Debunking ETTR

william l. palminteri · March 17, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=820080">Ben Goren</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 01:16 p.m.

Mike,

If I may add on a suggestion to Bill’s, be sure to examine the effect not just on shadow noise; that’s not in dispute. But also examine the effect on highlight detail. If you can find some dark styrofoam such as in my example above, that should help give you a feeling for the sorts of situations where something that, at first glance, appears to be low-contrast dark (and therefore ideal for ETTR) can be anything but.

</blockquote>

Ben, that's Sooooo true!

Sky detail, such as wispy clouds, can get lost very easily when getting a bit too cozy with these snazzy techniques. Those clouds might be what drew you to the vision in the first place, and now they're gone, unrecoverable in a morass of 255s.

Many textures are very subtle, yet that's what makes 'em so magical.

Lose 'em to the forces of "technical perfection", and you've lost the magic.

Oooooops...........

Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom

peter_stacey1 · March 17, 2010

William Palminteri wrote:

Those clouds might be what drew you to the vision in the first place, and now they're gone, unrecoverable in a morass of 255s.

</blockquote>

But Bill, that's not what ETTR is. If you are clipping data to an unrecoverable point, that's not ETTR, that's overexposure.

This is still about a basic misunderstanding of ETTR as a technique.

William Palmiteri wrote:

Lose 'em to the forces of "technical perfection", and you've lost the magic.

</blockquote>

That's anything but technical perfection. It's the exact opposite.

If you lose important information, it's technically incompetent and certainly not the application of ETTR.

This is a point that has been made several times in the thread, but frequently (and perhaps conventiently) ignored.

ETTR is not about over exposure (in fact, some other commentors such as Iliah Borg have said it leads to under exposure and if you Google LibRAW you should find his article reasonably quickly). But that is also a misunderstanding of what ETTR is about.

It isn't anything other than a way to capture optimum RAW data and even things like serendipitous color rainbows are still in there.

In relation to the whole argument of serendipitous findings, the fact that they are serendipitous means that you may also find them by applying ETTR and it's just as likely to do so. It's not an argument that stands up to much thought about other scenarios.

digitaldog · March 17, 2010

But Bill, that's not what ETTR is. If you are clipping data to an unrecoverable point, that's not ETTR, that's overexposure.

This is still about a basic misunderstanding of ETTR as a technique.

</blockquote>

Correct, spot on, accurate, etc. I don’t know why those who understand basic photography have to keep explaining this about clipping. Those who continue to misrepresent ETTR by bringing up clipping should start their own tea bagging group and let the rest of us who understand this point go on correctly handling image capture.

If you lose important information, it's technically incompetent and certainly not the application of ETTR.

</blockquote>

Incompetent minds must produce incompetent images because there has to be at least a dozen posts here clearly explaining this simple point. My god, if you can’t control the exposure, retaining highlights you want to retain, stick with JPEG and a POS camera.

william l. palminteri · March 17, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 02:59 p.m.

But Bill, that's not what ETTR is. If you are clipping data to an unrecoverable point, that's not ETTR, that's overexposure. This is still about a basic misunderstanding of ETTR as a technique.

</blockquote>

Correct, spot on, accurate, etc. I don’t know why those who understand basic photography have to keep explaining this about clipping.

</blockquote>

I know very well what ETTR is all about, along with its corollary, DTTL.

My point is that it is very easy to overuse these techniques.

Bill P. vs. you know who....

william l. palminteri · March 17, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 02:59 p.m.

If you lose important information, it's technically incompetent and certainly not the application of ETTR.

</blockquote>

Incompetent minds must produce incompetent images because there has to be at least a dozen posts here clearly explaining this simple point.

</blockquote>

More cheesy low budget name calling and finger pointing.

Not helpful.

Bill P. vs the Forces of Doom

digitaldog · March 17, 2010

My point is that it is very easy to overuse these techniques.

</blockquote>

That’s true of any aspect of photography or for that matter, anything at all. If the attitude was to disregard proper technique because they can be misused or over used, as suggested by the OP, what a sad world this would be.

peter_stacey1 · March 17, 2010

William Palminteri said:

My point is that it is very easy to overuse these techniques.

</blockquote>

I wouldn't argue against that. It can be used incorrectly and as Andrew pointed out, that doesn't only apply to ETTR.

I don't think anyone who uses the technique would argue that it is something to apply all the time. There have been a number of posts that have said the opposite and which have also tried to point out the situations where it is useful.

But just the same as ETTR can be wrongly used, relying solely on the camera to pick the best exposure all the time can also be wrong in that it doesn't always lead to the best image.

