[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Now accepting credit card payment for 4chan Pass purchases and renewals. Click here for details.

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: D7200 v D7500.jpg (809 KB, 2500x1268)
809 KB
809 KB JPG
Trying to upgrade from a Nikon D3100 since it's limiting my shots, has trouble reading newer cards / telephoto lenses, and starting to fall apart after years of use. I'm stuck between the D7200 and the D7500.

I can grab a D7200 new for $700, but for $150 more I can grab a certified refurbished D7500.

Anyone who's used either, what would you recommend? Everyone tells me they're basically the same or 1 has the edge over the other.

I'm mainly shooting birds / wildlife, and I'm starting to do other things like portraits, landscapes, and moon stuff.
>>
>>3435092
Just did this from d3300 to d7200. If you're happy with the 3100, you'll be more than pleased with the 7200. I'm having a blast with mine, it's more camera than I expected.
>>
>>3435094
Anything you like in particular from the 7200? Also, the buffer is not as bad as people say it is right?
>>
>>3435092
What are even the benefits of the D7500 over the D7200? Didnt Nikon cripple it like removing the second card slot?
>>
>>3435100
From what I've seen, it has a much better sensor, higher buffer and iso, and a much improved group AF which could be useful for birds

But it only has 1 slot and no option for a battery grip. Nikon crippled it since it's essentially a mini D500
>>
>>3435095
Versus the 3300, I like having the U1 and U2 settings, having two dials instead of one, and I like having half stop settings for ISO. Also the 1/8000th capability has been useful already. Versus the 7500 I like having two card slots. As for the buffer, I'm not a sports/wildlife guy (not seriously anyway), so I haven't used it that way to be able to say, sorry.

File: KC200P-25.jpg (2.39 MB, 3300x2550)
2.39 MB
2.39 MB JPG
Beginner filmfag here. I currently have a roll of kodacolor 200 in the camera and another one is laying on my desk. the problem is that I developed unexplainable hatred towards that film, and also wanna try some b&w fomapan 400 or shoot some lo-fi portraits with lomo 800. what do? should I buy these two films or just shoot the kodacolor? thanks
5 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3433869
>>3433898
I disagree processing costs money. Shoot with a notepad. Detail each frame so you can learn
>>
>>3434242

> He fell for the field notes meme

OP get a 120 film camera if you are struggling to finish off a 36 roll.
>>
kodacolor 200 sucks a lot, gives you weird color shift if you don´t nail the exposure. just try a lot of different film, you´ll find a good one.
for cheap color i can recommend kodak gold 200
and ultramax. Fuji c200 and superia
you can try the more expensive color film like portra or ektar it´s really nice but it costs a lot. with black and white there´s tons of options. you can never go wrong with kodak or ilford. delta/tmax for fine grain; tri x or hp5 for a classic grainy look. i also like rollei retro film. kentmere and foma are also decent quality and very cheap. i guess there´s no way around trying stuff out. do you develop your own bw? if not you should try it out, it gives you a lot more control over the look of the film. Just keep shooting and try out any film that interests you
>>
File: edit-20-06-18#006.jpg (155 KB, 1000x666)
155 KB
155 KB JPG
I really don't get the problems you all have with that film. Just give it lots of light and it looks nice. Push it a stop or two if you want more contrast.
Here's a crappy shot I took to check on a new lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1656
Image Height1083
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Created2018:06:20 20:32:14
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height666
>>
>>3435105
Hold on.. Kodacolor 200 is something different than Colorplus 200? If this is the case forget what I wrote and buy some Colorplus.

File: sonya6400.jpg (102 KB, 1280x720)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
I was thinking about selling my a6000 and buying an a6400. I have used the a6000 for 3,5 years now. I like quite a few things about the camera.

>weather sealed
>flip up screen might be a meme but seems pretty cool to use while traveling
>updated sensor and processor
>autofocus at 0,02 instead of 0,06 makes it better for wildlife
>real eye af tracking
>4k video and better video in general
>silent shooting which i think pretty cool, i hate the klack klack klack and you can stealth shoot in places where they forbid you to like museums or churches
>better battery life and no more overheating issue in 4k
>meme features like intervalometer, bluetooth and extra styles that will come in handy for sure
>not too expensive

Missing ibis of course and the a6700 will have that but for sure will be in the range of $1500 and up


Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
20 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3432261
>>3432300
>weather sealed
Stop looking at spec lists instead of reality, barely any of the lenses are weather sealed so its pretty irrelevant.
>>
I kinda wanna sell my nikon apsc stuff for a 6400 even if the battery life isnt half as good
>>
That lady is so cringe. If I saw her posing with anything I currently own I would sell it the next day.
>>
>>3434777
based
>>
>>>/g/

File: Photo1.png (431 KB, 1024x539)
431 KB
431 KB PNG
Is there any photo app that can replicate this?
27 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3431501
going from wide to narrow, any photo app that can crop should work. Just stand further away and crop to a 200mm FOV.
>>
>>3433398
you may be confusing perspective distortion with barrel distortion.

