, 2012)

I use my iPhone and various apps all the time for my photography. I don't do it because I want Kate Bevan to like it.

OS

0 upvotes
gmz374
By gmz374 (Jul 26, 2012)

It seems to me that Kate Bevan's definition of art and photography are terribly narrow. Not every artist or photographer is trying to reproduce "realism". Where would we be if Picasso only stayed in his realism phase. Art and photography is about creativity. I don't go around counting pixels. Who cares?! I care about light, reflection, tones, shapes, color-pallete, etc. Kate should stick to writing about things she knows about. Art and photography don't seem to be one of them.

1 upvote
Matteo Ganora
By Matteo Ganora (Jul 26, 2012)

It's always the same story... when a new thing comes... a lot of people make noise... it's a way to share emotions... i' don't mind which way was choosen

0 upvotes
angeldust83
By angeldust83 (Jul 25, 2012)

Why do some people here say that the art of photography is dead? It's not! Maybe it's our imagination that is dying. As long as there is a camera to inspire and capture a vision, photography will never be dead.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
angeldust83
By angeldust83 (Jul 25, 2012)

These past few years we have seen that more and more people, even young kids, are becoming interested in the "photo-taking" experience. That increased interest is something we should all embrace. People like myself who use instagram dont claim to be professionals, but seeing the photographic effect of these apps make the experience worthwhile and memorable. In the world of photography, i believe there is a place for everyone.

0 upvotes
RyanPDonnelly
By RyanPDonnelly (Jul 24, 2012)

I can see one problem alone with any digital manipulation when it comes to journalism, and that is that journalism is one area in which honesty is, and should be required. I believe that it should be industry standard, and ethical practice, to demand and expect the original unmanipulated photo to publish. With any creative project, no matter the medium, you can blur the lines of reality and fantasy, or cross them completely...but when it comes to giving us the news and the facts, like mathematics, it should be an exact science.
The idea that photo manipulation is so welcome in the field of journalism is one of the greatest defeats of the truth, and our freedom to know it. The terrible fact is that this has been going on so long that we wouldn't know an honest photo if we saw the untouched RAW file anymore.

0 upvotes
washyshots
By washyshots (Jul 25, 2012)

In my opinion photography (even untouched RAWs) can never reveal the truth because even at its most fundamental level it most usually always involves the photographers selective inclusion or exclusion of elements. Moreover, lenses distorts perspective (foreshortening for example) as does the position of the photographer (say through using scale) in relation to the subject. So I can't really see that journalistic photography can ever claim to reveal a truth because everyone's truth is unique. Carter's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph (covering famine in Sudan) image succinctly demonstrates this and this is why I feel that effects have crept into journalism: there is no truth in the first place.

2 upvotes
Peter Bojangles
By Peter Bojangles (Jul 24, 2012)

I think eventually people will realize that Instagram is the photography equivalent of McDonalds. It has mass appeal, but lacks substance. Sadly, even when most people realize it lacks pith, many will still use it from time to time and some will use it exclusively.

I imagine if there were online forums when fast food hit it big we'd have heard the same arguments from proper chefs. Now, seeing fast photography in fine periodicals might understandably stir up professional photographers, because it's analogous to a fancy pants restaurant serving you a Big Mac and charging as much as wild tiger filet brazed with honey and lavender infused pine nut oil with a dusting of saffron, gold flakes, and the fermented tears of an ancient alligator served with garlic and pixie dust rubbed asparagus and olives hand stuffed with Italian Bitto wrapped in grape leaves.

5 upvotes
davids8560
By davids8560 (Jul 25, 2012)

:-)

0 upvotes
Reg Flobert
By Reg Flobert (Jul 29, 2012)

This is not really any kind of comparison is it?
These apps enable people who aren't full time photographers to make beautiful images and they are beautiful the things you can do with these apps...a picture is a picture and anything you can use to enhance it is only really a plus...think of all those pre app pix taken on filterless cameras...not so nice, sure wonderful memories but surely if they can be enhanced by tech with the minimum of fuss then why not? I am a professional photographer and I LOVE these toys...and have produced some pictures I am really proud of from using these shortcuts....I still edit and take hours cropping developing etc..but as a tool that can record good stuff on the move without having to spend time on them is just peachy...... democracy in imagery I say...

