Jump to content
Welcome to the NEW Photo.net! ×

What is the real difference between home prints and pro lab prints?


rick_collins2
 Share

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello and thanks in advance.<br>

I am just wondering what the benefits and also the negatives are of giving my clients prints from my Epson 3880 here at home printed on Fiber paper as opposed to prints I get from the professional lab?<br>

I love the results I get from the 3880. And the thicker fiber paper is nice as well, but is this enough? Are these prints "better" than what I can get from my local pro lab?<br>

I realize I can specify with the pro lab to get thicker paper etc, but costs are pretty high.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> I am just wondering what the benefits and also the negatives are of giving my clients prints from my

Epson 3880 here at home printed on Fiber paper as opposed to prints I get from the professional lab?

 

You are in full control of the process and can create (with learned skills) and deliver what you had in mind.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Do what you like, what you enjoy. There are differences in archival quality, in handling requirements, etc. But one is not better than the other - they are different. More importantly, there are differences in what the prints look like. At the top level, darkroom prints don't have the range of an inkjet print. I personally dislike a luster surface when compared to a high end rag paper like PhotoRag 308, or Japanese Kozo. Some people like the look of darkroom prints. Some don't. You get to choose.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Epson <em>can</em> produce better quality depending on the technology used by the lab IF the person handling the Epson is sufficiently trained as a printer. The advantages are a wider color gamut, bigger option for paper surfaces and paper types. The prints will also have much higher archival properties (light fastness). </p>
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It depends on the lab you send your work to. The one I do work with, mostly uses RA3/RA4 silver printing. That would be night and day differences to ink jet. They have about 15 papers to choose from. They also do ink-jet (9900) for canvas. They also have an assorted variety of dye subs and a giclee printer for fine art. So, it really depends what lab. The guys I do work for are in it for keeps. Some other shops, not so much.</p>

<p>It all boils down to this...if you care about what you do, you probably will do a great job. If you send it out, do the research.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In my pretty substantial experience, the main thing is that the pro lab prints are made by people who do this for a living, versus someone who does it on the side. Now, if the person who does it on the side is pretty knowledgeable as to how to do things, and they have time on their hands, they ought to be able to do pretty good work with either RA4 wet prints or ink jet prints. For the most part, one does not need to match the "best" a lab can do, but rather just be high enough on the quality scale that a customer won't see any difference.</p>

<p>Some of the comments imply that your Epson materials are in some ways better than those from the lab, but the OP did not specifically say what the lab prints are - they might also be inkjet prints.</p>

<p>If the situation is really a comparison between a lab's RA4 wet prints vs a high-quality ink/paper combination on the Epson, I'd largely agree with other posts - the inkjet has larger color gamut, more paper surfaces, and better permanence with regard to fading. On the other hand, a great many photos don't contain colors that use the larger gamuts if they are being printed in a relatively "straight" manner. And something I've observed, with a limited number of inkjet and dye sub printers, is that the color appearance of professional RA4 papers is less affected by different light sources. To be clear, if you make matching prints on both, using, for example, ANSI-standard viewing conditions, then view both prints under various fluorescent lamps, it's more likely that you'll be unhappy with the inkjet prints. (By "unhappy," I mean that if you had the chance to make another color adjustment, you would do so.)</p>

<p>I sort of wonder if the pro lab's "thin paper," assuming RA4 wet prints, is really pro paper. The mainstream pro color papers generally contain the word "professional," so look for this. If it's not there, ask your lab - more than likely this would mean it's an amateur paper.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The question as asked is complex and unanswerable. If you're talking a lab's volume minilab product, with limited human input in the interests of keeping prices down, then its possible that a skilled user of a competent inkjet printer might well be able to produce better results at home. There's a cost in terms of time and maybe materials though.</p>

