Reading mode: Light Dark

Hamnøy, Lofoten, classic vista almost crippled for photogs

Go to last post
B

brockmo

Well-known member
Messages
230
Reaction score
89
Sorry for this rather esoteric post, however since this has become one of those iconic photographic locations, I thought it may be of some interest here.

Few months ago my family and I took a drive & hike trip to the Lofoten islands, Norway. Along the way I wanted to stop at the famous photography spot from a bridge overlooking the small fishing village of Hamnoy. Some/many of you may know this vantage point from pictures, if not in person.

f5ae80688b1c4c608bff9f54c73fc5d6.jpg

ae9ce82570cc44c89bdc62e9e2917e49.jpg

Here's the problem: the bridge from where this classic view can be captured now has a very tall barrier, reaching to mid/upper chest level. This is relatively new, I was told. The town administrators decided to heighten the existing barrier, and the locals with whom I spoke had no knowledge of any accidents or other explanation. This is what that bridge looks like now:



Notice spacing between bars. Also, the opposite barrier is like the old one.
Notice spacing between bars. Also, the opposite barrier is like the old one.

If you zoom in, you'll notice the very tight spacing between bars. I barely managed to fit my Nikkor 24-120 f4 for the above images. Could only pan vertically. Forget it if you have a larger diameter lens, or with hood or Lee type filter system. Also, now is almost impossible to use tripod and compose the scene unless you have a stepper or tall enough (I'm 5'10") to be above the fence. In any case, it does change the perspective.

Of course, one can still obtain the shot, as I managed to do, but with severe limitations. And to think, photographs taken from that vantage have done so much for local tourism.
 
This reminds me of the decision the town in Iceland made at Kirkjufell. Everyone wants to photograph the falls and mountain so they installed a parking lot- right in frame. If they had put it 200m further down the road it would be over a hill and you wouldn't have a parking lot in the shot.
 
Thanks for sharing the information. Did you drive all the way from the south to Lofoten? I am very much interested in visiting it as well as the southern part of Norway. I wonder if it's realistic to see the southern part as well as Lofoten in one car-trip in about 10 to 15 days.
 
ssww said:
Thanks for sharing the information. Did you drive all the way from the south to Lofoten? I am very much interested in visiting it as well as the southern part of Norway. I wonder if it's realistic to see the southern part as well as Lofoten in one car-trip in about 10 to 15 days.
Click to expand...
We flew to Oslo, then interior flights to Leknes where I had prearranged a rental. If you view a map of the region, Leknes is centrally located. Not much to see in Leknes proper. They have excellent main roads (E10), the smaller ones are either partially paved or dirt. You need GPS. The archipelago has a relatively large surface area and coastline, so it's easy to spend 5-7 days there. The southernmost town is called Å . One can hike from there in the wild.

You can drive from Oslo but may take 24hrs or more. I think a car ferry across the inlet is needed. Of course, if you want to stop along the way in the countryside plan for a few days more. Norway is very long but sparsely populated. We spent a wk in Lofoten then flew back and 2 days in Oslo. BTW, most museums are closed Mondays. Didn;t really go out of Oslo. Also, airport is some distance away.

I'll very likely return to Norway, but just to Svalbard.

It's an amazing region with great people. Plan well ahead booking rooms since they go quickly in season.
 
brockmo said:
brockmo said:
Any standard tripod can reach above it, sure, but it's an awkward position, especially for shorter people. Plus, the perspective changes. I just know that I was unable to find a comfortable position to frame at 24mm unless my fens went through the bars. The locals I spoke with said they get complaints all the time now, especially from photo workshop groups.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I understand and was only partly joking. Last Fall I found myself in a few situations where my normal size tripod was just not tall enough to give me the proper view, one I vividly recall was not due to a fence but do to a field that I wanted to shoot over and be out of the foreground and just couldn't make it happen.

Over the winter I had the misfortunate of my tripod deciding to go for a swim in near freezing ocean water off a cliff, even though it took awhile for it to drown rescuing it was not possible.