1 upvote
Bryan Costin
By Bryan Costin (Jul 23, 2012)

If there's a threat to photography it comes from the mindset that produces foolish articles like this one. Tiresome pundits who know nothing much about the history of photography, yet somehow assume that every technique they don't personally enjoy must've been invented yesterday.

Retouching, lens filters, artificial aging of prints, purposeful vignetting, optical distortions, deliberately degrading film, dodging, burning, faux tilt-shift, and thousands of other effects have been standard photographic tricks for a century now. But, no. They all must be an ongoing plot by stupid philistines to offend their highly refined sensibilities.

4 upvotes
facedodge
By facedodge (Jul 23, 2012)

instagram is to photography as Glee is to music

0 upvotes
ajendus
By ajendus (Jul 23, 2012)

Short answer, no. I don't think that Instagram or the like is any different than using any other camera. You either take bad pictures or good ones. The filters are fun and in some cases can add a certain flair to your images. It happens all the time in the studio when some extra processing takes place on a photo.

There are some really impressive images on Instagram. I treat Instagram as a creative exercise in photography. If I see something, I shoot it. My iPhone just might be the most handy camera I have. My Instagram feed (adriangalli), mostly I try to take more "artistic" shots; landscapes, architecture, etc.

I think a lot of people misinterpret "debasing" as it is easier to share. Are pictures worse or better than in 1965? No, but we certainly have an easier time finding the bad ones because of Flickr, Instagram, etc. I think one would be hard pressed to find statistics to show that more bad photos are taken now than good photos vs. that of the same comparison from 40 years ago.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Jul 23, 2012)

Bevan is right. Take all the c**p away. Just take a meaningful picture.

0 upvotes
thirteenguy
By thirteenguy (Jul 23, 2012)

photography is not an art until applied with vision and craft.
it's a tool of documentation in the very first place.

god get over your snobby egos and elitisms.

2 upvotes
johnstonwade
By johnstonwade (Jul 22, 2012)

So, let's say I just dropped a couple grand on a new Olympus OMD EM-5, and a really nice lens. Let's say the 45mm f1.8. I go out to shoot, and put the camera in "Art Filter" mode and shoot a bunch of shots with something like the "Pin Hole" art filter. Is that any different than Instagram?

Let's say I don't use the art filters and instead shoot everything straight, but when I get home, I import the images to Photoshop. In Photoshop, I desaturate the color, create a layer, make a vignette effect, set the blend mode to multiply, add some fake film grain, create a new layer and add a fake border. Is the end result really that much different than Instagram or Hipstamatic, TIV PS, or Camera Bag, or Snapseed or...?

2 upvotes
facedodge
By facedodge (Jul 23, 2012)

Yes

0 upvotes
washyshots
By washyshots (Jul 22, 2012)

I took the time to reply to the author of the article because I feel that the answer as to why faux film effects have found their way into digital photography can be found in the writing of Marshall Mcluhen who, to paraphrase, said that that we march forwards as if looking in a rear view mirror, attaching ourselves to the objects of the past [in this case faux film effects]. In essence, photography has its own visual language and aesthetic; a language that has been established, and has existed for an awful long time. At the moment photography has not made a paradigm shift towards a new aesthetic [has, or will HDR change photography?] . Let's face it, even digital cameras could be described as 'faux' copies of 'real' film cameras.

Also, E.H. Gombrich, in his brilliant book: Art and Illusion, describes similar issues with the art of drawing and painting (since cave art) — the argument is not at all unique to photography!