<p>But if we're talking larger prints on RA4 machines like Chromira, Lambda, Lightjet, or the most up to date large Epsons and ink-sets, both using a properly supervised print process on machines that are properly set up and maintained, its going to be more difficult for the home user to outperform the lab from essentially the same files. And you're going to get a range of papers offered. But the factors behind "best" are multiple, and interact. You've also got to take into account what the customer will pay for- using the best, most hands-on process a pro-lab can offer might not be feasible from a combination of your margin and the customer's budget. <br>

Finally its not realistic to assume that all pro-labs are the same. If you're not 100% happy with one lab's minilab prints, its just as likely you can improve by changing labs as by taking on the task yourself.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>""Unfortunately I find that the pro lab prints I order are on thin paper and look and feel "cheap" compared to what I am putting out.""</em><br>

Change lab and be ready to pay more, and you will probably be seeing something better than what most of us can do ourselves.<br>

I fully agree with David comments above.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You have to <em><strong>want</strong></em> to make a print (have the time, decide it's more profitable than shooting). And you have to know what you're doing with the data. <br>

Some labs just send the RGB number to the device and they are done. Are the RGB numbers in prime shape for that device? <br>

I have the same Epson printers as Mac Holbert formally of Nash Editions. He's a much, much better printer than I am. It's not the Epson, it's what Mac can do to the data before it gets printed. If Mac sends me the RGB files, I can produce the same print he can using the same Epson. <br>

Give someone a neg and they might produce a great print or an awful one. Digital isn't different, we're dealing with digital clay here. In the right hands you get a lovely vase, in the wrong hands, an ugly ashtray. </p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As others have stated, there is a wide range of commercial labs, and there is a wide range of "home" printers and levels of expertise. (My "home" printer is a 24" roll-fed printer -- the same exact model used by the local big-name mini lab.) I think it's like everything else, you can get remarkable results if you <strong>commit</strong> -- either by acquiring the tools and learning to do it yourself, or paying someone that's already done so. You just have to decide how much of a commitment your images are worth.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As "Dog" has indicated, great prints are made by people, not by technology, whether it be darkroom, alt process or inkjet technology. The basic truth remains that if you don't know where you are going, its awful hard to get there.</p>

<p>To make great prints, you have to look at books, study the history, and look at original prints made by others. Once you find what you like, then you can learn to control the technology required to make a print in that style.</p>

<p>I am a professional printer. Can I make a better print than person x ? It depends. If person x knows what they want, and has the tools, the answer is no. Most of the time what I do is help the person define what they want, or what the image wants, within their aesthetic. The rest is fairly simple, at least once ones' systems are balanced.</p>

<p>Handing off something to a lab where someone you never meet makes a print is a waste of time, IMO, unless you don't have a printing setup yourself, are not interested in the printing part of the process, or simply don't have the time. </p>

<p>Working with a professional should help you to tune what you want and to see what's possible within a medium. Once the requirements of a print are defined, professionals should be able to get there a little sooner, provided they know their stuff. However, that first part is the important one, and takes much longer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"....<em>great prints are made by people, not by technology, whether it be darkroom, alt process or inkjet technology."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>There's a considerable amount of hand in hand going on between the person and the technology. For some people (self included) the current inkjet technology has brought about the ability to produce better and perfectly repeatable prints than were obtained with the darkroom process.</p>

<p>For myself I can make prints using my Epson 3800/3880 printers that are far better than anything I could produce in the darkroom. (Note that I say <strong><em>I</em></strong> could produce, I'm not trying to argue that inkjet is better than darkroom just that the advent of inkjet technology has for some people opened up a means of producing quality prints that was not possible for them using previous methods).</p>

<p>Whether the prints I make on my Epson are better than someone else's prints, be they darkroom, inkjet or external lab is another question. And one with a wide variety of answers. I look at my prints and I consider them generally to be as good as prints that I see elsewhere. If I look in galleries at prints I can't know if someone is making the prints themselves or getting it done for them but I can arrive at a conclusion about whether my prints stack up quality wise with the best of them. In the main they do. To my eyes. BUT I haven't seen ALL prints so maybe one day I'm in for a big shock and I don't doubt there are far, far better prints out there than mine but they must exist outside the circles I currently move in so, for now, I'm fine in my own sphere.</p>

