Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > OPF Welcome Hall > Breaking News

Breaking News Updates, innovations, equipment: moderated!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 13th, 2010, 06:53 PM
Murray Foote Murray Foote is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 394
Default

That is a significant difference. I think having lots of clear lines in the bark to resolve may have helped a lot for it to work.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old December 15th, 2010, 02:02 PM
Tom Robbins Tom Robbins is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 846
Default

Ed, thanks for posting these.

The objective of deconvolution, I believe, is to resolve a blurred image to the extent possible using a logical approach. Your examples are a good illustration of this in action. Being a long-time tripod user, I am usually able to find some way to get my subject as sharply focused as possible. There will always be circumstances, however, where elements within the frame will be out of focus with few, or no, options to circumvent it. This is where I very much hope the promise of the approach can be selectively applied; not so much to achieve focus, but more to reduce blur to the point where it is no longer a distraction.

Tom
__________________
Tom Robbins
West of Lake Michigan, East of Mississippi River
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old December 15th, 2010, 03:36 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Robbins View Post
This is where I very much hope the promise of the approach can be selectively applied; not so much to achieve focus, but more to reduce blur to the point where it is no longer a distraction.
Hi Tom,

Indeed, and even when there is no motion blur, there will always be some blur due to the Bayer CFA demosaicing and the anti-aliasing filter in most cameras. However, there can also be a certain amount of diffraction blur due to narrow apertures being used for DOF reasons. That is also a very good candidate for deconvolution, because the amount of (diffraction) blur is also spatially invariant across the image.

When we try to solve defocus issues, things may get worse for those areas that were in focus, and better for the areas that were OOF. So one would need to mask out the already focused areas to avoid artifacts.

The spatially variant types of blur (e.g. residual lens aberrations, and/or defocus) are the hardest to address because they vary (radially, or in depth/focus distance) so much across the image. The combinations with motion blur are the hardest of all, because motion can be translational and/or rotational.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old December 24th, 2010, 03:07 AM
Tom Robbins Tom Robbins is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 846
Default

Hi Bart, speaking of masks, I found Topaz' Remask3 to be a great time saver in making selective adjustments recently. This company has some very interesting digital magic up their sleeves, evidently.
__________________
Tom Robbins
West of Lake Michigan, East of Mississippi River
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old January 12th, 2011, 08:32 PM
Chris Kettle Chris Kettle is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Default

Interesting software.
I'll have to trial it out, because at the moment all I am doing is using my RAW editing software to adjust the noise on my photos.

Thanks :-)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old April 15th, 2011, 12:50 AM
Joseph Westrupp Joseph Westrupp is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 8
Default

Very interesting. I was wondering whether deconvolution sharpening was something worth looking into.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old April 15th, 2011, 09:27 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Westrupp View Post
Very interesting. I was wondering whether deconvolution sharpening was something worth looking into.
Hi Joseph,

I can't decide for others (unless asked to), but I wouldn't like to miss the opportunity to restore real resoluton. Topaz In-focus version 1.0 does need some further development to become more useful for different types of images, but they say that they are working on that.

Meanwhile you can try deconvolution yourself, e.g. by downloading a free program called RawTherapee. It is a Raw converter, but it also reads e.g. TIFFs and it allows to use a so-called Richardson-Lucy implementation of deconvolution sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old April 15th, 2011, 10:34 AM
Joseph Westrupp Joseph Westrupp is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
Hi Joseph,

I can't decide for others (unless asked to), but I wouldn't like to miss the opportunity to restore real resoluton. Topaz In-focus version 1.0 does need some further development to become more useful for different types of images, but they say that they are working on that.

Meanwhile you can try deconvolution yourself, e.g. by downloading a free program called RawTherapee. It is a Raw converter, but it also reads e.g. TIFFs and it allows to use a so-called Richardson-Lucy implementation of deconvolution sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart
Thanks for the info, man.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old April 28th, 2011, 07:43 PM
Rajan Parrikar Rajan Parrikar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California
Posts: 204
Default

I have been using InFocus for around 5 months now, and it is my preferred tool for capture sharpening - to mitigate the blur induced by the AA filter. I can only see Topaz improving on what is a promising piece of software.