It seems that style is style and it's all personal preference.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (Jul 22, 2012)

This one seems to be a popular post. I guess it hit a nerve with a lot of people.

I read the article and decided to play with my cell phone camera this weekend with these "filter" cameras. Had loads of fun doing it.

If you think about it, the small, slow ISO sensors, and some of them don't have flash, no aperture control, difficult to do exposure compensation, so what do you play with to have fun? Filters?

Call me weird, but I like using less than optimal equipment, not only because I can't afford expensive this and that, but I find I like the challenge, it forces me to think through the limitations of the equipment I'm using and then I end up figuring out new approaches to things. It forces me out of my comfort zone.

1 upvote
victorenglund
By victorenglund (Jul 22, 2012)

Analyse this article side by side with the one on Hipstamatic and Ben Lowy. He got published in the NY Times with his Hipstamatic images. I feel software like instagram and hipstamatic affect the world of professional photography in a very real way!

1 upvote
Burbclaver
By Burbclaver (Jul 21, 2012)

I guess first you have to define what "real photography" is. I remember when David Hockney went off on Digital photography saying the art of photography is dead. I don't see much difference between Instagram and someone slapping an Antique filter on a DSLR shot in Lightroom.

What is there to "debase" exactly? Just do what you want and don't worry about it. David Hockney is now doing his art on an iPad and doesn't seem too worried that he might be debasing the art of painting.

0 upvotes
DSHAPK
By DSHAPK (Jul 21, 2012)

In reply to AzBLUE,I can create critically acclaimed photo using my Kodak brownie. However, using Ansel Adams as an example, there is a reason he didn't use a Kodak brownie.

0 upvotes
noirdude
By noirdude (Jul 21, 2012)

you wouldn't even bother to write this article if you own Facebook..

0 upvotes
Valen305
By Valen305 (Jul 21, 2012)

I think instagram is so popular with the masses because it gives their ordinary photos a "flavor", much like film stock. Would Steve McCurry's photos be as arresting if shot in digital without processing? Instagram is just a novelty, and as such, it can't debase professional photography. A discerning photographer will treat filters like seasoning - a ton of spice won't fix an overcooked steak, but if cooked just right to begin with, the seasoning can definitely elevate it.

5 upvotes
gnarlydog
By gnarlydog (Jul 23, 2012)

MSG flavor enhancer anybody?

1 upvote
AZBlue
By AZBlue (Jul 21, 2012)

While I am tired of seeing all of these faux "retro" photos all over the place, why is it wrong to give more people the freedom to shoot and stylize their photos? It is the end result that counts, not necessarily the tools used to create it. Someone can create an artistic, critically acclaimed photo using an iPhone and Instagram as much as the person using $10,000 in photographic gear. This article just sounds like sour grapes from someone who would rather keep "photography" confined to those with deep pockets. Shame.

4 upvotes
paul1631
By paul1631 (Jul 21, 2012)

'Random' is not 'Creative'

http://www.paulcolwell.com/blog/index.html#8

1 upvote
needarealname
By needarealname (Jul 21, 2012)

I read your blog entry on this subject. Although the way that the effect is produced may be considered random, the process of choosing to keep it is not random. In other words if a person were to take a photo and run it through one of these automatic filters three different ways and then pick the one they liked best, it would no longer be random. It would be the photographer (yes I said photographer) choosing based on personal preferences. This is not random. Therefore, if a photographer runs it through the app once and likes what he sees and then keeps it without trying any other settings then that too is not random. So although the program may base it's decision randomly, the photographer makes a definite choice based on certain preferences and thus it is creativity and not randomness.

Just my humble opinion

2 upvotes
perspic
By perspic (Jul 21, 2012)

more toys there are to shoot, more people will start shooting, and more people have fun. that is not photography, that's just fun. Photography as an art will survive anyhow. more fake stuff there is, more demand there will be for genuine stuff - more valuable real photography can become.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
CeleryBeats
By CeleryBeats (Jul 21, 2012)

Guys. It's ok.