<p>I still fret over them though and will return to them to make adjustments as time goes by and improve the print quality. I suspect I get in the order of 80 to 90% of the full potential out of my printers the way they are currently set up so there is still scope for improvement in my prints. If I were to add a RIP and better spectrophotometer to produce more accurate profiles then there likely would be even more to gain but that's a cost I can't justify for a gain I can't quantify. These quality improvements though are often indiscernible to a third party which brings into question are they worth it. One's own situation will help answer that one, you might be the only person viewing your prints but are particularly fastidious about them and will always strive for that closer to perfection result. Technology improvements will push that goal further away and if you're approach is open to improvements too then you never stop learning so skill levels grow as well. There seems to be no end to it.</p>

<p>I believe the original question has been answered for the OP already, he's happy with his 3880 prints. If his clients are also happy then he's getting the benefit of being in full control of what he does. The best way forward is to remain self critical to stay ahead of your own game - no doubt why he asked the question in the first place. Labs vary, individuals vary you've just got to pick one method that satisfies your needs. Needs vary....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>There's a considerable amount of hand in hand going on between the person and the technology. For some people (self included) the current inkjet technology has brought about the ability to produce better and perfectly repeatable prints than were obtained with the darkroom process.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would disagree. What you are talking about is medium-level printing. Basic printing, "good enough" printing. This works well in a commercial context where the print simply has a purpose to satisfy. Most photographers do this., especially those that print dark, or contrasty, use garish color, or glossy paper. There is another level. It's not for everyone, but it doesn't go "hand in hand" with technology. It's about a photographic vision that's personal to someone.</p>

<p>The technology is just technology. One learns it enough to master it and then does something with it. It isn't particularly repeatable, and anyone who thinks so is not looking that closely. I am doing a test print right now - on very expensive Kozo paper - for an image I printed a week ago. I have no sense of certainty that it will be perfect. Might be. Truth is, I'm going to look. It's likely it will need a slight adjustment. I have all the best color management toys, I am really good at this, but when we talk exhibition quality print, which is all I make, it requires a look. It did rain yesterday, the temperature is quite moderate and the coating might have soaked a little of that moisture up. Things will change.</p>

<p>There are a lot of different kinds of photography. A personal genre may or may not include exquisite printing (whatever that means for someone) as part of the aesthetic. When it does, and if it includes a full range of tones, it forces one to a different level of printing. It's helpful if you've spent time in a darkroom, even more if you've done some alt process. It's essential that you've studied what you are doing, and you know where you want to get to with an image before you start wasting ink and paper...</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It's about a photographic vision that's personal to someone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That no one's going to see but you no matter how much anyone pays for the print. Or else you must have a very small clientele who can see and appreciate your personal vision considering the saturated market of amateur photographers who'ld rather look at their own personal vision over paying for someone elses.</p>

<p>Could you photograph and post the image here that show the differences only you see as your personal vision that require slight adjustments so we all can see what you're talking about and learn from it?</p>

<p>Other than that I don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is a site for photographers to learn from one another and I'm trying my best to see what you're teaching that would make us better photographers.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>First, let me clarify. When I was talking about a vision that's personal to someone, I was talking about theirs, not mine.</p>

<p>If you look at the bottom of any page here, you will see a lot of different styles. All are valid. Some of these people are interested in exquisite printing, and some aren't. I've spent a lot of time studying the photosecession, and studying great printers, from Frederick Evans and Sutcliffe, to name a couple, to Paul Caponigro, and plenty of others. I've been training my eyes since I was 9, and I know how to make these kinds of results happen in a variety of technologies. I do have a very small set of clients who appreciate the difference.</p>