Why would anyone use PK Sharpener for this step since it is not deconvolution based?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old April 28th, 2011, 10:08 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
Hi Joseph,

I can't decide for others (unless asked to), but I wouldn't like to miss the opportunity to restore real resoluton. Topaz In-focus version 1.0 does need some further development to become more useful for different types of images, but they say that they are working on that.

Meanwhile you can try deconvolution yourself, e.g. by downloading a free program called RawTherapee. It is a Raw converter, but it also reads e.g. TIFFs and it allows to use a so-called Richardson-Lucy implementation of deconvolution sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart
Bart,

I haven't used RAW Therapee as of yet, but according to the comparison page on the RAw Therapee website, it would compare favorably with most all other RAW processors. There's a new alpha version of Therapee 3.0 available with a feature freeze, meaning that this version is going to be just fixed for bugs or GUI and could be stable.

Is this what you are using for sharpening in some circumstances or you just know of it?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old April 29th, 2011, 01:28 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Bart,

I haven't used RAW Therapee as of yet, but according to the comparison page on the RAw Therapee website, it would compare favorably with most all other RAW processors.
Hi Asher,

Yes, that'right. As an open source project is has quite a few outstanding features, some not even found in other well respected Raw converters. Although the Raw converter is based on the DCRaw engine by Dave Coffin, it also features some novel demosaicing algorithms which are pretty good. Emil Martinec is one of the people who worked on the aMaze algorithm.

RawTherapee also features darkframe subtraction (which is lacking from most other commercial offerings), and Light Cast Correction and vignetting correction (like in Capture One Pro).

Quote:
There's a new alpha version of Therapee 3.0 available with a feature freeze, meaning that this version is going to be just fixed for bugs or GUI and could be stable.

Is this what you are using for sharpening in some circumstances or you just know of it?
No, I use FocusMagic, and TopazLabs InFocus, and ImagesPlus depending on my particular needs. However, I've tested RawTherapee and it functions just fine with its implementation of Richardson Lucy deconvolution. It's the real deal, and its free.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old April 30th, 2011, 06:37 AM
Edward Bussa Edward Bussa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 673
Default

Wow. RawTherapee. Its been a while. Back when I was first learning about RAW files, I ran across this and used it for a little while. Nice program. Also nice to see they've continued developing it.

Thanks for that blast from the past Bart!
__________________
Ed.
adventures
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old April 30th, 2011, 10:16 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Bussa View Post
Wow. RawTherapee. Its been a while. Back when I was first learning about RAW files, I ran across this and used it for a little while. Nice program. Also nice to see they've continued developing it.

Thanks for that blast from the past Bart!
Hi Ed, you're welcome.

However, the real thanks need to go to the original author who released his program to become open source when he couldn't find the time to maintain it any longer. And then to the developers who spent, and are spending, time on advancing the program by adding new features and keeping it up to date for new operating system requirements.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old May 1st, 2011, 04:35 PM
Edward Bussa Edward Bussa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 673
Default

Quote:
the real thanks need to go to the original author who released his program to become open source when he couldn't find the time to maintain it any longer
Indeed. A good outcome.
__________________
Ed.
adventures
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old May 12th, 2011, 06:51 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajan Parrikar View Post

Why would anyone use PK Sharpener for this step since it is not deconvolution based?
When photographing with a camera that doesn't use an AA filter. Most digital backs for example.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old May 12th, 2011, 06:56 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Briot View Post
When photographing with a camera that doesn't use an AA filter. Most digital backs for example.
Alain,

What does PK sharpener uniquely accomplish?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old May 14th, 2011, 12:03 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

Asher,

Bruce Frazer wrote a book on sharpening, and after publishing it created PK Sharpener. I confirmed that with Mac Holbert, who is part of the PK team. So to answer your question, PK provides Bruce's knowledge in a simple and efficient package. Personally, this is all I need to sharpen my images. I also recommend it even though I don't make a penny from PK sales.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old May 14th, 2011, 04:02 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Briot View Post
When photographing with a camera that doesn't use an AA filter. Most digital backs for example.
Hi Alain,

Deconvolution does not only solve for AA-fillter blur, it also handles demosaicing blur, diffraction blur, defocus blur, motion blur, or magnification blur (up to a point). All types of images are affected. PK sharpener mentioned, does none of those, it's just old-fashion edge contrast enhancement (including the need to suppress halo).