Let people have fun with it. Its not because someone uses instagram it becomes a good photographer.

U take a photo of your friend drunk in a bar and you make it look cooler with a filter. Still just a photo of your friend n a bar.

You take an amazing landscape photo and you change the look with a filter. Still an amazing landscape photo.

Let people have fun. Some of the people act treatened by some plague.

If you care about someone getting more likes on facebook for a dog photo with instagram then your amazing photo with your high end dslr. then you simply lack confidence in your own work and/or talent.

If you are good. you get payed, or your photo comes in an art galery. Who cares about likes of your friends grandmother or a friends friends sister on facebook really...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
thatgirlwithanopinion
By thatgirlwithanopinion (Jul 21, 2012)

Personally, I like Instagram but I can totally see where you're coming from. I guess it just depends on how you look at the situation..

2 upvotes
drezzd
By drezzd (Jul 21, 2012)

(cont. 3) Using art filter effects does not inherently make a photo uncreative. As I stated in the beginning, I don't have any particular love for Instagram, but I concede I have seen some shots that were made arguably more intriguing as a result of such phototrickery. The idea that photography is an art solely for the learned enthusiast went up in smoke when each frame stopped costing 22 cents. That being said, of course most people who aren't as into photography as people on DPReview would gravitate to special effects that give their photos more pizazz without necessarily needing to know how it's accomplished. And if that can encourage "non-photographers" to take more photos, it can only be a good thing.

Comment edited 15 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
maboule123
By maboule123 (Jul 22, 2012)

Brilliant exposition, bro.
I couldn't agree more with you.
I wish Instagram were also available as apps to regular p&s cameras as a friendly option to edit our images instead of buying overpriced editing programs that are a fitted for the graphic industry but hard to master for a computer ignorant dinosaurs like yours truly. Ask me how I like my coffee? Black, percolated, strong and sweet. Then again, it doesn't impede me to have a latte, mocha or any other devil made combination, which I find are also creative ways to make a cup of coffee.

0 upvotes
drezzd
By drezzd (Jul 21, 2012)

(cont.) Complaining that Instagram gives photos a faux aged look is like complaining that someone used Gimp to bring out more color in a lake than is really there, or that someone tweaked the curves to bring out the color in a classic car. That is the art of photography. The fact that people use the same effect via Instagram does not automatically make all their pictures look the same. Yes, I agree that the faux vintage look is one of the most overused effects in photography; I also think Justin Bieber is one of the most overrated artists in history. You know what I do? Change the station when he comes on. If you don't like Instagram, don't use it. No doubt for just about anyone on this forum, including myself proper editing software is far superior to things like Instagram, but not everyone is all about taking award winning photos all the time - even I sometimes play around with art filters on cameras that have them just for fun. (to be cont.)

1 upvote
DigitalWalnut
By DigitalWalnut (Jul 21, 2012)

Tools that have placed photography in the hands of the layman are decades old, and broadening the base of those participating in photography shouldn't appear threatening to anyone who seeks to practice photography as an art. If anything, it's further motivation to hone your craft and create a distinction between yourself and those who are just picking up their first camera.

0 upvotes
drezzd
By drezzd (Jul 21, 2012)

I certainly have no love for Instagram, but to view it as debasing real photography is to be something of a photography elitist. Allow me to elaborate.

As the author stated, nowadays "you can create extraordinary images using software." Absolutely true - you can use Photoshop or Gimp to tweak just about any aspect of a digital photograph from cropping and adjusting curves to faking a reflection. Where I must disagree is where she downplays the importance of "the technical skills of exposure and the artistic skill of composition." Software like Photoshop are designed to enhance good photos, not take the place of photographic skill. Whether you go heavy on art filters and/or post-processing or primarily stick with straight-out-of-the-camera photos, there is no substitute for a good eye. Even when it comes to Instagram, there are good pictures and bad pictures. What makes it or breaks it is the composition. (to be cont.)