<p>To attempt to answer your question, I'll offer this: I was printing large images on 38 inch Iris sheets for Craig Carlson when I said the latest print (which he was fine with) needed a slight adjustment. I pulled out a brush, added a dodge adjustment layer, and began to paint with a 3% brush. He asked me what I was doing, he was familiar with the technique but had never done it with anything less than a 15% opacity. I convinced him to be patient and when we pulled the print and put it on the wall it began to radiate. It popped. It sang, it turned the lights on - whatever metaphor you want to use. Craig was stunned, and he thanked me for what he learned that day. I can't show it to you on the internet, unfortunately. It wouldn't show up.... On that day we were working on the photograph, or the final print, as an object (vs a concept, or a shot, I suppose).</p>

<p>Now, to the deeper question, "Why does it matter if one makes a change that only they can see?" This question goes to the purpose of photography. What the hell i<em>s</em> photography, after all? What makes a photograph a piece of art? What makes a person an artist? </p>

<p>My answer to this, is that its about learning to speak in a visual language; and actually having something to say. My mentor in my college days, Phil Perkis, used to say, "At the end of the day have you anything to share with the rest of us? Do you have any wisdom, have you learned anything during your time here on Earth?" It was a tough question, I was in my 20's and it was eminently clear that I didn't have any wisdom, nor did I have any idea how to get any.</p>

<p>After some time, and some looking, learning and ultimately "seeing", things do change. Today when I look at photographs I want to learn something. I like new things, but am more interested in understanding something that I had seen before but not understood fully. I remember doing a reproduction for Arthur Singer, a well-known bird painter. The leaves one one side of a tree were kind of ratty, not smooth. Zooming in to 200% I could see that it was deliberate. He understood that the prevailing winds, in this case, in the tropics, came from one side of the tree. He understood something, and passed it along. Very few people ever saw that distinction, but he knew it was there.</p>

<p>I think that part of an artist's journey is integrity. It's about doing something exquisitely, going all the way, having something that one understands and speaking to it in one's visual language. If it is done only part way, its quite visible, and there is the sense that something is missing. People may not be able to see that a print is taken all the way to the nth degree, but if they meet you they can sense whether you have done this or not. It's about one's own personal journey, and not about sales. That's an entirely different matter. I think we all need to stand for something.</p>

<p>I am sure that others will disagree, and that's fine. We all have our own way of looking at this... and we all stand somewhere. Sometimes its within the context of our artwork and sometimes its somewhere else. Or in a lot of places. I hope I have answered your question... at least in some measure.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>To attempt to answer your question, I'll offer this: I was printing large images on 38 inch Iris sheets for Craig Carlson when I said the latest print (which he was fine with) <strong>needed a slight adjustment.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm getting a bit confused. So you're a photographer printing your own work for your clients? Or are you printing for other photographers according to their standards? Or both? <strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Can you post before/after samples of the results from these slight adjustments just to show what level of personal preference these clients demand?</p>

<p>The whole gist of your point of disagreement was to show the limits of inkjet technology, but now you're basing your argument on having to apply specific tweaks based on individual subjectivity on how the print should look because a color managed screen to print match workflow isn't getting it done which is not the fault of inkjet printing technology.</p>

<p>Not all printing technology is perfect but to say inkjets require just as much fussing around with tweaks over other print technologies is not being realistic or fair toward inkjets. Having to do tweaks to correct for something this personal can be attributed to any print technology, but I'll take inkjet over anything that came before it which was crap and a PITA to work with.</p>

<p>Sure you can tweak the digital image all you want but when did color labs in the film days allow this?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"I would disagree"</em></p>

<p>That's ok but I would still maintain that there is a dependence on the technology which we can not ignore or just accept.<br>

<br /><em>"The technology is just technology"</em><br>

<br />And <em>"a photographic vision"</em> is just "a photographic vision" and remains so without having technology to make it a reality. That's what I mean by the person working hand in hand with technology. Let me rephrase your comment as I would see it :-</p>