I replaced it with a Tall tripod model from RRS and have been enjoying a taller view ever since. There are some times when having a higher up prospective can be helpful and if not for that field in Italy I would not have realized it. With ballhead and camera it can go over 7 feet, I am 6 foot 4 so works well for me and my LCD screen tilts downward so can still frame over my head.

Anyway, Lofoten looks like a beautiful place! I am headed to Norway in a few weeks but will not be making it that far North. The landscapes there blow my mind though and hope I may be able to go someday ; Senja, Norway looks amazing as well.
 
brockmo said:
ssww said:
Thanks for sharing the information. Did you drive all the way from the south to Lofoten? I am very much interested in visiting it as well as the southern part of Norway. I wonder if it's realistic to see the southern part as well as Lofoten in one car-trip in about 10 to 15 days.
Click to expand...
We flew to Oslo, then interior flights to Leknes where I had prearranged a rental. If you view a map of the region, Leknes is centrally located. Not much to see in Leknes proper. They have excellent main roads (E10), the smaller ones are either partially paved or dirt. You need GPS. The archipelago has a relatively large surface area and coastline, so it's easy to spend 5-7 days there. The southernmost town is called Å . One can hike from there in the wild.

You can drive from Oslo but may take 24hrs or more. I think a car ferry across the inlet is needed. Of course, if you want to stop along the way in the countryside plan for a few days more. Norway is very long but sparsely populated. We spent a wk in Lofoten then flew back and 2 days in Oslo. BTW, most museums are closed Mondays. Didn;t really go out of Oslo. Also, airport is some distance away.

I'll very likely return to Norway, but just to Svalbard.

It's an amazing region with great people. Plan well ahead booking rooms since they go quickly in season.
Click to expand...
Appreciate your sharing the knowledge. Should be a big help in my own planning on visiting the region.

So many places to visit and so little time. :-)
 
Cloned said:
This reminds me of the decision the town in Iceland made at Kirkjufell. Everyone wants to photograph the falls and mountain so they installed a parking lot- right in frame. If they had put it 200m further down the road it would be over a hill and you wouldn't have a parking lot in the shot.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, and not to mention that every visitor now walks through your shot on their way to the waterfall. The local police now have to monitor the situation regularly as the car park barely has enough room for a few cars.
 
brockmo said:
... And to think, photographs taken from that vantage have done so much for local tourism.
Click to expand...
I have a couple of thoughts as I am a little conflicted. As a photography enthusiast I am inherently biased against anything that might impact my enjoyment of a spot and ability to capture the shot I want, and I don't disagree that photographers have contributed to the local economy in one way or another.

On the other hand, you can see that the fence was put up specifically to discourage people walking onto the bridge. Fence's like that are rarely cheap and to me it speaks to an underlying problem that the town is trying to solve; be it hordes of people with tripods trying to get the "must-have" photo blocking traffic and access to the town, or possibly someone actually got hit by a car and threatened to sue. My point here is that this was likely not a frivolous decision made on impulse and the town decided that they needed to discourage people (specifically photographers) from gathering on the bridge for any number of perfectly defensible reasons.

As a carry-on to the above and in response to the highlighted quote; having lived and worked for a number of years in a "tourist mecca" when I was younger I think it's very easy to understate how destructive tourists can be to a town and its environment. People who were perfectly intelligent, decent people at home turn into complete morons exhibiting the absolute worst of human behaviour when they are on vacation. They litter, trample, and treat the locals like they are entitled to do whatever they like to get that shot or experience regardless of their safety (which cost us when they had to be rescued), the safety of others, or the damage they do to the environment (think animals that have to be destroyed after being fed by tourists), like they were owed the experience. Places like Banff (where I was) can handle it because it's got a tourist industry already built up and the people are transient - when I was tired of tourists I left. The people in these small little places get no such relief so it's very easy for me to see patience in a small fishing village reaching a tipping point; especially if the tourist dollars don't stay in the town.

To me, this fence should be a reminder to us all that when we are out pursuing our passion we are guests in another persons home and that at the bare minimum we should leave it as prisitne as we found it and treat the locals with the respect and consideration they deserve. Otherwise we'll just get more fences.
 