Deconvolution is not the only tool one can use to give an impression of sharpness, but it is the only tool that really restores sharpness. Unfortunately Topaz Labs InFocus needs to be improved in order to suppress artifacts when it is overused.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old May 14th, 2011, 05:52 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

Thanks Bart. I don't have a need for sharper photographs, my images are as sharp as I want them, so I haven't kept up with Topaz and other deconvolution software. I did upgrade to the latest version of Photokit Sharpener, which though it may be 'older technology' gives me amazingly sharp prints.

In any case, my focus is on creating interesting photographs rather than worry endlessly about sharpness. That's why I enjoy using PK sharpener. If there is a deconvolution software as easy to use as PK then I'm good for it!
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old May 14th, 2011, 06:13 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,584
Default

Alain,

What is the logic of initial sharpening in PK sharpener as opposed to leaving to all to the end. I can understand deconvolution being done earlier so that later changes do not magnify initial errors of focus.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old May 14th, 2011, 09:39 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Alain,

What is the logic of initial sharpening in PK sharpener as opposed to leaving to all to the end. I can understand deconvolution being done earlier so that later changes do not magnify initial errors of focus.

Asher
Sharpening is the last step in my processing worklow, after the image has been sized to print size.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old May 14th, 2011, 10:41 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

I just did a test with and I got the same results visually with Topaz InFocus and CS5 Smart Sharpen. There may be more going on behind the scene, but visually I can't tell the difference and as far as I am concerned this is a visual art so if you can't see it then who cares.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old May 14th, 2011, 11:18 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Briot View Post
Sharpening is the last step in my processing worklow, after the image has been sized to print size.
What about "capture sharpening"?

"The input or “Capture Sharpening” is the first leg of the sharpening workflow. The aim is to introduce the correct amount of pre-sharpening that regains the sharpness lost during digitization while being very careful to not do any harm to the image." Jeff Schewe Source.

Is this part of your PK sharpening workflow?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old May 15th, 2011, 02:07 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Briot View Post
Thanks Bart. I don't have a need for sharper photographs, my images are as sharp as I want them, so I haven't kept up with Topaz and other deconvolution software. I did upgrade to the latest version of Photokit Sharpener, which though it may be 'older technology' gives me amazingly sharp prints.
That's fine Alain. It's the result that counts, isn't it?

Quote:
In any case, my focus is on creating interesting photographs rather than worry endlessly about sharpness. That's why I enjoy using PK sharpener. If there is a deconvolution software as easy to use as PK then I'm good for it!
Of course sharpening is just one aspect of quality, just like your choice of camera and lens and composition. As for ease of use, PK sharpener is basically just a bunch of presets for Photoshop functionality that is already in the program. It doesn't add anthing to the Photoshop arsenal of tools, other than a structured way of selecting the Photoshop features and setting their values. That's fine, because it makes life easier for many people.

Deconvolution, on the other hand, adds something that Photoshop only started to offer in a simple form with the introduction of the Smart sharpening filter (in advanced mode) and the detail slider in ACR, but was not available/understood by the original developers of PK sharpener. Deconvolution sharpening was not a real topic when Bruce Fraser wrote his book "Real world sharpenng", and therefore the a large part of the book (and PK sharpener as a software implementation of his guidelines in that book) is about fighting the drawbacks/artifacts of conventional edge contrast 'sharpening', i.e. halos.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old May 15th, 2011, 02:20 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Briot View Post
I just did a test with and I got the same results visually with Topaz InFocus and CS5 Smart Sharpen. There may be more going on behind the scene, but visually I can't tell the difference and as far as I am concerned this is a visual art so if you can't see it then who cares.
FYI, The Smart sharpening filter (in advanced mode) uses a form of deconvolution, just not as effective as a dedicated deconvolver. So for mild cases of blur their results can be close. In my experience, Smart shapening is not as effective in cases of significant diffraction blur, e.g. when a subject requires a narrow aperture for Depth of Field, such as macro photography.