<p><em>"the technology is just marvellous"</em></p>

<p>I have no problem acknowledging the debt owed to the technology for my own ability to create prints I could not previously (i.e with darkroom technology) have created. I'm happy to say I work hand in hand with technology and my own vision of what the print should be.</p>

<p><em>"It isn't particularly repeatable"</em></p>

<p>As far as repeatability goes my comment refers to the post processing work on the image where all the dodging/burning work that may have taken place under the enlarger is built in to the print file and is repeatable for each print in a run. Not something that was possible for many, if any in the darkroom.</p>

<p>Your Kozo test print if it came out requiring some recalibration for the particular circumstances of the day would eventually print to your satisfaction and presumably on that day from that point you could print any number of prints with repeatability and no further need for test prints. The technology is giving us this repeatability because we can rely on it. Maybe not 100% day to day with high end printing but within any printing session there has to be a window where all prints will match.</p>

<p>Thing is this is a forum for enthusiasts/amateurs/professionals/novices so whatever anyone says is going to be more relevant to some than it will be to others. There are very few who will be printing at the high end or indeed who have the need of prints from the high end. It may in fact be totally inappropriate to refer to such levels when answering the majority of the types of questions that get asked here. So although it's nice and esoteric to dabble here with people who do high end, it might be that the <em>"good enough"</em> printing of some will still be better than the majority would be satisfied with and often times will indeed be ... "good enough", particularly if good enough is used without a pejorative nuance.<br>

<br />I note you clarify the <em>"vision"</em> reference to define it as someone else's vision not yours. In my mind this puts you in the role of a technician rather than say artist/creator. I say this not as a slur, I would personally be delighted to be held as a master technician of digital printing but you can't get away from the fact that everything you do to an image to realise this other person's vision is done using technology. The artistic/creative/vision side of it is done by the photographer. It may be revealed by the technician but unless you are doing other than the photographer requests the vision side of it is just instructions to you to use the technology to arrive at the print.</p>

<p>If I were a photographer having prints made for me for an exhibition I would be glad to say that I have a master printer who creates my prints exactly to my specification. I wouldn't be happy to say that I pass my image files over to him and let his artistic vision work wonders on them for me. This is where I see the role of a printer as being that of technician, no artistic input into my work. There is artistry involved in the print making but it is the artistry of commanding the technology and not the creative artistry of the photographer.<br>

There's nothing wrong with using technology but it doesn't need to be diminished by mystique and mystique it is when presented as the holy grail of printing within a context of forum readers/responders who have no need of such aspirational levels of printing for the majority, or indeed any, of their work. A Costco print works just fine for many/most.</p>

<p>And just to be clear I am not questioning your levels of knowledge or ability. What I am questioning is the relevance of these sort of responses to questions in this kind of forum. The OP asked a question in which he refers to his 3880 prints and mentions his own satisfaction with them and asks for opinions versus pro lab prints. We know precious little about what he's actually doing, he says he gives the prints to his clients. I suspect he sells them to them but they may indeed be given as part of a more complete service package - who knows. Whatever the answer it's drawing a fairly long bow to assume he may require the absolute high end in print services, the clue is in the fact that he is personally happy with his 3800 prints made by himself. Somebody asks "I want to buy a camera please advise" we don't all just pile in and tell them to get an Alpa because, "well, I can't really stand Nikon because of their after sales attitude" or "Panasonic don't make real cameras they make televisions". We tailor our response to the way in which the question is asked.</p>

<p>Have to say it makes for more interesting reading though and it's nice to know someone's getting the work where they can fully exercise their technological skills.</p>

<p>Finally <em>"....have you learned anything during your time here..." </em>yes I have, I've looked up Kozo paper and whetted my appetite to give it a try.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To me there are a key differences between lab and home prints. I started off using a labs, tried several. Here are the issues I came across</p>

