ianivey

September 14, 2011

I see a chalice.

September 14, 2011

Misfocus like this is more likely to happen when you 1) use a wide-open aperture, AND 2) activate focus, then recompose prior to taking the picture (e.g., put the center focus point on her face, activate and lock focus, then aim further down to get the composition you want).

Imagine your focal plane as an actual plane out in front of you, perpendicular to your lens shaft. When you shift composition after achieving focus lock, the locked focal plane swings with your camera aim. If you're working with a shallow depth of field, this can leave your intended subject out of focus.

There's another cause of misfocus that plagues me: sometimes, my camera will lock focus on a high-contrast element in the background rather than on my intended subject, even if I have the focus point in the center of my subject. This happens more often if there's a high-contrast pattern behind the subject. In the photo you've provided, the truck bed is extremely high contrast and very easy for the camera to focus on. Patterns like that are, I believe, powerful magnets for most autofocus systems.

September 9, 2011

That's interesting -- I've signed up for tomorrow's repeat. The link in your post refused to allow me to register because it took me to today's session page. <a href="http://www.creativelive.com/calendar">This calendar link</a> shows a link for Saturday's session, which works for enrollment.

Thanks for the tip, Vail.

September 9, 2011

As usual, Nadine is right, so let me modify my last comment: call more photographers, but have a reason for calling the people you're calling. (...a reason that is more valuable to them than that you hope to steal some of their clients as soon as you're able to do so.)

September 9, 2011

It's not at all uncommon for wedding photographers to bring assistants and second shooters -- I have no idea why people in this thread are saying this is unusual. Having competent and reliable help at a wedding is a huge blessing.

Susan, if you're having a tough time finding someone who needs an assistant, it could be for one or more of several possible reasons:

<ul>

<li>you may have been in touch with wedding photographers who aren't at that level, yet (don't ask $800 CL shoot-and-burn photographers whether they can hire an assistant); </li>

<li>you may have used the wrong approach (e.g., something about your initial contact could have put them off); </li>

<li>your portfolio might not suggest that you have what it takes to be helpful (I haven't seen your work, so I don't know); or</li>

<li>you may just have had some bad luck, and need to make more contacts. </li>

</ul>

Cold-calling with an offer to "assist" is a tough gig. I can tell you this much: I would never hire someone who called me out of the blue and, after hearing "no thanks," never called back. And to someone who I've never met, "no thanks" would be my typical response. If you asked for permission to call again, and then did, and perhaps called again a third time, AND you seemed like someone I would like, then I'd consider giving you a shot. So, 1) call more photographers who charge fees that could leave room to hire an assistant, and 2) be friendly as well as politely and sensitively persistent.

September 7, 2011

...and by "so long as you're not a jackass about it....", I mean so long as you consider carefully any impact your equipment might have on the people at, or the flow of, the event, and adapt your approach accordingly, thus minimizing the effect of your presence. So, for example, no insisting on sticking your fill light stand in the middle of the walkway just because you want on-axis fill. :D

September 7, 2011

Yeah, I think Bob has the best approach, and if it's just you shooting, there's a pretty good likelihood that you can set up strobes on stands before-hand. In my experience, most charities asking for photos pro bono will give the photographer considerable leeway in running lights at the event, so long as you're not a jackass about it. :)

Four strobes is great. Let's say the banner is to camera right of the carpet. Consider:

<ol>

<li>one key light up high and to camera left, and </li>

<li>one fill light on the other side of the carpet (i.e., behind and camera-right), as close to the carpet as possible, probably set to a 3:1 ratio. Then, depending on how big the banner is, </li>

<li>one strobe to light the banner (gobo'd so that light doesn't hit the subjects--just the banner), and </li>

<li>the last strobe up high way off in the corner to camera right, with a grid or a snoot, to use as a rim light, aimed at the spot on the carpet where I expect to shoot the subjects. (Or, use this as a second strobe for the banner if the thing is huge or you can't evenly light it with one strobe).</li>

</ol>

If you can't use four, but could use two, try items 1 and 3 from the list above (key and banner lights) with maybe one strobe on camera for fill, dialed way down.