Slick Fork said:
My point here is that this was likely not a frivolous decision made on impulse and the town decided that they needed to discourage people (specifically photographers) from gathering on the bridge for any number of perfectly defensible reasons.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "perfectly defensible" reasons, or if they simply want to remove tourism incentive for its own sake, as the following article would suggest:

"Lofoten Islands threatened by tourism, locals warn"

Loading…

www.telegraph.co.uk

While the article focuses on potential environmental impact, the underlying anxiety has more to do with the sheer number of expected tourists. Their 'solution' is terribly misplaced, in my opinion - not unlike a childish tantrum.

(Oh, and guess which photographic view leads this article. Yup.)
 
brockmo said:
Slick Fork said:
My point here is that this was likely not a frivolous decision made on impulse and the town decided that they needed to discourage people (specifically photographers) from gathering on the bridge for any number of perfectly defensible reasons.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "perfectly defensible" reasons, or if they simply want to remove tourism incentive for its own sake, as the following article would suggest:

"Lofoten Islands threatened by tourism, locals warn"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/d...en-islands-threatened-by-tourism-locals-warn/

While the article focuses on potential environmental impact, the underlying anxiety has more to do with the sheer number of expected tourists. Their 'solution' is terribly misplaced, in my opinion - not unlike a childish tantrum.

(Oh, and guess which photographic view leads this article. Yup.)
Click to expand...
Concern over the integrity of their environment is an absolutely defensible reason. Concern over their town and local culture being overwhelmed by "sheer numbers" of tourists is a defensible reason. Concern over tourists blocking access to a bridge so they can get a photograph they feel is more important then the fishermans right to get to his or her boat is a defensible concern. Having to increase the town's maintenance budget to clean up all the litter from the tourists, or reclaim/repair areas that get wrecked for the sake of that "must-have photo" is a perfectly defensible reason. I could go on...

The sad truth is that the visiting masses can wreck a place really quickly. Most have never even considered the concept of "leave no trace". I don't blame the locals one bit for saying they don't want this kind of a vibe or atmosphere in their town.

Your characterism of this, IMHO, as a childish tantrum is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of a sense of entitlement. Just because someone buys a coffee in a local shop doesn't entitle them to anything other than the coffee. The town doesn't owe anybody any special accomodation, and the fact that they had to put up a barrier like this (at no insignificant expense) speaks to a much larger problem they're having with tourists, and a large part of that is this sense of entitlement that tourists have which stems from the idea "without us the local economy would be crap".
 
OP: not everyone sees the dollars/krones tourism brings to town as a good thing. Right or wrong they are entitled to their opinion.

There is no arguing that social media has brought tourism to areas in numbers that the areas never had before nor are equipped to handle. There is also no way to argue about the environmental damage to some sites it has caused.

I tend to think tourism money helps a town more than hurts in the long run so see both sides here, just pointing about above because I do think you are looking at this one sided.
 
Slick Fork said:
Your characterism of this, IMHO, as a childish tantrum is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of a sense of entitlement. Just because someone buys a coffee in a local shop doesn't entitle them to anything other than the coffee. The town doesn't owe anybody any special accomodation, and the fact that they had to put up a barrier like this (at no insignificant expense) speaks to a much larger problem they're having with tourists, and a large part of that is this sense of entitlement that tourists have which stems from the idea "without us the local economy would be crap".

-
Click to expand...
Well, I think that's uncalled for. You really set a low bar. By your criteria, ALL tourism is intrinsically an entitlement, and tourists are guilty of the same. I would be 'entitled' were I to dismiss the detriment caused by unchecked tourism which I did not do, not because if I visit Paris I expect to photograph the Eiffel Tower.

The childish tantrum does not pertain to the reason behind building the fence, rather, the decision to build of the fence in the first place. An adult approach would have been to analyse the problem, determine the peak season and times when safety is a concern, then propose a reasonable solution without cutting ones nose to spite the face.

For example, place an environmental impact fee to rent rooms, commercial photography groups must pay a daily license (as required in many places), in peak season either limit the number of people who access that side of the bridge at any one time, set a schedule, or ban tripods for safety reasons. Not everyone would be happy with this but they would understand the rationale. That's the mature approach. A blanket snub is childish.