<ul>

<li>Very difficult to find a lab that prints on archival paper, a couple claimed they did, what arrived wasn't</li>

<li>Color permanence is not verifiable</li>

<li>Paper is very thin. Often it's printed on resin paper which makes mounting very difficult</li>

<li>Routine issues with WYSIWYG, sometime even from the same lab when reordered weeks later. The new print didn't match the first print. Sometimes what you get back didn't match what was on my screen, I would have to adjust and print again. I've since resolved this by getting a Eizo monitor with built in calibration.</li>

</ul>

<p>I finally broke down and spent the money on a HP Z3200ps. It's got a built in photo spectrometer that allows me to create a custom profile for any paper.</p>

<p>For the prints I do, I use heavier paper from Hanhnemule 200-350 gsm. With the HP inks it's been tested for an estimated color fastness of over 100 years by an independent lab.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Routine issues with WYSIWYG, sometime even from the same lab when reordered weeks later. The new print didn't match the first print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That can be a significant problem with <em>some</em> outside providers. The same RGB numbers printed today and a year from now should produce identical output. If one is going to use a provider, send them a reference test image from the start. Keep that print and file. If something appears to go wrong with an order, have the same document printed again. If it doesn't match the original, time to find a new lab. Process control is critical! </p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm getting a bit confused. So you're a photographer printing your own work for your clients? Or are you printing for other photographers according to their standards? Or both? <strong><br /></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am a photographer. i print my own work. I also print for other photographers, and yes, according to their style and standards. I am quite experienced, been doing it professionally since the '80's. I printed for Avedon, among many others. I make most of my photographic income from high-end scanning, on my Aztek Premier drum scanner.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you post before/after samples of the results from these slight adjustments just to show what level of personal preference these clients demand?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. First of all, its their work, and second the web doesn't show these distinctions.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The whole gist of your point of disagreement was to show the limits of inkjet technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. My point was that prints are made by people, not technology. The way to make a great print is to know what a great print is (for one's self) and then to make the technology do it for you. The discussion was about Labs, and my point was that having a Lab do jot for you does not guarantee anything, unless you are working with the person at the Lab to get what you want.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>on how the print should look because a color managed screen to print match workflow isn't getting it done which is not the fault of inkjet printing technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a ton of experience in color management. i've built hundreds of profiles for the different papers I've used, have terrific equipment and software. A fancy Eizo screen. Anyone that imagines what they see on their screen is going to match exactly what they get when they give it to someone else to print, just isn't looking that closely, or doesn't need that kind of quality. It may be that its commercial vs some sort of exhibition or museum quality.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Not all printing technology is perfect but to say inkjets require just as much fussing around with tweaks over other print technologies is not being realistic or fair toward inkjets. Having to do tweaks to correct for something this personal can be attributed to any print technology, but I'll take inkjet over anything that came before it which was crap and a PITA to work with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every professional printer I've spoken to agrees with me. A great print takes as much work in any technology. i have nothing against ink jets, in fact, that's what I print with. (Altho' one of these days I am firing up my platinum again, almost there.) While its mostly much less than that, if you haven't printed something 20 times or more to get it right, you won't know what I am talking about.</p>

<p>And I'm sorry, but to suggest that everything that came before was crap is patently ridiculous. Alt process prints are exquisite, for example. Darkroom printing yields wonderful results, and while I don't prefer them, I am not going to diss them. I made a lot of excellent silver prints in my years doing this, and frankly I want to appreciate excellence wherever I find it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sure you can tweak the digital image all you want but when did color labs in the film days allow this?</p>

</blockquote>

 

Having worked in a professional lab, I can tell you that every color and b&w lab tweaks their printing for the customer. Unless we are talking about Costco, or some sort of automated process... they don't even show up on my radar. I'm just not that interested in mediocre. Thankfully, I have the tools and I don't have to be.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...