Perspective distortion is not truly caused by the lens, it is determined by the distance between the camera and the subject. Even with your own eyes, you can see this distortion if you get up close. Look at yourself in the mirror using only one eye, then put your face right up close to the mirror. You will see perspective distort your face as you get closer.

Barrel distortion/pincushion distortion are absolutely caused by the lens, you can avoid them by using good primes or by keeping your zooms in their "sweet spot," usually somewhere in the middle of their zoom range.
>>
>>3433440

It's not really clickbait if like you say; cropping is stupidly impractical.

It's pretty much saying use the longest lens your studio lets you for the framing you need. 3/4+ times that's correct.
>>
>>3433440
>if you care that much about distortion, zoom your kit to 50 and stand further away to shoot your subject
>there's a reason the 50 is called nifty fifty and often comes with bodies
...but it's not that, because 50mm on an 18-55 crop lens won't give you the same perspective distortion as 50mm on a full frame or film body.

> the op image is a stupid bait. clickbait article tier, because it doesn't mention how far from the subject the camera was
Presumably they were all shot at the distance that let the photographer fill the frame with the model's head, since that's the only thing that would make sense. And also, that's the only way you'd get the results in the image. I'm honestly having trouble comprehending how you could think it was anything else.
>>
>>3432824
/thread

>Kit lens: RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
>Expected price for the new RP is between $1499 to $1599.
>This puts it about $400-$500 cheaper than the Z6 and A7iii
328 replies and 34 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3435053
>>Phy?
>I see you don't even understand the topic at hand.
I forgot about this gem.

PHY is a term used in the discussion of NETWORK PROTOCOL STACKS to refer to the physical layer. It's not commonly used in any discussion outside of that. That's why I thought you were referring to memory or something.

If you think that Sony sensors speak TCP/IP and HTML and JSON, that this is your "various signals" to other components by other manufacturers, then you really are fucking clueless as to what's happening on the board.

Everything on a board is at a much lower level than this. There is a "bus protocol" but it specifies voltage rise/fall and timing. It's literally as simple as "+X voltage at Y clock = 1 instead of 0". There's no "network stack" or "protocol stack". There are just voltage changes in sync with a clock.

That's why each line on a chip or board carries ONE BIT of information per clock cycle. (Or two bits per cycle if you encode on both the rise and fall of the clock signal. But that complicates things downstream which is why it's rare.) When you're connecting two chips on a board, sensor and image processor, you're at the ground level. There's no distinction between "PHY" and anything else because PHY is all there is.

YOU adapt to any sensor you buy from Sony if you didn't also buy the support chips. They give you a pin out diagram and you follow it or else you fry your sensor and can kiss it goodbye.
>>
>>3435655
>>3435662
>autism
>>
>>3435662
>PHY is a term used in the discussion of NETWORK PROTOCOL STACKS to refer to the physical layer. It's not commonly used in any discussion outside of that
Sorry Anon. But you are a bit of a moron because that's a teminology used everywhere.
The sensors actually do need to "network" with the processor and display.
>>
>>3435655
>You were all "muh bandwidth needs muh dense high quality metals!" until I
That's still remains a fact to this day you fucking moron.
Why do you think they only recently managed to make 256 bit wide FPU in recent years?
Not everything in cpu pipeline is 256 wide just because your memory bus is 256 wide. You have such a childlike concept of what throughput and bandwidth actually is, goddamn I'm really talking to a child here.

>The sensors they do sell come in a package with a pin out YOU follow
This is getting retarded, I wasn't even referring to Sony specifically, but even Sony gives you choices.
The IMX 317 allows you to use CSI-2 or Sub LVDS signals for example.

It's keeps getting more retarded because you are doubling down and tripping down on your retardation when faced with facts.

>the specs are very tight. You integrate with the chip you're buying
No retard, you go to a foundry and order the sensors or modules that fits your need. These sensors that fits your need will obvious by definition offer you the interfaces you require.


Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
*similar family of processors doesn't mean those processors can't

File: _0012081.jpg (488 KB, 1000x1000)
488 KB
488 KB JPG
>Post your most recent photo(s) that you wish to share and have others eviscerate.
>Please, post images that are JPG format, smaller than 1 MB, and/or about 2000 pixels on the long side.

old thread >>3425807


this from a shoegaze show from this past weekend

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D810
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
PhotographerEduardo Diaz
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern830
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:02:05 19:31:15
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/1.4
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/1.4
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
256 replies and 150 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3430420
yikes.
>>
>>3434468
great photo. she looks a million times better with short hair. pity that we can't see her tits in this one
>>
>>3434809
i mean, she looks a million times better with long hair. the short hair look is terrible for her.
>>
>>3434585
Not that guy but it could improve perspective, if he went lower/closer it could give more foreground, he had a lot of room to play with as you generally dont want your subjects to intersect/overlap your background/foreground.

I think it is a good job though.
>>
>>3434811
Unappealing triangle of off focus ground. It's still not bad at all, I should have stressed that.

>Is that a leica?
>uh! gross!
15 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3432164
shut the fuck up bitches
*Click-Clack* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG*
four roasties eliminated, lads
>>
>>3432167
I gotta stick a Leica on my gat
>>
>>3431613
Doesn't matter. I don't care to impress these underage girls
>>
File: vj sees my cock.jpg (604 KB, 2000x3000)
604 KB
604 KB JPG
>>3432147
>>3432150
>>
File: maxresdefault.jpg (103 KB, 1280x720)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>Olympese whips out his micro four-third

File: IMG_20190120_121752.jpg (2.28 MB, 3120x4160)
2.28 MB
2.28 MB JPG
found this on my uncle's bike
>>
This is kill.
>>
>>3433194
What am I looking at?
>>
>>3433227
probably some sort of fungus
>>
They're lace wing eggs. Flying bug that eats aphids from your garden.
>>
Thumnail looks like some old Assyrian dude with a mustache.

I would like to start my adventure with photography. Not gonna be professional one but what to make good quality photos for myself and my family. What budget camera would you recommend?
6 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3432567
Budget?
>>
>>3433120
>necrobumping a thread that belongs in /gear/
>>
If it's your first, go for a used canon on ebay, you can get a decent one around $100 or $200, or if you're lucky and constantly look around, get one for less if it's body only sale.
>>
An alternative option to getting a pile of crap camera nobody wants you can instead buy a good camera and resell it when you no longer want it.
>>
>>3434773
this, don't fall for the "start out on cheap outdated crap so you are less invested if you don't like it" meme

File: waterfall_Resized.jpg (2.65 MB, 3976x2652)
2.65 MB
2.65 MB JPG
New to landscape photography. Constructive feedback welcome. Note crazy overcast day and I had to drive 6 hours one way to get here so not ideal scenario. Lens was a 24-70 F4 with sony A7RIII Body.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2019:01:14 19:40:16
Exposure Time0.4 sec
F-Numberf/22.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating250
Brightness4.3 EV
Exposure Bias0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length36.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width7952
Image Height5304
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
2 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3434717
So you're saying it's a complete shit shot? Advice?
>>
File: 1550191597875.jpg (747 KB, 1500x2000)
747 KB
747 KB JPG
>>3434720
>f/22
Presumably he was going for a long-exposure shot of the waterfall so that it would look motion-blurred.

Would've been better at a different time of day--sunset/sunrise gives you much better lighting in general, plus it would let you get the long exposure without putting the aperture quite so small (although it looks like the small aperture didn't really affect things that much, so that's probably fine).

My main critique would be to go for a different composition. Like, waterfall dead center, that's a clear subject, but most of the frame doesn't really support it. The rocks on either side don't look too interesting, and the trees on top and the pond on the bottom don't really help things.

Some examples off the top of my head of how I'd frame this:
1. Stay wide, go down to a much lower angle (as close to the water as you can safely get; not sure how splashy that pool was). Let the water lead the eye back to the waterfall.
2. Zoom in, turn the camera sideways, get a tighter crop on just the waterfall.
3. If possible, shoot the waterfall from a different angle than straight on.

Not sure if these would actually work (you may even have tried them and not liked them as much), but those are the first compositional thoughts that occurred to me looking at this scene.


Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
>>3434723
I really appreciate that feedback. I did take a lot of other shots but I felt they didn't turn out as well. I appreciate it!
>>
File: Waterfall_Side_50.jpg (1.65 MB, 3033x2023)
1.65 MB
1.65 MB JPG
>>3434723
Here was a different angle. Yea agreed time of day sucked but I was limited by drive time and crap weather...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2019:02:14 19:50:16
Exposure Time1/2 sec
F-Numberf/18.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating125
Brightness3.6 EV
Exposure Bias0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length24.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width7952
Image Height5304
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 5O59902001-001.jpg (854 KB, 885x1000)
854 KB
854 KB JPG
>>3434722
Yeah, it's pretty bad. You get diffraction at f22, and it's lowering your effective lens sharpness. Bring andy filter and shoot at lower f's. Lighting is not an excuse, sun won't necessarily give you better shots. Shadows, and glare from the rocks bring in new problems. Diffused light can be pretty good for waterfalls, as long as you take sun into account. Remember, it's not gone, it's still giving shadows, just think of it when positioning your camera.