And last, it's more than a bit hypocritical to advertise the region on the official tourist site, or permit a major Holywood movie featuring an international star from shooting there if their primary concern is limiting tourism. Oh, and force all local establishments to remove the ubiquitous posters featuring that bridge view. We wouldn't want to pique the interest of all those entitled unwashed masses, would we?
 
Last edited:
If it is only mid chest level, that is not a problem for an adult, and the fact they left the old shorter fence in place, means it is an invitation to climb the fence for any kid capable of doing so. And parents might even hold up their kids to see over the fence. Those fences do come with portholes if the buyer wants them installed. Expensive but doable. gc
 
brockmo said:
Slick Fork said:
Your characterism of this, IMHO, as a childish tantrum is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of a sense of entitlement. Just because someone buys a coffee in a local shop doesn't entitle them to anything other than the coffee. The town doesn't owe anybody any special accomodation, and the fact that they had to put up a barrier like this (at no insignificant expense) speaks to a much larger problem they're having with tourists, and a large part of that is this sense of entitlement that tourists have which stems from the idea "without us the local economy would be crap".

-
Click to expand...
Well, I think that's uncalled for. You really set a low bar. By your criteria, ALL tourism is intrinsically an entitlement, and tourists are guilty of the same. I would be 'entitled' were I to dismiss the detriment caused by unchecked tourism which I did not do, not because if I visit Paris I expect to photograph the Eiffel Tower.
Click to expand...
Expecting to photograph the Eiffel Tower is reasonable, expecting to do so from the roof of the Louvre is entitlement. This is the same kind of thing, no one said you couldn't take a picture of the town - they're saying you cannot do so from the bridge.

And yes, I'm guilty of painting tourists with a single brush; as I said having lived in a super touristy area for a good number of years the unfortunate truth of my experience is that a large enough portion of tourists seem to have that attitude to make it a justifiable position.
brockmo said:
The childish tantrum does not pertain to the reason behind building the fence, rather, the decision to build of the fence in the first place. An adult approach would have been to analyse the problem, determine the peak season and times when safety is a concern, then propose a reasonable solution without cutting ones nose to spite the face.
Click to expand...
Here you're suggesting that tourism is what's best for a town with a small fishing economy in a pristine environment that has been sustainable for generations, and more importantly with a way of life that the residents want.
brockmo said:
For example, place an environmental impact fee to rent rooms, commercial photography groups must pay a daily license (as required in many places), in peak season either limit the number of people who access that side of the bridge at any one time, set a schedule, or ban tripods for safety reasons. Not everyone would be happy with this but they would understand the rationale. That's the mature approach. A blanket snub is childish.
Click to expand...
Could be that the decision was made that it's unsafe to have anyone on the bridge, period. Or that hiring an extra police officer to monitor the bridge and make sure people are obeying the rules to be on it safely is cost prohibitive.

At the end of the day - peoples poor behaviour is directly responsible for this fence, so instead of railing against the town for building it the question we should all ask is have I contributed to the solution or the problem?
brockmo said:
And last, it's more than a bit hypocritical to advertise the region on the official tourist site, or permit a major Holywood movie featuring an international star from shooting there if their primary concern is limiting tourism. Oh, and force all local establishments to remove the ubiquitous posters featuring that bridge view. We wouldn't want to pique the interest of all those entitled unwashed masses, would we?
Click to expand...
Dude - listen to yourself. You're proving my point here.
 
Slick Fork said:
brockmo said:
Slick Fork said:
Your characterism of this, IMHO, as a childish tantrum is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of a sense of entitlement. Just because someone buys a coffee in a local shop doesn't entitle them to anything other than the coffee. The town doesn't owe anybody any special accomodation, and the fact that they had to put up a barrier like this (at no insignificant expense) speaks to a much larger problem they're having with tourists, and a large part of that is this sense of entitlement that tourists have which stems from the idea "without us the local economy would be crap".