Photography is a mixture of both creative and technical aspects and you don't have to strive to be good in one to the detrement of the other. Striving to produce pleasing images that are also technically strong can also be a good thing.

In this regard, technically strong can mean different things for different images and if ETTR helps to achieve that, then that is a good thing, not something to disregard because someone doesn't know how to use it or when to use it. There's no need to bury our heads in the sand over this stuff.

It's always a continual learning process at an individual level and if one person doesn't find a particular technique useful, there's no need to start a thread that debunks what other people find has applications for them.

william l. palminteri · March 17, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 03:34 p.m.

My point is that it is very easy to overuse these techniques.

</blockquote>

That’s true of any aspect of photography or for that matter, anything at all. If the attitude was to disregard proper technique because they can be misused or over used, as suggested by the OP, what a sad world this would be.

</blockquote>

Andrew, I didn't get that from the O/P.

It looks like we're interpreting things differently.

Bill P, vs. the Forces of Doom

michael_young3 · March 17, 2010

But Bill, that's not what ETTR is. If you are clipping data to an unrecoverable point, that's not ETTR, that's overexposure. This is still about a basic misunderstanding of ETTR as a technique.

</blockquote>

Correct, spot on, accurate, etc. I don’t know why those who understand basic photography have to keep explaining this about clipping. Those who continue to misrepresent ETTR by bringing up clipping should start their own tea bagging group and let the rest of us who understand this point go on correctly handling image capture.

</blockquote>

It's not a misunderstanding. Blowing out unintended highlight detail is a very real and foreseeable consequence of nudging right up to the edge. To put it another way, the whole problem of racing is to use up the entire traction circle. Doing so puts you at constant risk of exceeding those limits. It's completely shallow to point out that exceeding traction isn't part of racing.

william l. palminteri · March 17, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4260086">Peter Stacey</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 03:54 p.m.

Photography is a mixture of both creative and technical aspects and you don't have to strive to be good in one to the detrement of the other. Striving to produce pleasing images that are also technically strong can also be a good thing.

</blockquote>

Peter, that's very true. I concentrate more on the aesthetic, but getting an unretouched photo of a photographically hostile (low light, etc.) environment means that I have to get technically involved, because the machinery isn't at all happy in those situations.

So yes, fussing with the exposure is even more important in those situations, since there's very little wiggle room.

My work would fall short if it were ONLY technical or ONLY aesthetic.

Now try that from a moving car on a bridge, at night!

Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom<div></div>

peter_stacey1 · March 17, 2010

Michael Young wrote:

To put it another way, the whole problem of racing is to use up the entire traction circle. Doing so puts you at constant risk of exceeding those limits. It's completely shallow to point out that exceeding traction isn't part of racing.

</blockquote>

And to take that analogy further. Just because there is a risk of losing traction when a driver tries to sit on the edge of the cars capability, doesn't stop racing drivers from trying to go to that exact point every time they race (at least the good ones), otherwise they aren't using the car to it's full capability and they aren't going to be as good as another driver that is able to sit closer to the edge more consistently.

And if a driver does lose control of the car, but keeps practicing and trying to get things under control, they eventually gain enough experience that they are able to comfortably push themselves without constantly losing it.

I don't really think that suits photography to the same extent, because we can never really know what is an actual optimum exposure, so the point to which each person is prepared to sit is going to be different for different people.

We can only chose what we are comfortable with when we choose our exposure settings.

For some, that seems to be just advocating acceptance of the camera metering. For others, lifting the S/N ratio by increasing the exposure is also acceptable, but these things don't have to be poles apart and there's no need to degrade the choice of one person just because you aren't personally comfortable with the choice others make.

That's the whole point of this long discussion. If the OP isn't comfortable with ETTR, no problems. But perhaps others are, both now and in the future, so there's nothing positive to be gained from starting a thread that says ETTR provides no practical sense, because lots of us have experience that indicates otherwise.

digitaldog · March 17, 2010

That’s true of any aspect of photography or for that matter, anything at all. If the attitude was to disregard proper technique because they can be misused or over used, as suggested by the OP, what a sad world this would be.

Andrew, I didn't get that from the O/P. It looks like we're interpreting things differently.

</blockquote>

Gee, must be that I read the following (making me wonder why you would interpret this differently). Are you suggesting that the OP doesn’t consider minimizing noise using proper (ETTR) exposure, (something he’s admitted is the result of the technique), isn’t consistent with the goal of proper technique because they can be misused or over used, what about these posts?