File: 1537901822781.jpg (478 KB, 2560x1439)
478 KB
478 KB JPG
>can't even shoot basic video and focus
>doesn't even notice until after editing and uploading
how fucking embarrassing!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGreenshot
Image-Specific Properties:
1 reply omitted. Click here to view.
>>
Nikon BTFO 󠛡
>>
Somehow his voice is worse than his body.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-YHQYFtokc

>you will never be this alpha
>>
>>3434558
>04:50
>>
File: granger.png (575 KB, 507x872)
575 KB
575 KB PNG
Why is this dude so fucking thicc?
He's got a hell of a wagon bros

File: img_2019009.jpg (517 KB, 1100x767)
517 KB
517 KB JPG
Hi /p/, its been a while

I've been taking a break from taking photos and photo in general, for about a year, but I'm starting back up and I'm here to share. These aren't super cohesive but I've got a good bit of stuff from old backlogs and some new things as well. Hope you enjoy, critique welcome as always.
72 replies and 47 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
File: Scan_2-11-19-(14).jpg (965 KB, 767x1100)
965 KB
965 KB JPG
>>
nice you have a really good eye for color, i like the pictures really work well as a series, i could image them printed in really large formats
>>
File: Scan_2-11-19-(16).jpg (900 KB, 767x1100)
900 KB
900 KB JPG
>>
File: Scan_2-11-19-(15).jpg (758 KB, 767x1100)
758 KB
758 KB JPG
>>3434536
Thanks! I definitely do want to do a show of a few really big prints one day

That's all for this thread, another bonus selfie for y'all. Hopefully I'll be back soon with more stuff!
>>
>>3427503
>>3427506
>>3427507
>>3427511
>>3433142
These are nice. Do more like these.

File: 63.jpg (1013 KB, 1334x2000)
1013 KB
1013 KB JPG
I'm going to post photos here and I hope you will say things about them. In kind, I'll say things back. We may disagree or agree.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.0.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:01:18 12:46:36
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1334
Image Height2000
90 replies and 44 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
>>3434086
I keked a little
>>
>>3434086
>>3434124
Yeah that's definitely the funniest way I've heard that put

>>3434088
Fuck yeah
>>
holy shit anon
that's some nice captcha-core photography
>>
>>3434515
Somebody already did that one >>3434086
>>
I don't know what you're going at, but they all need somewhat better editing. Not much, tinny bit of curves adjustement would liven them all up. If you want to do it all in cam, then just underexpose to achieve richer tones. That said, you also need to step up your daylight game. Most of them are very dull, with harsh light, unflattering compositions, and distracting shadows. Colours could be improved on, and you'd have some keepers even in this lot. Those taken under artificial light are much better. Some favourites of mine being; >>3433995 >>3434000 >>3433995. Tonewise, nothing needing change there, could still work on improving composition.

I want to get into Medium Photography wich Camera can u recommend?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 20D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2011:01:17 14:08:45
Exposure Time1.6 sec
F-Numberf/20.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/20.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length30.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width440
Image Height430
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
70 replies and 11 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
How much should I pay for an entireHasselblad 500cm system?
>>
>>3433037
entire meaning what
>>
>>3433037
>>3433041
I guess they mean a body, WLF, 80mm lens and standard back. I paid about £500 for that recently but standard prices are more like 7-800.
>>
>>3434260

500 quid for a Hasselblad? That is ridiculously good, they are usually double, if not more.
>>
>>3434276
There's a working 1000f in great shape at my local camera store for 500, should I get it?

File: Head On Blocks.jpg (1.25 MB, 1280x1600)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB JPG
Any feed back welcome. Mainly shots from in and around The Barbican which is a big brutalist estate in the City of London.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern806
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution100 dpi
Vertical Resolution100 dpi
Image Created2019:02:11 16:40:30
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length14.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height1600
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
24 replies and 20 images omitted. Click here to view.
>>
I like your photos.
>>
>>3433867
Any shots in particular that might need this?

>>3433918
>>3433930
Ok thanks!
>>
>>3433389
very nice compostions and i really like the monochrome editing
>>
>>3434425
Thanks, which ones do you like best and why?
>>
>>3434446
And by the same token, which ones do you dislike.


Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.