I'm sure they've asked you to feature the banner for promotional purposes, so having just one light will be problematic if the subjects are more than a couple feet away from the banner because falloff will light the subject more than the banner unless you bounce from a source that is equidistant from both (e.g., just the right spot on a wall or ceiling). And shadows on the banner could easily ruin the shots too. So this is the sort of thing that really calls for at least two lights, and would benefit a lot from using four.

I wouldn't explain a lot of this to the organizers -- just tell them you need access to the location in time to evaluate the shot and set up lights to get the exposure right, without going into detail, and you'll probably be allowed to do what you think is best. Once you've set your lights up, it's a lot less scary looking than it sounds if you try to explain how four lights will work ahead of time. :)

September 7, 2011

Absolutely, yes, especially if you have a very low-frequency need for a high-expense item, such as a high-end lens. If you have a local rental shop (Penn Camera at Tysons Corner in Virginia is convenient for me and I now know the staff there), you'll probably get to know the equipment. I rented a D700 to use at a wedding before buying a D3 -- it's a great way to try equipment and see how it affects your results. And I've rented lenses I planned to buy later, while I saved money to buy them, because I didn't want to borrow money. Had mostly great experiences with their equipment, though the sensor on the D700 I rented was pretty dusty.

However, your calculation ignores an important factor: resale value. EBay is great for estimating this: find some year-old or 15,000-shutter-click-count bodies that have sold (i.e., look at completed auctions). Then subtract that amount from the purchase price of those items to get a rough estimate of your actual cost of ownership. Your resale value will likely be lower (and thus your actual cost of ownership likely will be somewhat higher), as we're nearing the end of product life for both the D700 and the 5DII, and once their replacements are announced, used equipment will be more prolific and therefore will price lower. But it will be in the ballpark.

Then calculate how many rentals it would take to match that cost of ownership, and you've got a better idea of how many rentals would be cost-effective.

To reduce your cost of ownership even more, buy gently used equipment. Especially with lenses, you may find that your net cost of ownership of a used lens winds up being zero -- or it might even be profitable against even one rental -- if your resale value is approximately equal to the used price you paid.

August 31, 2011

For a general, walk-around lens, the Tamron 17-50 VC f/2.8 is brilliant on a crop-frame sensor camera like the D300. I've recommended this to several amateur-photographer friends, and they've all been delighted with it. It's within your price range.

Be certain you're getting the VC version (I think that stands for Vibration Control, which is Tamron's version of VR or IS). There's a non-VC version which looks almost identical.

For all-purpose shooting, you'll love that lens as a replacement for your kit 18-55. The other lenses mentioned here (70-200, 50-150) are not replacements for the 18-55; folks may have been recommending the longer lenses as companions to the 35, but you'd have to tell us a bit more about what kinds of things you prefer to shoot before I'd be comfortable recommending that you limit yourself to one normal prime plus a long zoom. For snapshots, the 17-50 is very versatile.

August 31, 2011

Bob's photo is cool and quite sophisticated. But getting "really cool stuff that no one has ever tried" probably takes second-seat to "getting really cool stuff that everyone has tried and that the clients expect" in this case. :D

Lonnie, do you have -- or can you borrow or rent -- a couple of studio strobes to set up in the chapel? Permission to use flash during the ceremony doesn't necessarily mean permission to set up a couple of monolights, but given the extreme circumstances, and so long as you flag the lights to avoid distracting the guests, you might be able to control the lighting in that space quite effectively. You'd definitely need to experiment before-hand, though.

A second option would be to set up several radio-triggered speedlights. The limited power of speedlights would probably mean you'd need to cross-light the couple (plan carefully to avoid having anyone (bride, groom, pastor) cast shadows on anyone else), plus have a flash on camera for fill.

A distant third choice would be a single, on-camera flash. Since there's not really a suitable surface for bouncing, you'd probably have to resort to direct flash, which would produce less-than-ideal results (flat lighting, dark-ish backgrounds as the light falls off).

August 26, 2011

If they could figure out a way to let me set my off camera flash to manual and adjust the power from the camera I would be a happy camper...

</blockquote>

That's something you can do with Einsteins and cybersync / cyber commander; and using Vagabond powerpack, you can even do it without AC power. But of course you lose TTL using studio strobes, not to mention having to deal with the extra bulk.

August 24, 2011

Now, outside of getting these pictures, I have just chilled in the corner. I will pop out every once in awhile to get candids or any other picturesque moments. My question is, should I feel bad about not being out there 100% of the time snapping pictures?