2 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (Jul 21, 2012)

It's like effects boxes and electric guitar. Fine in the right hands, but not to be substituted for sound fundamentals and a little taste and artistry.

0 upvotes
aristyo47
By aristyo47 (Jul 21, 2012)

Yeah, it is just like placing a duct tape to a photo

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
TacticDesigns
By TacticDesigns (Jul 21, 2012)

LOL. But then again. Some could do that, stick it in a gallery and call it Art (with a big "A").

EDIT: In my personal opinion, nothing wrong with that either. [grin]

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
needarealname
By needarealname (Jul 21, 2012)

The author says that pictures have a history and a story. She talks about capturing a moment in time. She talks about the dangers of adding a fake longevity. She then says that it's wonderful that now a person can edit out the "ex" from the family get together. That is a little inconsistent. After complaining abut these simple editing tools she states that "good photography is editing.

In conclusion, it seems that the author thinks that editing is wrong when it changes the story and that the great thing about digital is that we can change the story. Sorry Kate, you can't have it both ways.

1 upvote
Boldi
By Boldi (Jul 21, 2012)

Instagram sucks! :-)

4 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jul 20, 2012)

I wish Instagram came up with only one filter - a black filter, which makes pictures completely black. That would make all those phone pictures look a lot better.

8 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Jul 21, 2012)

Lol, yes indeed!

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jul 20, 2012)

I wouldn't say it's destroying Photography, the latter requires good taste. Instagram is not for creative people, it's for masses of people with cameras who can't distinguish a dung from a Turkish Delight. Uglification is easy and for many people it's a synonym for creativity, but it's most definitely not.

7 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Jul 21, 2012)

Sad but very true!

0 upvotes
Bryan Costin
By Bryan Costin (Jul 23, 2012)

When I photograph B&W landscapes I sometimes use a set of decamired color filters to emphasize clouds, or a cross-polarizer to enhance contrast. For portraits I may prefer a soft-rendering lens with touch of spherical aberration to add character to the background. Occasionally I'll cross-process my E6 in C41, or use tungsten-balanced film outside in order to exaggerate certain tonal qualities in my subject. I may stand-develop my Tri-X in Rodinal to enhance local contrast, or Diafine to push the effective ISO.

But, obviously, like Instagram, none of these tricks could possibly be considered the tools of a creative person. Thanks for your insight.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Esmee Farquhar
By Esmee Farquhar (Jul 20, 2012)

Is the National Enquirer 'debasing journalism' ?

If yes, we read other publications, no?

To each their own.

1 upvote
BoostedBB6
By BoostedBB6 (Jul 20, 2012)

Could it not be said any alteration to a photo (regardless of the effect) is altering the story told by the photograph?

What I find with "photographers" these days is there is no time taken to compose a good shot or think about the shot they want...just hold the shutter and hope you get something you can PS till it looks good.....film is a great way to learn to shoot. This is where I started and it truly gives you a much better appreciation for photography and catching that amazing shot the first time.

To each there own, but I love the fact that there are more people taking more pictures...history captured in a picture IMO. Love it!

1 upvote
techmine
By techmine (Jul 21, 2012)

Well said.people call Photoshop tricks as darkroom developing for digital world. And for Instagram - stupid? Double standards.

1 upvote
CheeseFrog
By CheeseFrog (Jul 20, 2012)

I only use Instagram filters after I've applied selective coloring, tilt-shift effect, thick black border, and huge watermark.

2 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Jul 20, 2012)

mobile applications such as Instagram are Bullshi *

yes!!!

6 upvotes
jdrx2012
By jdrx2012 (Jul 20, 2012)

After consuming many of the messages here I can take comfort in the fact that the detractors of Instagram and all things that are claimed to "debase real photography" comprise only a small segment of the imaging taking forum participants who weighed in on the matter.