<ul>

<li>I don’t see enough difference to warrant the hassle.</li>

<li>Never mind, of course, that you’ve now lost two whole stops of highlight dynamic range, almost guaranteeing that you’ll be blowing those highlights.</li>

<li>I consider the benefit to be far overwhelmed by the risk and therefore the technique not worthy of recommendation.</li>

<li>I’m just having a hard time understanding what’s so objectionable about the noise of modern DSLRs at base ISO that so much effort is put into reducing it even further, never mind what other consequences it might have.</li>

<li>we’re left with a theoretical marginal improvement in image quality beyond outstanding that’s damned impractical to reliably implement in the real world. Which, as I recall, is exactly what I stated at the beginning of this thread.</li>

<li>Who gives a frying fork about making better pictures? Clearly we’ve all been severely misguided in this vain attempt to make better pictures. It’s time we abandoned it all in favor of reducing that evil, evil, evil noise.</li>

<li>It’s time to stop chasing that last fraction of a percent of technical perfection, accept that the tools are more than plenty good enough</li>

<li>On your 100% crop, I don’t see enough difference to warrant the hassle.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

Sure reads to me as someone who feels “good enough” is adequate and then tries to debunk a technique he and others have admitted produce better data.

william l. palminteri · March 17, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4260086">Peter Stacey</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 04:27 p.m.

And to take that analogy further. Just because there is a risk of losing traction when a driver tries to sit on the edge of the cars capability, doesn't stop racing drivers from trying to go to that exact point every time they race (at least the good ones), otherwise they aren't using the car to it's full capability and they aren't going to be as good as another driver that is able to sit closer to the edge more consistently.

</blockquote>

I think it was Parnelli Jones who said....

"If you've got complete control of the racecar, you're not going fast enough...."

Racing is about winning, photography for me is about getting the difficult shots.

Most of the easy ones have already been gotten.

That's the fun, not the competitive (contest) aspect.

Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom

peter_stacey1 · March 17, 2010

William Palminteri wrote:

I concentrate more on the aesthetic, but getting an unretouched photo of a photographically hostile (low light, etc.) environment means that I have to get technically involved, because the machinery isn't at all happy in those situations.

</blockquote>

I usually find at low light, ETTR has only limited use because there are too many artifical lights around so the exposure will already have important areas of data in the highlights that you don't want to lose, unless there are specular highlights like the following: <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4440998549_e401d27e9e_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="469" />

It's just one technique that applies when the dynamic range of the scene is within the capabilities of the sensor and there is nothing to be scared of with it. Anyone who wants to use it should spend the time to learn it and how to apply it because in many situations it's useful.

Ultimately it can sit right along aesthetic aspects of photography and anyone can happily pursue both aspects together, good aesthetics with good technique.

Regards,

Peter

william l. palminteri · March 17, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 04:34 p.m.

That’s true of any aspect of photography or for that matter, anything at all. If the attitude was to disregard proper technique because they can be misused or over used, as suggested by the OP, what a sad world this would be. Andrew, I didn't get that from the O/P. It looks like we're interpreting things differently.

</blockquote>

Gee, must be that I read the following (making me wonder why you would interpret this differently).........

</blockquote>

Okay, I'll tell you why. If Ben is comfortable doing his work his way and he feels that ETTR is more hassle than it's worth, I want to hear what he's got to say. Maybe he's got something to say that I can implement. Since you're a respected authority in the Adobe end of things, you seem to have a more "orthodox" way of approaching the workflow. That's fine. I use many orthodox methods also. By being open minded (I'm NOT saying you're closed-minded), I can listen to Ben's ideas and maybe learn something. He obviously goes against the accepted "grain", but then again so did the Wright Brothers and Nikola Tesla. Do I agree with his points? That's not important to me. What's important is that he took the time and energy out of his life to put the case forward. I got a lot out of the thread, many points were brought forward by people like yourself, myself and numerous others. That wouldn't have occured if Ben didn't "post the post".

Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom

william l. palminteri · March 17, 2010

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4260086">Peter Stacey</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 04:58 p.m.

I usually find at low light, ETTR has only limited use because there are too many artifical lights around so the exposure will already have important areas of data in the highlights that you don't want to lose....

</blockquote>

So true, Peter.

That's a very important point.

Great photo, BTW.

Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom

peter_stacey1 · March 17, 2010

William Palminteri wrote:

Great photo, BTW.

</blockquote>

Thanks, and it's one where using ETTR helped.

Most of the information is in the last 3 stops of the image. By bringing that up at capture and then processing it to the way I remembered the scene, the shadows in the prints I have are smooth and the image is just what I wanted (the printed version has a slightly tighter composition as I cropped away the right hand side a bit).