</blockquote>

No, not at all. In fact, most people benefit from taking a break -- it helps you return to the party refreshed, improving your ability to see things you should shoot. My contract establishes the expectation that I'll have a time to stop and eat. This ensures that the clients understand what I'm doing when I stop and sit down. And, like Henry, I try to do this when the guests are eating, and out of sight of the guests.

I have found that people don't like to have their picture taken while they are eating.

</blockquote>

Quite right, and that's just as well, because people don't look good when they're eating. I defy you to get even one usable shot out of every ten you take of people chewing something. And heaven forbid you snap a picture when someone opens her mouth to laugh while it's full of food. :)

So take a break without feeling uncomfortable about it. You're doing guests a favor by not shooting while they're eating, and you're doing your clients a favor by giving yourself a respite.

Incidentally, if the couple have secured a vendor-meal for you from the caterer, it can be a challenge to get that food in time to eat while guests are eating. Caterers tend to want to serve the other vendors only after the guests have been served. But this usually means I can't eat the meal, because things start happening again just about that time. So I usually negotiate with the caterer about the time they start serving, to help them understand that their food will go to waste if they serve it too late, when I have to be back out and active. About 80% of the time, I discover that this is simply something that they hadn't considered, and they try to accommodate.

August 24, 2011

Pocketwizard flex vs. regular PW or cybersync The advantages of the mini/flex over the regular pocketwizards are: the ability to control the flash output from the camera, and the ability to use TTL and high-speed sync. At a reception, TTL is of some value, but it's really not any more difficult to shoot with the flashes on manual at 1/4 to 1/8 power, depending on where they are. Some might even say manual flash power is easier to manage than TTL, given the inconsistency of TTL computation. I certainly would.

At-hand control of the light power is handy because you don't have to pull down the stand to adjust the flash. But once you set the lights the way you want them, you shouldn't need to adjust them much after that.

Having TTL and high-speed synch would definitely be nice if you're using it for off-camera lighting outdoors in bright sunlight -- say during a mid-day bridal shoot or engagement shoot -- and want to use shutter speeds higher than 1/250 to get blue skies. (Even then, you can use ND filters and higher flash output to get that result.)

You might value some of these features more than I do. I use cybersyncs, which are half-to-a-third the price of the original PWs, and in my experience as or more reliable. Nadine made me buy them. And I couldn't be happier with them.

Off-camera flash on stands during receptions At receptions, I typically use two or three Nikon SB-80 speedlights connected to Cybersyncs, with the radio trigger cabled to my camera body's PC connection (and velcroed to my on-camera flash), and one on-camera SB-900 for bounce-fill.

<a href="00YWCp">In another thread, I described a setup</a> in which I used three stand-mounted radio-triggered flashes (bare, mostly aimed into the room but feathered up a bit) in a reception held in a room with very dark walls, uneven ceilings, and extremely low ambient light.

One thing I learned from that experience is the value of having a flash on camera for bouncing. If you look at some of the shots I posted to that thread, you'll see where bounce-fill -- even off a choppy ceiling -- would have improved my results. If I had that reception to do over, I'd have kept the three stand-mounted strobes, but added the SB-900 to my camera for bounce-fill. This would be roughly equivalent to putting your 580 on camera and having your 430 on a stand.

Vail, as much as you liked some of the results of having one flash on a stand, I predict you'll really appreciate the ability to set up cross-lighting. Check ebay for some used SB-80 flashes, or SB-28 or SB-24. You should be able to find good-condition SB-80 units for around $90-$110. An SB-80 set to 1/4 power will go all night on one fresh set of eneloops. Remember, the brand isn't important if you're just using them on manual power via radio trigger. You might be happy to have a third Canon-brand strobe that could serve as a backup on-camera flash in a pinch, but I don't know which older models are worth looking at in the Canon line -- perhaps Nadine has a recommendation.

