Petteri's Composition Class 1: The Rule of Thirds

Tony Reynolds · Jan 6, 2003

Too bad that with all of the options in the D7i, the grid focus/composition screen is broken up into 24 segments, instead of thirds, 6 squares wide by 4 squares high...

My "other" camera, a Fuji 4700z has this feature.

Tony

Petteri Sulonen said:
I'm starting these composition classes with my fallback rule, that
old classic: the Rule of Thirds. I use it if I can't see any other
obvious way of composing a picture, or often in combination with
one of the other "rules".

"When in doubt, use the Rule of Thirds," I say.

The Rule of Thirds is very simple in principle: you mentally divide
the area of the picture into thirds, with two vertical and two
horizontal lines, and compose your picture around the nine areas
and four intersections.

The simplest variant is to put your subject near one of the four
intersections. Like this:

However, this isn't all. For example, the RoT gives a good rule of
thumb for where to put the horizon on a landscape. For example:

Of course, the horizon could just as well have been on the top
line; this time, though, I thought the sky was more interesting
than the water, so I put it where it is.

Yet another idea is to compose the picture around the regions
delimited by the lines, not by the lines or the intersections:

I find that often just thinking about the picture in terms of the
rule of thirds improves things. It can also be used very
effectively in combination with other "rules," and sometimes
consciously breaking it leads to very interesting pictures too.
However, if no obvious way of composing the picture suggests
itself, the Rule of Thirds is usually a good way to go -- and
almost always better than the non-composition of just putting the
subject splat in the middle of the picture.

Finally, here's the assignment:

1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in
some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other
way.

2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and
not some other way.

3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and
not some other compositional idea.

Have fun,

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

John James129925 · Jan 6, 2003

Here is my entry...

In this photo, I placed the cactus in the left third.. and tried to put most of the landscape in the lower third. Not sure about the shrub though. In hindsight, I should have found a way to get rid of it. I liked the results though, as it really made the photo more interesting. This photo was taken from the window of my truck out in the desert.

Thanks for doing this lesson Petteri!

http://www.pbase.com/desertpir8

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

John James said:
Here is my entry...

In this photo, I placed the cactus in the left third.. and tried to
put most of the landscape in the lower third. Not sure about the
shrub though. In hindsight, I should have found a way to get rid
of it. I liked the results though, as it really made the photo
more interesting. This photo was taken from the window of my truck
out in the desert.

[snip]

Another really nice picture. Landscapes in full daylight rarely work out, but if the air is as glass-clear as it is here, the results can be lovely. Spot-on exposure, too, and very good placement of the primary subject (illustrates the RoT well, too).

As to the shrub, I can tell you weren't sure about it. Not being sure rarely works: either include it or exclude it, but it's rarely a good idea to leave it hanging around the edge (unless you're using it as a framing element, which you aren't here). This said, the picture does call for a secondary subject; the shrub might have fulfilled this role if it had been placed differently.

When I'm looking at the picture, though, I find myself as if looking through a window and trying to peek around the edge to the right: that's where the distance goes, and that's where the composition directs the eye. The fence posts lead the eye that way, too.

Another way of shooting this would be to step a bit to the left, kneel down to get closer to the ground and enhance the sense of distance with foreground small detail, and keep the cactus at the same position in the frame but include the far distance at the right third of the frame. I think the picture would also have been better with a more assertive positioning of the horizon, either further up or further down; as it is, it's too close to the waistline of the picture without being quite on it; it gives the impression that you couldn't quite decide whether you wanted it on the bottom horizontal divider or the vertical middle.

An excellent picture, though, and a beautiful scene.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Ferenc MOGOR · Jan 6, 2003

Hi Petteri,

While walking around this small lake, suddenly I found this broken section of a tree laying just in front of me and in a digital world of course I made a dozen different shots. Probably this one could/ may (or may not) fit into RoT. I tried to concentrate of the wood itself that was a bit hanging over the lake, while tried to avoid too much sky, finally the other side of the lake may fulfil the rule being an "upper third horizon", yet leaving the eye of the watcher still to concentrate on the broken wood as it is placed in its beautiful surroundings. Moreover, even wanted to show a bit of the tree on the rightside (not seen on the photo) by taking just a few hanging branches and leaves as an ornament to the pic.

Do I qualify for RoT?

--
Cheers, Feri

http://www.pbase.com/mogorf

Amando Hernández · Jan 6, 2003

Thanks for your time and effort. If you could compile this and the forthcoming posts on a web page, the material would be widely available.