Without using ETTR, a lot of detail that the print holds wouldn't be there because it wouldn't have been pleasing to me to bring it out (my tolerance for the noise in large areas of the image would have led me to throw the shot away if not exposed using ETTR).

digitaldog · March 17, 2010

If Ben is comfortable doing his work his way and he feels that ETTR is more hassle than it's worth, I want to hear what he's got to say.

</blockquote>

That’s all good and fine and I think your attitude is a good one. But lets not forget what the thread title is and what the OP at the top proposes! Then look at some of the serious misunderstandings in his theories (debunked by more than a few members). See the summery about submission of theories to a peer group for review? Isn’t that the idea here? Otherwise why the post in the first place?

I could propose that smearing Vaseline on a lens improves image quality, or that hand holding a camera provides better quality than using a tripod, or that JPEG and raw are equal in terms of data quality. I could propose to debunk what we know is conventional wisdom in photography that dismiss the above three theories. And you would be complimented, to a point, in reading the debunking as someone with an open mind. At some point, good science, sound peer review and personal testing would (should) convince you that the theory is half baked. I think we were at that point long ago.

No one is forcing anyone to use ETTR. What is pretty clear is that the debunking in post #1 isn’t a debunk, its a personal choice in handling exposure and based on a lot unsound photographic rational and understandings. As many have said here, proper, idealized exposure for a fixed media (film, JPEG, raw) isn’t anything new or difficult. Saying you would prefer to be “sloppy” (or whatever term describes what isn’t idealized and proper exposure for the media), isn’t debunking proper exposure for the media any more than an image that’s soft but still visible to the viewer isn’t idealized focus.

What's important is that he took the time and energy out of his life to put the case forward.

</blockquote>

And the replies from the peer group are not if not more equally important? If not, why not make a post exhorting a theory and lock it so others can’t comment? What’s the point? What about the knowledgeable people who took time and energy to review the peer and pretty much dismiss the debunking? No credit for them?

In the end, if the idea is to post a theory that debunks something without peer review, if the OP wants to wiggle around salient points and just disagree, say that close enough is good enough, its all just an exercise in verbal (written) masturbation for the OP. I don’t see the point.

peter_stacey1 · March 17, 2010

Here is another shot that is a more traditional use of ETTR than the previous one:

If you look at the histogram of the shot, you can see that the dynamic range in the image is not that large. During capture, this was pushed up and then processed back down.

It's another one where the detail in the print is good throughout and the print looks much better than it does on the screen.

dan_south · March 17, 2010

I wonder whether in certain situations, bracketing might be a good approach with your system. In film days, bracketing was a standard practice in certain situations, so that after processing you could pick the best exposure for printing (particularly with slide film).

</blockquote>

Bracketing is always a good idea but especially so when working with a stationary camera, a stationary subject, and lighting that isn't subject to change. It's less practical for, say, event, street, and wildlife photography where the subjects move constantly or landscape photography on a windy, partly-cloudy day.

I've been shooting slide film for ten years and continue to do so regularly, so I fully appreciate the value of bracketing. However, I appreciate even more the value of a perfect exposure (using graduated ND filters to manage contrast when necessary). When possible I like to come back with complete images instead of raw materials for a post-processing project. However, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes difficult exposure situations are best suited to a composite shot approach.

You don't seem to particularly like ETTR, and that's OK, but perhaps autobracketing in camera is something you are more comfortable with, and it's really just another form of the same thing.

</blockquote>

I'm completely neutral to ETTR. It makes perfect sense to maximize the S/N ratio of our sensors. I think it would be a lot more practical if our cameras had histograms that accurately represented a RAW processor's capacity, but I know of no camera that features such technology. I'm also not keen on spending a lot of time catching colors that I could have captured accurately at another exposure level.

I have yet to see a convincing argument that ETTR yields superior results over a perfect exposure. All of the examples posted or linked here have fallen short of expectations for one reason or another (e.g. some comparison images were underexposed). I'll keep my mind open, but if standard metering practices yield a good exposure with the colors that I want to see and that doesn't require a lot of post-processing, I don't see a compelling reason to deliberately overespose images in most cases. In the real world, special moments are fleeting and the potential to lose critical highlights is always a risk. I'd rather end up with a tiny bit more noise than a fried exposure. I think I shall give auto-bracketing more of a chance, though. It's probably a good idea.

digitaldog · March 17, 2010

I think it would be a lot more practical if our cameras had histograms that accurately represented a RAW processor's capacity, but I know of no camera that features such technology.