Since a modifier on the flash only costs you power, you just leave the strobes bare and aim them:

<ul>

<li>up and a bit into the room if the ceiling is suitable for bouncing, or </li>

<li>straight into the room and then a tad bit up to feather off the folks closest to the flash, if the ceiling is not suitable for bouncing, or even </li>

<li>back at the wall (set to wide angle with the diffusion plate down) if you have a big white area you want to use as a gigantic modifier, which actually can produce a useful softening effect if you put the stand far enough away from the wall to make the reflected light source big. </li>

</ul>

I usually wouldn't use an omni-bounce because it will tend to throw too much light down onto the people closest to the strobe. The inverse square rule says those people will be problematically overexposed compared to the people a moderate distance away from the stand. It's usually better to bounce (i.e., make the light "source" closer to the same distance from most people it lights) or feather away from the people close to the stand (i.e., send most of the strength of the light farther into the room, and spill a smaller amount of it down onto the space close to the light).

If you purchase the flex system, you can still use it exactly like this. But something to consider: you could get a Cybersync setup with two triggers, three or four receivers, and a used strobe or two, all for about the same price you'd pay for a mini/flex pair (not to mention a mini/flex set with more than one receiver).

August 23, 2011

FWIW I was not trying to be picky with this thread.... I think there's a great deal more value in threads like this than in whether a 24-105 is a better wedding lens than a 24-70!

</blockquote>

LOL, I didn't think you were nit-picking, just clarifying your point. Perfectly reasonable. And obviously it's the 24-70.

August 23, 2011

John MacPherson wrote:

As it stands her contract is to photograph the couple and she can do that without any additional agreement that increase her liability in the manner described in the waiver. Thats what venues have insurance for.

</blockquote>

Your clarification reinforces my original understanding of your comment, John, so let me also clarify mine. The fact that she has an agreement with the bride and groom does not, in itself, allow her to force her way onto the restaurant premises. The restaurant is likely private property, and the owner may refuse access to the photographer without regard to the photographer's agreement with a mutual client (unless the client and restaurant have an agreement requiring the restaurant to admit the photographer, which seems unlikely).

Excluding the photographer from the restaurant may make the mutual client unhappy, but the fact that the photographer has a contract with the mutual client does not provide the photographer with any rights she can exercise against the restaurant to, for example, insist on access to the site.

Therefore, if it were me, I would notify my client right away, so that my client -- who does have an agreement and relationship with the restaurant -- may apply appropriate pressure to ensure that I willhave access and be allowed to meet my contractual obligations.

John Henneberger wrote:

I agree with John. I just don't see this kind of activity being required.

</blockquote>

Oh, I entirely agree with you both on that point. The release seems ridiculous to the point of being humorous, and there's ample reason to question its legal viability in the long view. But that doesn't diminish the restaurant owner's ability to interfere in the short term. Nor does it keep the client from damaging the photographer's reputation or even from filing a losing-but-still-costly-and-disruptive suit.

Whether a court would rule in the OP's favor in the end isn't my main concern, here. Instead, if it were me, I would want to avoid a situation in which the restaurant might cause mischief and in which the client might blame the photographer for not acting in time to head off a problem. That's why I'd loop the client in immediately -- to involve the party who has the most influence over the restaurant. I would want to satisfy my client that I took reasonable and prompt steps to prevent this from developing into a last-minute crisis.

August 22, 2011

John MacPherson wrote:

Hmmm - methinks your contract is with the couple - and its already signed, and that is where your obligation is detailed.

And as that is the case, you do not therefore need to sign any additional contractual agreements. The arrangement you have agreed upon, and signed, is one you may legally uphold....

</blockquote>

The fact that the photographer has an enforceable contract with the bride and groom does not, alone, entitle the photographer to set foot on the restaurant premises. The photographer has no relationship to, or contractual leverage with, the restaurant.

But the photographer does have a legal obligation to the clients. This is one reason why John Henneberger's analysis is important: the clients may be able to enforce the photography agreement against the photographer regardless of the actions of the restaurant.

If the OP's contract includes a clause that says her contract is the entire agreement, and that she is not liable for the consequences of actions or decisions of venues or other vendors which interfere with her ability to perform, then she may be better protected against this sort of nonsense.

If it were me, I'd be sure my client knew about this issue in plenty of time to rein in the wedding planner and apply pressure to the restaurant by, among other things, threatening to take business elsewhere if the restaurant refused access to the photographer, and by demanding to see the restaurant's proof of insurance.

August 18, 2011

You chose to center the bride in the frame, and it seems as though you did this in camera, rather than by doing much cropping in post. For a centered composition to have worked well, it seems to me that you should have positioned the camera in the center as well, shooting perpendicular to the window-wall, so that the window and framing lines in the room created a more symmetrical perspective. However, you might not have been able to center your shooting position because the bride might have been facing too far away from the camera from that position.