Kudos to Dan Wagner who posed a pretty good case for continuance of old school photography. If you haven't seen his work you should go to link he provides, good stuff. Dan is a real photographer for sure; others are evolving their craft, or lack thereof, by adding layers of effects on their image captures.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jul 20, 2012)

Sure, a million flies can't be wrong :-)

3 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (Jul 20, 2012)

More like a million sheep

2 upvotes
MikeNYC
By MikeNYC (Jul 20, 2012)

I think we can all agree that blindly adding vintage (or other effects) to every pictures does not necessarily make for amazing photography. Perhaps Instagram is to blame for popularizing these effects (which were always available to pros). It is not 'debasing real photography' , it is just another technique, which can be used masterfully.
I am not a big fan of Instragram, but I do use Hipstermatic. It is fun, I can get the look of my old Yashica or Smena rangefinders without having to buy film. It often masks the digital noise of Iphone camera. In fact, since the effects cannot be removed, it is almost film like experience.

0 upvotes
Jdspar
By Jdspar (Jul 20, 2012)

There seems to be a disconnect with what Kate says she does vs. what she dislikes about these apps. She admits to utilizing the tools within Lightroom to get the " effect" and manipulate the image to her taste. Ok I buy that because evry artist has their own view of the world. That being said the option to throw a filter on an iPhone snapshot is an option not a requirement. It is ok to let folks express their world however they like regardless of the medium (my personal fav is Jerry Uelsmann). So lighten up Kate, snap some pics and play a little.

2 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm guessing Kate doesn't like converting digital photos to b/w either? Because that would be faux b/w...

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jul 20, 2012)

And she would have been right, because 99.9(9)% of user pictures posted on DPR which were converted to B/W look worse than the originals, and the only reasons people doing that 1) lack of taste; 2) herd mentality

3 upvotes
needarealname
By needarealname (Jul 21, 2012)

LOL! faux b/w. that says it all.

0 upvotes
moimoi
By moimoi (Jul 20, 2012)

The blue-yellowish cast...frack not for me...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Jul 20, 2012)

Who's to say a certain look or style to photography(or art) is detrimental or wrong? Apperantly Kate..

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jul 20, 2012)

How about art galleries, they are exactly in a business of separating good pictures from dung ... so despite of different tastes people might have, it's not completely arbitrary.

2 upvotes
StevenE
By StevenE (Jul 20, 2012)

The instagram look never appealed to me, even the first time I saw one.
The only "analysis" of Instagram relevant to me is that the result is ugly.

4 upvotes
Jungle Jim
By Jungle Jim (Jul 20, 2012)

What I see is the same thing that happened with the font mess people made when the Mac first came out.

People using fonts because they could.

Eventually people with some discrimination will mostly quit and you will be able to detect those with no style or photographic vision.

No big deal.

Jim

4 upvotes
Dennishh
By Dennishh (Jul 20, 2012)

I seem to remember her name, wasn't she the one that wrote about Van Gogh and how how he was ruining the abstract art market by using the same technique over and over again? Some people have nothing else to do!

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Jul 20, 2012)

ah come on son!

we add a history to a photo that it doest have by putting filters on it ?

seriously?

i mean i dont use instagram, but as soon as iam switching to bw on my camera i do the same, or at lest one could say iam doing it to fake a history.

also that its anti kreative ... i dont know, who is he to judge others creativity at first. and secondly if i add something i like to a product that otherwise would be unaltered, how should that be uncreative? compared to leaving it as it is!

i think that a lot of photographers hate it when other people look at their photos and say stuff like "yeah nice" without seeing what mkes the photo awesome, in the eyes of the photographer that took it.

and in the next second someone takes a photo with a cellphone puts an instagram filter on it and all the chicks in the room are like "wow thats cool which app is that"

and suddently no one cares anymore who has the biggest camera and the biggest sensor hehe

2 upvotes
needarealname
By needarealname (Jul 21, 2012)

I think you stated it quite well with that last sentence.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 291
1234