-
Click to expand...
Well, I think that's uncalled for. You really set a low bar. By your criteria, ALL tourism is intrinsically an entitlement, and tourists are guilty of the same. I would be 'entitled' were I to dismiss the detriment caused by unchecked tourism which I did not do, not because if I visit Paris I expect to photograph the Eiffel Tower.
Click to expand...
Expecting to photograph the Eiffel Tower is reasonable, expecting to do so from the roof of the Louvre is entitlement. This is the same kind of thing, no one said you couldn't take a picture of the town - they're saying you cannot do so from the bridge.
Click to expand...
If the roof of the Louvre was along a legally recognized, publicly accessible road or walkway, and photos of that view were used by the local tourism bureau to advertise it as a tourist attraction, that erases any trace of entitlement.
Slick Fork said:
And yes, I'm guilty of painting tourists with a single brush; as I said having lived in a super touristy area for a good number of years the unfortunate truth of my experience is that a large enough portion of tourists seem to have that attitude to make it a justifiable position.
Click to expand...
Well, thanks for being honest about your bias. I lived in Martha's Vineyard and the Cape for many years myself, so while I understand it, I don;t share your antipathy against tourists - I left that to the spinsters and curmudgeons.
Slick Fork said:
Slick Fork said:
The childish tantrum does not pertain to the reason behind building the fence, rather, the decision to build of the fence in the first place. An adult approach would have been to analyse the problem, determine the peak season and times when safety is a concern, then propose a reasonable solution without cutting ones nose to spite the face.
Click to expand...
Here you're suggesting that tourism is what's best for a town with a small fishing economy in a pristine environment that has been sustainable for generations, and more importantly with a way of life that the residents want.
Click to expand...
I have not seen a poll on the question so can't comment other than the local establishments where we visited were perplexed and unhappy over the decision, especially since the town did not seek input from local businesses.
Slick Fork said:
Slick Fork said:
For example, place an environmental impact fee to rent rooms, commercial photography groups must pay a daily license (as required in many places), in peak season either limit the number of people who access that side of the bridge at any one time, set a schedule, or ban tripods for safety reasons. Not everyone would be happy with this but they would understand the rationale. That's the mature approach. A blanket snub is childish.
Click to expand...
Could be that the decision was made that it's unsafe to have anyone on the bridge, period. Or that hiring an extra police officer to monitor the bridge and make sure people are obeying the rules to be on it safely is cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...
Well then, it's municipal malfeasance to have left open pedestrian walkways on either side of the bridge. That the raised fence, btw, faces only the iconic view side, not the other, further supports the argument that it's intended purpose was to make it as photography unfriendly as they could get away with. Again, they had no knowledge of any accidents.
Slick Fork said:
At the end of the day - peoples poor behaviour is directly responsible for this fence, so instead of railing against the town for building it the question we should all ask is have I contributed to the solution or the problem?
Click to expand...
Why do you insist on poor behavior? I think more obvious reason is the large number of photography groups and workshops who park their tripods, on a limited surface area. You border on misanthropy in thinking that a large group of people are unable to behave with civility. A dozen folks can gather peacefully minding their own business, or you can have one drunk making the road unsafe.

Besides, the crowds potentially leading to unsafe numbers on the bridge are not year round. Management of bridge access can be solved accordingly. I gave a few examples, including needing commercial permits and banning tripods, either year round or peak season..
Slick Fork said:
Slick Fork said:
And last, it's more than a bit hypocritical to advertise the region on the official tourist site, or permit a major Holywood movie featuring an international star from shooting there if their primary concern is limiting tourism. Oh, and force all local establishments to remove the ubiquitous posters featuring that bridge view. We wouldn't want to pique the interest of all those entitled unwashed masses, would we?
Click to expand...
Dude - listen to yourself. You're proving my point here.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I don;t see you making the point of hypocrisy in a locale that advertises its splendorous scenery to attract more tourists, while simultaneously impeding tourists from doing exactly what enticed them there.
 
brockmo said:
Slick Fork said:
Expecting to photograph the Eiffel Tower is reasonable, expecting to do so from the roof of the Louvre is entitlement. This is the same kind of thing, no one said you couldn't take a picture of the town - they're saying you cannot do so from the bridge.
Click to expand...
If the roof of the Louvre was along a legally recognized, publicly accessible road or walkway, and photos of that view were used by the local tourism bureau to advertise it as a tourist attraction, that erases any trace of entitlement.
Click to expand...
By this logic - if a theatre company advertised a play by putting a backstage view on the poster anyone should be able to just waltz backstage because they're entitled to see the view that was advertised on the poster.
brockmo said:
Well then, it's municipal malfeasance to have left open pedestrian walkways on either side of the bridge. That the raised fence, btw, faces only the iconic view side, not the other, further supports the argument that it's intended purpose was to make it as photography unfriendly as they could get away with. Again, they had no knowledge of any accidents.
Click to expand...
I agree completely that this fence is designed to deter photographers. There's no argument there. The fact that YOU have no knowledge of any accidents or incidents doesn't mean the town doesn't.