Because the camera position is at an angle from the window, I agree with the prior two comments that positioning the subject off-center improves the image.

August 18, 2011

It sounds pat, but you use flash when the scene is too dark to provide the exposure you want without exceeding your ISO comfort zone or using a shutter speed that's too slow, and when you need to fill shadows to deal with extreme contrast or otherwise modify ambient light conditions. This answer is very general, because your question is very general (hence Nadine's response as well).

If you know what the lighting conditions inside the church will be, and can describe them (e.g., bright or dim; varying or relatively consistent front-to-back; fluorescent or incandescent or lots of window-lighting; high ceiling or low; the color of the ceiling), and if you know what the rules will be (e.g., flash any time; flash only during procession/recession; or no flash allowed), we can have a more specific discussion -- at least, to whatever extent you think you can manage additional information.

Keeping a flash attached to your camera all the time will at least give you the immediate choice all the time, even though it adds bulk.

For the sake of discussion, here are three scenarios when you might want to use flash:

Outside, in direct, bright light: you might use flash to fill shadows, reducing contrast to avoid blown highlights. As a fill light, direct flash set to -2 or -3 stops of exposure compensation helps avoid an unattractive flat lighting effect. You might even use flash as a key light if you position the subjects so that the sun is behind them, meaning the direct sun is a rim light, and ambient helps fill.

Inside the church, when people are walking -- especially during the procession and recession: using flash (bounced flash if there's something to bounce off of, and if you understand bounce flash techniques; direct flash if your skill or the environment keep you from bouncing), flash can give you a faster shutter speed to freeze subject movement. A shutter speed of 1/250 or faster is helpful to avoid ruining images.

During the reception, especially if it is dark: it's especially useful during dancing and activities (vital during, say, the bouquet toss). It can also be helpful during speeches, but it's important not to machine-gun during speeches if you're using flash, because it is distracting.

There are lots, and lots, and lots of other times and reasons to use flash when shooting a wedding, and several techniques will improve results over direct flash (except for use as a fill, where direct, on-camera flash can be fine and unobtrusive). The main thing for your first wedding is to have the flash handy, look at your LCD screen a lot (be sure you have the camera body set to flash the blown highlight areas on the screen), try a few things when you have time to experiment, but be sure you catch the key moments.

If you can, go to each location and practice a technique or two (if you try the church, for example, have someone walk down the aisle toward you while you shoot, at roughly the same time of day as the ceremony if possible), and try bouncing from different surfaces and/or direct flash, depending on the environment. Identify the settings that produce the best results so you know exactly what you're going to do when the time comes. You'll be glad you did this kind of practice before your first real-thing.

August 17, 2011

It is certainly useful to have handy a small collection of throw-away shots, which might include closed-eye, eating, bad expression, and other elements that make them clear rejects. Showing thirty or so of these shots to a client along with the six or eight shots you kept from that set (if that's roughly your keep rate), helps them appreciate how annoying it is to sift through a bunch of crummy photos to find and enjoy the gems. This reduces the clients' concern that you'll throw away something they might have wanted, and also helps convey the value of the service you provide.

August 12, 2011

Geoff, I only see galleries of individual photos at those links, and no albums, though I'm looking at this on an iPad, so if

it is flash based, that might be why. Do the links actually take you to albums?

August 12, 2011

If there's time for shipping, borrowlenses.com has the 17-55 for rent. I've never used them for rental, but it might be a

good option for you, given the apparent scarcity of lenses in your area. I think you'd be very happy to have that range

of zoom on one body most of the time.

If you decide, either during the test shoot or even the day of the wedding, that using two bodies actively is unwieldy,

just put the second one in the bag and keep it in reserve as your backup. No sweat.

Otherwise, as far as kit goes, it sounds like you're in good shape.

August 10, 2011

In the United States, the answer to each question is "maybe," though each successive question increases the likelihood of a "yes," by removing elements that could contribute to a Fair-Use defense. In all three questions, you've taken the entire photograph, which is one factor in the analysis, and which counts against you. And the photo is a published work, which would help support (but would not alone justify) a Fair-Use defense.