--
Amando Hernández
Imagenlibre
http://www.imagenlibre.com

David AA · Jan 6, 2003

This is a view I have from my garden and, of course, the appearance changes over ther months. The Farm buildings are actually about 400 yds away. Since I've had my 7i I've taken several pictures including the foreground field and rather more of the trees to the right of the farmhouse.

I found it difficult to decide what was the "main object".

In this picture I was hoping to more clearly define what the main object was by positioning it (the farmhouse) on the lower right third intersection and to zoom in to avoid distractions. I see what you mean about including a person in the scene. I'll try that when the opportunity arises.

This is a picture I took as the sun rose with the buildings on the middle left third but I was concerned about the amount of field in view and possibly too much of the trees to the right.

Nevertheless, on a personal level I do like this one.

Your comparative comments would be appreciated.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble.
David AA

Petteri Sulonen said:
[snip]

Could you elaborate a bit more about what you were thinking when
you took the picture, or what you like about it, or what you don't
like? Also, how did you try to apply the RoT?

It's a nice picture, with a peaceful atmosphere and good light;
it's also not too cluttered. To improve it, I would've either
zoomed out to get it more of the context, and gotten more
compositional options, or zoomed in on a detail for the same. A
foreground secondary subject (a person, maybe?) would have made the
picture more interesting too. The field in front of the hedge looks
like it might have some pattern or texture that would give a sense
of distance and scale: it might've been a good idea to just include
that, if there was no clearer subject there.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

David AA wrote:
[snip]

David AA said:
This is a picture I took as the sun rose with the buildings on the
middle left third but I was concerned about the amount of field in
view and possibly too much of the trees to the right.

Nevertheless, on a personal level I do like this one.

Your comparative comments would be appreciated.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble.

I like this one much better than the first one. The field adds a lot to the picture: context, and a sense of distance. Here the eye is drawn towards the distance in the left. I would've panned a bit that way, putting the farmhouse and the trees just next to towards the right, and allowed the eye to be carried towards the horizon.

A foreground subject wouldn't have hurt, but even without it, this is a much stronger composition than the first one, IMO.

Petteri (calling it a day... be back tomorrow evening, Europe time!)
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Keith Mc · Jan 6, 2003

Petteri Sulonen said:
Nice pictures, btw, and good illustrations of the RoT.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Thanks and I appreciate the comments. Rank amateur with the desire to learn.

--
Everyone has a photographic memory, I just have seem to misplaced my pictures.
http://www.pbase.com/keithmc

*isteve · Jan 6, 2003

Searching through the archives I came across these shots taken in Sicily last year. Added some fake noise and sepia to one to give it a nice 1890's feeling.

Works for me anyway. I try and use ROT whenever the situation presents itself - in the case of the second shot, placing the verticals was a little diffiicult so I shot three samples and this one worked best.

Generally I thinks a bit of leeway is OK - if the thirds lines are a little closer together it works OK too.

Steve

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album49&id=GreekTheatre1SepiaVGA&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album49&id=Steps2VGA&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

Jack D. · Jan 6, 2003

Petteri Sulonen said:
I'm starting these composition classes with my fallback rule, that
old classic: the Rule of Thirds. I use it if I can't see any other
obvious way of composing a picture, or often in combination with
one of the other "rules".

"When in doubt, use the Rule of Thirds," I say.

The Rule of Thirds is very simple in principle: you mentally divide
the area of the picture into thirds, with two vertical and two
horizontal lines, and compose your picture around the nine areas
and four intersections.

The simplest variant is to put your subject near one of the four
intersections. Like this:

However, this isn't all. For example, the RoT gives a good rule of
thumb for where to put the horizon on a landscape. For example:

Of course, the horizon could just as well have been on the top
line; this time, though, I thought the sky was more interesting
than the water, so I put it where it is.

Yet another idea is to compose the picture around the regions
delimited by the lines, not by the lines or the intersections:

I find that often just thinking about the picture in terms of the
rule of thirds improves things. It can also be used very
effectively in combination with other "rules," and sometimes
consciously breaking it leads to very interesting pictures too.
However, if no obvious way of composing the picture suggests
itself, the Rule of Thirds is usually a good way to go -- and
almost always better than the non-composition of just putting the
subject splat in the middle of the picture.

Finally, here's the assignment:

1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in
some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other
way.

2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and
not some other way.

3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and
not some other compositional idea.