</blockquote>

That would indeed be awesome. Instead of the next group of Canon or Nikon cameras trying to have bigger sensors, how great would it to have such a capability of actually getting real feedback on the data we wish to capture; raw. And it is why these discussions are important (and not trying to debunk something that is more difficult). If more photographers understood the disconnect between the info on the LCD and the data they work with in a raw converter, and made their voices heard to the manufacturers (and they did something as shocking as listening to us), that sure would be cool. I don’t know how many photographers with DSLRs don’t know yet, that the settings for color space, white balance, picture styles have zero effect on the raw data. Or that the LCD info is by and large, a lie. So education is key here (and vocal end users). Much like the discussions of proprietary raw vs. DNG (or some other open standard), the more end users know, the more they can hopefully be educated consumers.

As a Canon shooter, if Nikon came out with a camera body that was identical to my 5DMII but had real raw info on the LCD, it would be enough to make me seriously consider moving over to that company despite having to buy a lot of new glass.

I don't see a compelling reason to deliberately overespose images in most cases.

</blockquote>

I don’t know that anyone would and more than someone deliberately shooting something out of focus. No one is proposing either.

peter_stacey1 · March 17, 2010

Andrew Rodney said:

I don’t see the point.

</blockquote>

Ditto on that.

It's one thing to come in and present a point of view in a rational way, but another altogether to put that point across as a debunk and bad advice.

It's also one thing to put a point across and then present evidence, but another thing altogether to go to more extreme views when rational counter points are made and counter evidence is provided.

If the thread was started in a more positive way, there possibly wouldn't have been such a strong reaction because ultimately, someone in the future might also want to try ETTR and they shouldn't be discouraged by extreme views that don't fit others experiences or that shift to make evidence fit the idea, rather than adjusting so that the idea fits the evidence.

mike_hitchen · March 17, 2010

@ Andrew Rodney

"I don't see a compelling reason to deliberately overespose images in most cases."

I don’t know that anyone would and more than someone deliberately shooting something out of focus. No one is proposing either.

</blockquote>

But isn't that what ETTR is basically doing? My analogy will be shooting a predominantly dark image where the camera will open up to bring the image to 'mid-tone' - a well-known photographic problem. So you can either (a) add compensation or (b) process downwards to bring it back closer to the original low-key image.

Now if you were shooting the same image and set the correct exposure, you would use ETTR to reduce noise in the shadows. So using ETTR is, by definition over-exposure IF your definition of 'overexposure' is that it does not represent the original scene.

digitaldog · March 17, 2010

But isn't that what ETTR is basically doing?

</blockquote>

No, not in my use (and historically many others) of the language based on years of analog and digital photography. Over expose is just that; you blew out highlight detail you didn’t want to. It was true for shooting film, I don’t know why anyone needs to modify this for digital. And its been pointed out numerous times to the OP that ETTR is absolutely not about clipping anything you don’t want to clip, over exposing. ETTR is correct exposure for the raw linear data. Exposing for the JPEG could (and should although you don’t see it often express) as under exposure for the raw data.

IF you exposure for the JPEG, its not the same as exposing for the raw. ETTR means “expose to the right” of the histogram that is lying to you since its based on the JPEG. Its not about over exposing (its about adding more exposure for the data you hope to use, the raw but its not about over exposing). IF you shot raw+JPEG, and you exposed for raw, you would over expose the JPEG. Or to put it another way, if you expose for the JEPG in this scenario, you are under exposing for raw. Two different beasts. Treating them as the same is just one of the major misunderstandings of this debunking theory.

In the old days, when using film, it was a real good idea to test the reported ISO with your labs (or your) processing. Very often, the ISO settings were not the ideal way to treat the film. We tested each, we didn’t assume what was written for one film was true of all other films especially when the processing, which could vary a lot for B&W wasn’t defined. This debunk theory treats this idea as if what is written on the box is an absolute as is the exposure setting provided by the meter without even taking development into account. Its simplistic to a point and thats why its full of holes.

To discuss over, or correct exposure, you have to define the media (film; neg or chrome, digital; raw or JPEG processed), you have to define the metering and you have to define the development.

robert_delaurentis1 · March 17, 2010

Exposing for the JPEG could (and should although you don’t see it often express) as under exposure for the raw data.

</blockquote>

Wow. Thank you for that; this thread contains several messages that have dramatically expanded my understanding of linear capture (I've been a fan of Mr. Schewe's work for years). But this one thought sums up many of the points related to this discussion perfectly for me. Thank you very much for sharing it.

Sign In

Debunking ETTR

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in