I also agree that there are other alternatives that could've made it a more photographer friendly location. For whatever reason they were ruled out, I would make the assumption that the town exhausted other ideas before resorting to a physical barrier as it is not the cheapest of options they may have had.

A business owner or average employee isn't going to go off and whine to a tourist about other tourists... they're more likely to say "I don't know why they did it, didn't ask me".
brockmo said:
brockmo said:
At the end of the day - peoples poor behaviour is directly responsible for this fence, so instead of railing against the town for building it the question we should all ask is have I contributed to the solution or the problem?
Click to expand...
Why do you insist on poor behavior? I think more obvious reason is the large number of photography groups and workshops who park their tripods, on a limited surface area. You border on misanthropy in thinking that a large group of people are unable to behave with civility. A dozen folks can gather peacefully minding their own business, or you can have one drunk making the road unsafe.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting the tourists are rioting or fighting each other for the best spot. It could be the amount of litter, it could be that the road was being blocked and residents couldn't use the bridge; these are examples of poor behaviour that have nothing to do with minding each others business and the idea is not mutually exclusive of the numbers - indeed the numbers exacerbate the problem because you're increasing the number of boneheads in a given situation. A large photography group can be behaving poorly if all it does is block the bridge for others based on the logic that they paid to be there so they're more entitled to use the bridge then the people that live there.

At the end of the day, the barrier was put up because the local residents saw a problem with the behaviour and/or volume of people on the bridge. If we were really interested we could probably get the minutes of the town council meeting to see where it was discussed and what the concerns were.
brockmo said:
I'm sorry, but I don;t see you making the point of hypocrisy in a locale that advertises its splendorous scenery to attract more tourists, while simultaneously impeding tourists from doing exactly what enticed them there.
Click to expand...
Again - you've shown nothing that shows that they are somehow forbidding photography. All they're doing is basically saying we don't want photographers on the bridge. Surely there are other photo opportunities in such a spectacular area.
 
Slick Fork said:
At the end of the day, the barrier was put up because the local residents saw a problem with the behaviour and/or volume of people on the bridge. If we were really interested we could probably get the minutes of the town council meeting to see where it was discussed and what the concerns were.
Slick Fork said:
I'm sorry, but I don;t see you making the point of hypocrisy in a locale that advertises its splendorous scenery to attract more tourists, while simultaneously impeding tourists from doing exactly what enticed them there.
Click to expand...
Again - you've shown nothing that shows that they are somehow forbidding photography. All they're doing is basically saying we don't want photographers on the bridge. Surely there are other photo opportunities in such a spectacular area.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdeeth/
Click to expand...
The region is a photographer's dream, and as I mentioned in my original post, with some effort and limitations, one can still capture that specific view. And believe me, workshops will still aggregate to the spot and find workarounds.

Since it is an iconic view of significant photographic interest, my intent was to inform prospective visitors about the new changes, this being the landscape & travel forum. I also editorialized that imo that decision was misguided. I also stated that I understand your point of view despite disagreeing.

What irked me was the provocative statement that my disappointment over and criticism of this change reflects a sense of entitlement, when nothing could be further from the truth. Of course the local authorities have every right to zone access for whatever reason, but questioning the wisdom of that decision has nothing to do with feeling entitled. It was historically accessible for as long as the bridge stood and there were photographers, many many decades, then one day it's compromised. It's a perfectly valid reaction. Or is the distinction between nonentitlement and entitlement expectations a function of bureaucratic ordinances - one day no, the next yes, how dare you question us? Anyway, we've beaten this to death :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top