Have fun,

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

hi all:

here are 2 of my pics:

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album10&id=PICT2204&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album10&id=Staten_Island_NY_12&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

let's start from second one. it was made last summer. i had no idea about rot rule. so this kind of pictures were made with some of "jungle rules". in this particular case i was on the beach down the promenade watching the ocean. when i turned back, i saw very interesting composition on promenade above. my friends stopped for the moment watching me. they looked great in sunset. it was only moment to make decision (read: to make picture). and i did it. best i could. now, looking for this picture from another perspective i think that in this situation (time was a main factor) i made interesting picture. there was not too many options: i've had profiles of both plus profiles of trees, promenade and nice looking sky. and no time. there were many trees along the promenade, so my decision was only one: to place my friends between trees. and it was my basic idea at the moment.
now i'm ready for master's comment.

the first one: made a few days ago after day of very unstable weather. all trees, branches, leafs and needles were covered by ice. it was my idea to show needles in ice on a close plan and the trees on the left on far plan. now reading all these things about rot rule i think, that i should move a little to the right trying to shorten perspective and eliminate a part of second tree (on the left). of course i can do this using my friend photoshop but due to rot i should think about it before making shot.
comments please.

regards
jack

José B · Jan 6, 2003

This should be a slam-dunk rule of thirds. I shot this when we were in the Taronga Zoo during the Sydney Olympics. I want to capture my wife with the Opera House and the Darling Harbour bridge in the background.

Jack D. said:
Petteri Sulonen said:

I'm starting these composition classes with my fallback rule, that
old classic: the Rule of Thirds. I use it if I can't see any other
obvious way of composing a picture, or often in combination with
one of the other "rules".

"When in doubt, use the Rule of Thirds," I say.

The Rule of Thirds is very simple in principle: you mentally divide
the area of the picture into thirds, with two vertical and two
horizontal lines, and compose your picture around the nine areas
and four intersections.

The simplest variant is to put your subject near one of the four
intersections. Like this:

However, this isn't all. For example, the RoT gives a good rule of
thumb for where to put the horizon on a landscape. For example:

Of course, the horizon could just as well have been on the top
line; this time, though, I thought the sky was more interesting
than the water, so I put it where it is.

Yet another idea is to compose the picture around the regions
delimited by the lines, not by the lines or the intersections:

I find that often just thinking about the picture in terms of the
rule of thirds improves things. It can also be used very
effectively in combination with other "rules," and sometimes
consciously breaking it leads to very interesting pictures too.
However, if no obvious way of composing the picture suggests
itself, the Rule of Thirds is usually a good way to go -- and
almost always better than the non-composition of just putting the
subject splat in the middle of the picture.

Finally, here's the assignment:

1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in
some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other
way.

2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and
not some other way.

3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and
not some other compositional idea.

Have fun,

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Click to expand...

hi all:

here are 2 of my pics:

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album10&id=PICT2204&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album10&id=Staten_Island_NY_12&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

let's start from second one. it was made last summer. i had no idea
about rot rule. so this kind of pictures were made with some of
"jungle rules". in this particular case i was on the beach down the
promenade watching the ocean. when i turned back, i saw very
interesting composition on promenade above. my friends stopped for
the moment watching me. they looked great in sunset. it was only
moment to make decision (read: to make picture). and i did it. best
i could. now, looking for this picture from another perspective i
think that in this situation (time was a main factor) i made
interesting picture. there was not too many options: i've had
profiles of both plus profiles of trees, promenade and nice looking
sky. and no time. there were many trees along the promenade, so my
decision was only one: to place my friends between trees. and it
was my basic idea at the moment.
now i'm ready for master's comment.

the first one: made a few days ago after day of very unstable
weather. all trees, branches, leafs and needles were covered by
ice. it was my idea to show needles in ice on a close plan and the
trees on the left on far plan. now reading all these things about
rot rule i think, that i should move a little to the right trying
to shorten perspective and eliminate a part of second tree (on the
left). of course i can do this using my friend photoshop but due to
rot i should think about it before making shot.
comments please.

regards
jack

RYong · Jan 6, 2003

Thanks Petter for starting this thread on composition.

I took this shot last night,
http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=590249
--
My gallery http://www.pbase.com/aosis

Blake · Jan 6, 2003

Great thread, Petteri! All your comments have been so insightful. I'm really learning!

I'm going to go against the grain and present a photo that was taken with my Maxxum 5 and scanned with a Dual Scan III. I think this qualifies it for the Minolta forum

I shot this barn while cross county skiing through a local park. It's become one of my favorites. There was a nice low and warm sun coming from the left. This is one of the advantages of winter photography. You get nice directional light all day long.