You are correct that it's the result that counts, and it's exactly for that reason I tell people to keep an eye on this technology. Even cameras without an AA-filter (which need careful sharpening to not enhance aliasing artifacts), will benefit. Especially as the number of pixels increases, and the sensel sizes shrink, deconvolution will help to restore per pixel sharpness.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old May 15th, 2011, 09:52 AM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
What about "capture sharpening"?

"The input or “Capture Sharpening” is the first leg of the sharpening workflow. The aim is to introduce the correct amount of pre-sharpening that regains the sharpness lost during digitization while being very careful to not do any harm to the image." Jeff Schewe Source.

Is this part of your PK sharpening workflow?

Asher
It's not. I only use PK before I print, after sizing the image to print size.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old May 15th, 2011, 09:55 AM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
FYI, The Smart sharpening filter (in advanced mode) uses a form of deconvolution, just not as effective as a dedicated deconvolver. So for mild cases of blur their results can be close. In my experience, Smart shapening is not as effective in cases of significant diffraction blur, e.g. when a subject requires a narrow aperture for Depth of Field, such as macro photography.

You are correct that it's the result that counts, and it's exactly for that reason I tell people to keep an eye on this technology. Even cameras without an AA-filter (which need careful sharpening to not enhance aliasing artifacts), will benefit. Especially as the number of pixels increases, and the sensel sizes shrink, deconvolution will help to restore per pixel sharpness.

Cheers,
Bart
Thanks for the precisions Bart. I do use Smart Sharpen in advanced mode -- tip: if there's an 'advanced option' in a dialog box- click on it! When doing Fine Art we need all the 'advanced' settings we can put our hands on!

Topaz could potentially do more than Smart Sharpen, but the problem is artifacts negate the benefits of deblurring pretty quickly. I read that it's one of the drawbacks of deconvolution. In my case I do my best to get images as sharp as possible in the field, a combination of using tripod, adequate shutter speed, mirror lockup, cable release, high res cameras, patience, multiple captures, etc. so I only need to undo 'sensor blur' or 'raw conversion induced blur'.

Not having to buy Topaz saved me $70! Not a big deal but one less thing to account for.

Alain
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old May 15th, 2011, 10:35 AM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
Deconvolution sharpening was not a real topic when Bruce Fraser wrote his book
Why is that? Is it because it wasn't paid attention to at the time?
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old May 15th, 2011, 10:45 AM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

How would you define Deconvolution? Anyone? I can't find a good definition on the web in regards to photography. The definitions I found are about algorithyms.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old May 15th, 2011, 03:40 PM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Briot View Post
How would you define Deconvolution? Anyone? I can't find a good definition on the web in regards to photography. The definitions I found are about algorithyms.
Hi Alain,

Well, algorithms are used in execution of the mathematical operation.

In image processing, deconvolution is a technique that removes features in an image that are caused by the capture device itself rather than from actual light coming from the subject/scene.

Deconvolution is exactly what it sounds like: the undoing of convolution. This means that instead of mixing two signals like in convolution, we are isolating them. In our image processing case the original image data and the blur data are isolated/separated from the mixed data result, and the de-blurred (original) data is used.

In practice this is quite difficult to do perfectly. There are usually several sources of blur, each with different characteristics. In mathematics the unblurring of image data is called an ill-posed problem, since there are multiple (mathematically correct) solutions possible. They can't all be correct, there should be a single solution, the original input image.

Therefore much of the user control is to bias the solution into a visually more likely solution. Some of the procedures are therefore know to follow a maximum likelihood strategy.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sharpening workflow question Phil Marion Image Processing and Workflow 83 April 15th, 2011 08:40 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!