There are many conceivable reasons for printing out an entire web page, and some of them would fall under a Fair-Use exception to an infringement claim. Whether your use of that web page, including the photo, constitutes infringement depends on a number of factors including the nature of your intended use (e.g., to resell the entire page for profit or use it for some kind of commercial purpose, vs. to discuss in an academic setting) and the extent and medium/media of your distribution. Possible infringement is not limited to the photo, in this case; you may have infringed the copyright of the author(s) of the web page content as well.

Isolating the image limits the discussion to the photo, but the questions are the same: how and for what purpose are you using the photo? How are you distributing it, and how widely? Does your use injure the photographer by putting a dent in his sales of that photo or reducing its value in the market?

Framing the print and hanging it in your office implies that you value the photo enough to purchase it, which is problematic for you. Your use likely does not add meaning or context to the photo, so it is therefore less likely to be viewed as Fair Use.

There are other factors beyond those I've brought up; I'm merely outlining some of the considerations. Your questions are (perhaps deliberately) vague, so precise answers are not possible. Moreover, I wouldn't publish precise answers to legal questions like these in a public forum, nor should you act in reliance on such answers from anyone who does.

August 9, 2011

Bill wrote:

I understand the thought process of 1 photo per pose but it's always been my policy to give a couple or few of each pose to allow them to choose from.

</blockquote>

I believe your policy (it's not so much a policy as it is an intention, this being your first wedding, which is not similar to, say, portraiture) comes from positive motives to deliver the most value to your client. So I salute your intention, but I'd like it to be better informed.

The reason you give the client one image of each moment or pose is that it is painful to have to sift through two or three or four shots of the same moment or pose. One skill that distinguishes a wedding photographer from a casual snapshot photographer is the ability to choose the right moment to shoot, or, after shooting one moment several times (some circumstances justify doing so), to choose the best image of the subset.

Don't inflict this job on your clients. An album of 400-600 shots is something clients can manage and enjoy. Even if you cull half your images for technical reasons, 2000 images is not manageable. Clients can't sit through that many images from start to finish and enjoy seeing their day play out. From 4000, it will be a herculean effort to cull even to 400-600, which is why you should do it, and not make your clients do it.

Additionally, the suffering you will experience in culling from 4000 to 600 will shape your photography for the better. If you punt and make your clients do this, your photography will take much longer to improve. But, the next time you shoot a wedding, if you have this awful memory of trying to cull 4000 images, one of the voices in your head will keep nagging you to shoot fewer images, and instead shoot better ones.

In case I didn't make it clear, a policy of giving clients thousands of images punishes your clients for hiring you, rather than hiring someone who 1) shoots fewer, better images, and 2) has the skill to sort and cull. :D

Okay, now, having said that, if you are for some reason still determined to deliver every single even-remotely-arguably-usable image to the clients, at least have the decency to sort them into two categories: your premiere shots and your backup collection. The premiere collection should contain no more than one shot of any pose, and then if the clients want an alternate for any image, they can just flip over to the backup folder and find additional shots of the same thing.

Glad you enjoyed the wedding day. Keep in mind that the job extends until (and often past) the minute you deliver images to your client, so make decisions after you've done what many of us consider the harder work (at least, early in your career) of selecting and processing images for delivery.

Let us know how this goes, would you?

August 8, 2011

Could you be more specific about what kind of advice you're seeking? (You could be asking about flash or ISO or tripods or swinging from the rafters. The high ceilings could be light or dark. The church could be well-lit or nearly pitch-black.)

I'm guessing you're asking what to do if you can't bounce flash off the ceiling, but the question is so wide open.

August 3, 2011

I've found Costco's quality for photographic prints to be acceptable for some purposes, but inconsistent. Shots I've had printed in 4x6 and (cropped using the store's software from the same file) 5x7 in the same order have had noticeably different casts. I don't have this problem when dealing with my pro labs. It is impossible to say whether the difference is in equipment, personnel, or both.

A few months ago, I stopped by the photo desk at Costco and looked at the samples of canvas print material they had on display, and judged the image quality to be significantly below what I got from Canvas On Demand in a recent order -- the printing wasn't as sharp, and the canvas didn't have the same high quality appearance. But I don't know whether they were using the same supplier or process -- I don't recall seeing anything about the YPOC brand at the time.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by ianivey