I confess that I had originally shot this photo from too wide a focal length or from too far away. This crop is the one that works the best for me.

The trees frame the barn. The inner edges of this frame fall on the verical rule of thirds lines.

The intersection of the snow with the barn marks the lower horizontal rule of thirds line. Below this line, I wanted to show the slope of the land and the patterns of shadow on the snow. This line, being slightly diagonal, makes the photo more dynamic IMHO.

The top of the pine trees in the background come close to lining up with the upper rule of thirds line, although maybe I'm reaching a little here. Regardless, I wanted there to be plenty of blue sky that I enhanced with a circular polarizer.

The original negative shows more of the right side trees, but that caused the silo to be dead center which caused obvious compositional problems. The original negative also showed a little more space to the left of the barn, but I cropped that side as well to hide the ugly white house that is now just barely visible.

Thanks in advance for your comments, Petteri.

--Blake

Jeremy Rosenberger · Jan 6, 2003

Here's my attempt at applying the Rule of Thirds.

Here the "horizon" formed by the row of lights roughly follows the imaginary line dividing the middle third from the bottom third. As an added bonus, for a good deal of the photo's width, the mountain silhouette follows the line between the top and middle third. While I consciously placed the lights along the 2/3 line, the placement of the mountains along the 1/3 line pretty much resulted from my intent to include some sky in the photo.

Why the Rule of Thirds for this photo? Landscape shots pretty much lend themselves to the Rule. Besides that, the Rule of Thirds is the only compositional rule we've learned thus far.

Incidentally, I arrived too late to take the photo I wanted, which would have had a brighter sky. I find the contrast of the mountains with the still-bright sky just after sunset rather striking, and that's the effect I was hoping to capture. (I should have left work a bit earlier.

One of these times I'll kick myself out of the office early enough to capture the shot properly...

--

Jeremy L. Rosenberger
http://www.frii.com/~jeremy/

jscher2000 · Jan 6, 2003

Film pictures okay?

Petteri Sulonen said:
Finally, here's the assignment:

1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in
some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other
way.

http://www.pbase.com/image/10382278/original

Petteri Sulonen said:
2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and
not some other way.

Subconscious? For me, the sizzle in beach sunset photography is the hot-looking golden reflection on the sand. As the greater part of the photo should be the sky, and the sky was less obstructed over the ocean, the photo thus composed itself.

Petteri Sulonen said:
3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and
not some other compositional idea.

Dumb luck. ;-)

David Turner135556 · Jan 7, 2003

Hi Petteri,

Petteri Sulonen said:
Finally, here's the assignment:

1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in
some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other
way.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1216448

Petteri Sulonen said:
2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and
not some other way.

Using RoT seemed to create a balance in conjunction with diagonal lines

Petteri Sulonen said:
3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and
not some other compositional idea.

Could not get out the window to use the window as framing for composition ;-)

Looking forward to learning more

Regards
David T

ruan qingwei · Jan 7, 2003

Any comments on this :
http://www.worldisround.com/articles/6679/photo28.html
Thanks

Petteri Sulonen said:
I'm starting these composition classes with my fallback rule, that
old classic: the Rule of Thirds. I use it if I can't see any other
obvious way of composing a picture, or often in combination with
one of the other "rules".

"When in doubt, use the Rule of Thirds," I say.

The Rule of Thirds is very simple in principle: you mentally divide
the area of the picture into thirds, with two vertical and two
horizontal lines, and compose your picture around the nine areas
and four intersections.

The simplest variant is to put your subject near one of the four
intersections. Like this:

However, this isn't all. For example, the RoT gives a good rule of
thumb for where to put the horizon on a landscape. For example:

Of course, the horizon could just as well have been on the top
line; this time, though, I thought the sky was more interesting
than the water, so I put it where it is.

Yet another idea is to compose the picture around the regions
delimited by the lines, not by the lines or the intersections:

I find that often just thinking about the picture in terms of the
rule of thirds improves things. It can also be used very
effectively in combination with other "rules," and sometimes
consciously breaking it leads to very interesting pictures too.
However, if no obvious way of composing the picture suggests
itself, the Rule of Thirds is usually a good way to go -- and
almost always better than the non-composition of just putting the
subject splat in the middle of the picture.

Finally, here's the assignment:

1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in
some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other
way.

2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and
not some other way.

3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and
not some other compositional idea.

Have fun,

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

--
raymond ruan

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 7, 2003

steve jacob wrote:
[snip]

Both pictures are excellent as pictures and good examples of the RoT. They're also examples of beautiful scenes that are surprisingly difficult to photograph well: I'm pretty sure that 99% of the people photographing these scenes would walk away with pretty mundane pics. Take note, class. ;-)

*isteve said:
http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album49&id=GreekTheatre1SepiaVGA&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

This is an absolutely lovely picture. It was a courageous choice to include that much of the "boring" brick wall, and it paid off. Another courageous choice was the asymmetric composition. This one is also a schoolbook example of an effective use of the framing element. The foreground brick walls focus attention on the main subject and enhance the feeling of distance... in time as well as space. Spot on!

*isteve said:
http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album49&id=Steps2VGA&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

This is compositionally very similar to the first picture: again, a 2:1 ratio between the left and right framing elements, except here the left element is also part of the subject. Same effective feel of distance, too. Another excellent composition.

Thanks for sharing these: they're almost too good examples of effective use of the RoT!

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 7, 2003

Jack D. wrote:
[snip]

Jack D. said:
here are 2 of my pics:

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album10&id=PICT2204&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album10&id=Staten_Island_NY_12&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

let's start from second one. it was made last summer. i had no idea
about rot rule. so this kind of pictures were made with some of
"jungle rules". in this particular case i was on the beach down the
promenade watching the ocean. when i turned back, i saw very
interesting composition on promenade above. my friends stopped for
the moment watching me. they looked great in sunset. it was only
moment to make decision (read: to make picture). and i did it. best
i could. now, looking for this picture from another perspective i
think that in this situation (time was a main factor) i made
interesting picture. there was not too many options: i've had
profiles of both plus profiles of trees, promenade and nice looking
sky. and no time. there were many trees along the promenade, so my
decision was only one: to place my friends between trees. and it
was my basic idea at the moment.
now i'm ready for master's comment.

It's a very nice picture: great atmosphere, light, and color tones. You've also placed the horizon well. However, the central placement of the main subject makes it look a bit static.

Here's an alternative crop of the scene (based on the RoT). What do you think? Does it work better or not? Why or why not?

Jack D. said:
the first one: made a few days ago after day of very unstable
weather. all trees, branches, leafs and needles were covered by
ice. it was my idea to show needles in ice on a close plan and the
trees on the left on far plan. now reading all these things about
rot rule i think, that i should move a little to the right trying
to shorten perspective and eliminate a part of second tree (on the
left). of course i can do this using my friend photoshop but due to
rot i should think about it before making shot.
comments please.

I agree: this second shot looks a little bit "off". The foreground subject is positioned in such a way that it looks like a framing element, and the eye tends to "fall off" it and wander off into the distance near the middle of the picture, without finding anything to fasten on. Another problem is the high contrast on the scene, and the fact that you've exposed for the higlights: again, the eye is drawn to the lighter area. Doing as you yourself suggest would have improved the picture a good deal, but finding a darker background with less contrast would've improved things even further.

It's a good attempt, though... and if it had a focus of interest near the top right intersection point, it would be a very good picture, although not the one you're describing -- the branch and tree would be framing elements, and whatever was at the intersection point would be the main subject.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 7, 2003

Ferenc MOGOR said:
Hi Petteri,

While walking around this small lake, suddenly I found this broken
section of a tree laying just in front of me and in a digital world
of course I made a dozen different shots. Probably this one could/
may (or may not) fit into RoT. I tried to concentrate of the wood
itself that was a bit hanging over the lake, while tried to avoid
too much sky, finally the other side of the lake may fulfil the
rule being an "upper third horizon", yet leaving the eye of the
watcher still to concentrate on the broken wood as it is placed in
its beautiful surroundings. Moreover, even wanted to show a bit of
the tree on the rightside (not seen on the photo) by taking just a
few hanging branches and leaves as an ornament to the pic.

Do I qualify for RoT?

Sure do. The horizon is placed "by the book" and it works very well on this one, because of the reflections on the water. (A friend of mine just commented yesterday about another picture, "Any picture with still water in it can't be all bad." ;-) )

The overhanging branches and the log are both on the right side of the picture throws it somewhat out of balance, though, leaving the left side a bit empty. IMO the pic would've worked better if they had been on opposite sides; the fact that one is up and the other is down would also have created a diagonal, which would've made for a more dynamic picture.

Nice one, though!

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Petteri's Composition Class 1: The Rule of Thirds

Senior Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Blake

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts