Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Photo Software

Photo Software Discussions of all the photo software - except scanning software which is in the forum with scanners.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

apple aperture?
Old 08-12-2011   #1
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 39,742
apple aperture?

what can you tell me about aperture 3?

starting with...why is it so much cheaper than lightroom3?

it's even cheaper than pse...
__________________
heart soul & a camera

“When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning.
When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.
Pablo Picasso
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2011   #2
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
 
filmtwit's Avatar
 
filmtwit is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Posts: 2,467
It has a lot less features then Lighroom, it's slower (memory pig) and well, you're better off using iPhoto
__________________
The Blog (Boring Sidney, Boring)
http://jeffthomasallen.blogspot.com/

The Flickr Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/filmtwit/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2011   #3
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
 
filmtwit's Avatar
 
filmtwit is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Posts: 2,467
I used to use it extensivily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
I bet you tested it seriously when you come to that conclusion
__________________
The Blog (Boring Sidney, Boring)
http://jeffthomasallen.blogspot.com/

The Flickr Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/filmtwit/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2011   #4
mugent
Registered User
 
mugent is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 475
Tom is right, the price is an App Store thing, everything is cheaper now, partly for promotional reasons, partly because the overheads are so much less than retail sales.

LR has some nice stuff, but I use Aperture, its less complicated, less quirky and generally more pleasant than Lightroom. It easily worth the money.

MT
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2011   #5
noeyedear
Registered User
 
noeyedear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
what can you tell me about aperture 3?

starting with...why is it so much cheaper than lightroom3?

it's even cheaper than pse...
I run a business based around Aperture.
If you want to organise your library there is nothing better. There are many programs that can change a raw to a tif or jpg, but not many that come close to Apertures ability to organise and keep track of images in so many ways. It will take some time to get your head around Aperture and it's features and a bit of imagination to figure out how to best use them in your workflow. I tried all the other DAM applications at great cost to myself. Aperture has been without doubt the best software I have ever purchased, I have made many thousands with Apertures help over the years. Yes it takes up memory and can be sluggish on some machines, but there is bo other sensible choice for DAM I have come across.

Kevin.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2011   #6
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,831
For library organization aperture is the best. It's okay at RAW conversions, but not anywhere near as good as LR3 in terms of high ISO noise from RAW files. It's interface is great and very flexible, better than light rooms IMO.

The biggest thing about aperture is that it's an absolute memory hog, and basically doesn't run smoothly or quickly on any mac under 3K, and possibly doesn't run quickly on 99% of all macs. I really wanted to like it, but it's just an absolute drain on computer power and (if you look it up) even the newest iMacs struggle with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2011   #7
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,831
Oh, and you can download a free trial from Apple.com, so do that and make sure you import a decent amount of photographs into it, and sort between them so that you can judge it's performance - it won't be so slow with only a few files in it...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #8
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 39,742
omg!!

i just tried aperture on my 4gig macbook...runs like me in the winter, with my boots on, in a deep snow!!

how can people work like that? i don't care how cheap it is!
__________________
heart soul & a camera

“When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning.
When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.
Pablo Picasso
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #9
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,826
Aperture does need a lot of horses to run well, but when it runs well, it's not too bad.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #10
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
 
bobby_novatron's Avatar
 
bobby_novatron is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the Great White North (Canada)
Age: 46
Posts: 1,192
Back alley -- too bad! I was thinking of trying it out, but it sounds like it might not run so well on my 2007 model MacBook Pro.
__________________
my Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #11
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
 
filmtwit's Avatar
 
filmtwit is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Posts: 2,467
Off the top of my head:

LR3 lacks:
Scopes coloring.
8bt vs 16bt vs 32bit
Metadata: Too simple, search functions are not as tailerable or detailed.
Effects
Camera calibration

and again it's a memory pig, which is the real killer for me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
Ok. Then I apologize. Wouldn't it be nice if you could name the main features you were missing in AP3 compared to LR3?
__________________
The Blog (Boring Sidney, Boring)
http://jeffthomasallen.blogspot.com/

The Flickr Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/filmtwit/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #12
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
 
Ezzie's Avatar
 
Ezzie is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,767
It runs, if not very quickly, on my 2yr old Mac Mini 4GB RAM. In fact on RAW files it works just fine. But when it comes to 60MB and bigger 50Mpix TIFF scans its a pig. But I keep with it because its intuitive to use, it´s non-destructive, and I like the way you can build your library, and since I use it mostly for scanned film, I can delete my scanned files once imported to Aperture.
__________________
Eirik

RF: Leica M4-2 | Royal 35-M | Polaroid 110A/600SE hybrid
VF: DIY 4x5 | DIY 6x17 | Voigtländer Vito CL | Foth Derby | Welta Weltix | Smena Symbol | Lomo'Instax
SLR: Canon EF | Pentacon SIX | Pentax SP1000 | Pentax SV
TLR: Rolleiflex 2.8E3 | DUO TLR
CSC: Fuji X-E1
Pinhole: 6x17 Vermeer | ONDU 6x6 | DIY 4x5 | DIY 6x24

My Flickr
Silver Halides - Pictures in B&W
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #13
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
 
bobby_novatron's Avatar
 
bobby_novatron is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the Great White North (Canada)
Age: 46
Posts: 1,192
I think I'll download the trial anyway and give it a go. Most of my film scans are not very large, since I mostly just post-to-web.

I've got a 2007 MBP with 3GB RAM, but slower bus speed (667MHz) and a 5400 RPM drive. We'll see how it goes.
__________________
my Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #14
slm
Formerly nextreme
 
slm's Avatar
 
slm is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 419
I use Aperture too, and it's by far the best for organizing your library. It does everything I need for image corrections also, with perhaps good noise reduction being the feature lacking the most, but there are plugins that can be added. Most of the time, noise isn't the the problem I'm having with the image (although I can blame it on noise )

Is LR on the same machine really any faster ?
__________________
Mostly Minolta ! - X570/SRT101 + 28/3.5 | 50/1.7 | 58/1.4 | 100/2.5 | 135/3.5 | 135/2.8
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #15
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by nextreme View Post
Is LR on the same machine really any faster ?
In a word, yes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #16
JHenry
Registered User
 
JHenry is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 118
When Apple cut the price of Aperture to $79, I bought it just to use it for the spot healing tool. That tool is so much more useful and easy in Aperture than LR3 (in my opinion). I especially like the ability to quickly fix scratches on scanned negatives with a single long cursor swipe, rather than hundreds of little circles in LR3. I will export from LR3 just to use that function in Aperture, and then reimport into LR3.

Beware, if you scan film as DNG using Vuescan, these files can NOT be viewed in Aperture. Something about the DNG file structure, and the fact that of the two different DNG file structures Aperture only reads the other kind (I'm not a technical expert on this, but that is my understanding). If this wasn't the case, I probably would have switched to Aperture.

Cheers,

Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #17
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
 
filmtwit's Avatar
 
filmtwit is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Posts: 2,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
In a word, yes.
In another word - Aye
__________________
The Blog (Boring Sidney, Boring)
http://jeffthomasallen.blogspot.com/

The Flickr Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/filmtwit/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #18
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
 
capitalK's Avatar
 
capitalK is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,050
The fastest program I have ever used is PhotoMechanic, and it allows me to organize my files the way I want to. It eats through my 60 MB TIFF files from the CoolScan 4000 and blows through my 5D classic photos like they are nothing. The interface hasn't really been updated (still looks like an OS 9 program in some ways) but even though it isn't pretty it's pretty much fast!
__________________
-------------------
Flickr
www.kennetharmstrong.ca
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #19
Rogier
Rogier Willems
 
Rogier's Avatar
 
Rogier is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 1,187
Its a great application, plenty of editing features. Basically anything you want to do except layers.
My best advice is to set it up with a "Referenced Library" meaning that you store the originals in a regular folder structure. Set the preview size to the screen resolution of your computer.

Its a great app. Get a good Manual and sign up with Lynda.com for a month or so.
__________________
Smiles across the wires,


Rogier Willems


http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogierwillems/

http://www.scooter-it.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #20
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 39,742
honestly, i am too lazy to put in the effort.

i think i'm going to get pse 9 and the acr 6.4 and hope for the best.
__________________
heart soul & a camera

“When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning.
When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.
Pablo Picasso
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2011   #21
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,698
I've used every version of Aperture, but haven't found one yet that wouldn't crash (and I have a beefy Mac Pro to run it on). Since it stored everything in a giant package file when I first started using it, I got scared that it would corrupt that one big file and I'd lose my pics. So I moved to Lightroom.

I've since learned that you don't have to store your images that way in Aperture, but I've come to like Lightroom more.

I think they're both pretty equally capable. Each has some weird omissions.
  Reply With Quote

Don't believe the haters
Old 08-20-2011   #22
emdubya
Registered User
 
emdubya is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 15
Don't believe the haters

Quote:
Originally Posted by filmtwit View Post
It has a lot less features then Lighroom, it's slower (memory pig) and well, you're better off using iPhoto
It's true that Aperture 3 does need some horsepower to run it well - you'll likely want a current iMac or Macbook pro to be happy. BUT I far prefer the raw conversion out of aperture compared to lightroom. I also find it much more intuitive to organize, much easier to make selective adjustments, much easier to retouch, much easier to batch edit than LR. It is certainly a professional app and anyone that says it's no better than iPhoto shouldn't be taken seriously.
  Reply With Quote

It runs well on newer macs
Old 08-20-2011   #23
emdubya
Registered User
 
emdubya is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 15
It runs well on newer macs

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
For library organization aperture is the best. It's okay at RAW conversions, but not anywhere near as good as LR3 in terms of high ISO noise from RAW files. It's interface is great and very flexible, better than light rooms IMO.

The biggest thing about aperture is that it's an absolute memory hog, and basically doesn't run smoothly or quickly on any mac under 3K, and possibly doesn't run quickly on 99% of all macs. I really wanted to like it, but it's just an absolute drain on computer power and (if you look it up) even the newest iMacs struggle with it.
Add RAM to solve your problems, if you have them. My three-year mac pro does fine with Aperture 3 and the new iMacs & MacBooks benchmark much higher than my machine. (A new video card will bring me right up to speed.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #24
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by emdubya View Post
Add RAM to solve your problems, if you have them. My three-year mac pro does fine with Aperture 3 and the new iMacs & MacBooks benchmark much higher than my machine. (A new video card will bring me right up to speed.)
My poor old iMac is maxxed out of ram - 3gb.
I've also tried running it on there other computer in the house - a current macbook pro with 4gb ram and same result.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #25
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdigital View Post
My poor old iMac is maxxed out of ram - 3gb.
I've also tried running it on there other computer in the house - a current macbook pro with 4gb ram and same result.
That sounds odd. I ran it on a variety of >1 year old Macs, desktops and laptops, and found it quite speedy. That was its one clearly superior virtue to LR, that I saw.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #26
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 39,742
mine is a macbook with 4 gigs...slow as molasses...
__________________
heart soul & a camera

“When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning.
When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.
Pablo Picasso
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #27
ramosa
Registered User
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,007
After having used Photoshop and then Lightroom on PC for a few years, I have been on Mac with Aperture for a year. Zero complaints. Aperture is definitely not slower in my use and is free of many of the "hiccups" of Lightroom. Aperture, along with Nic plugins, does everything I need--and its workflow and photo management are much better for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #28
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 39,742
i really wanted it to work...it was cheaper than even pse and i like to support apple...but it was deathly slow...at least my trial version...maybe i had it set up improperly?
__________________
heart soul & a camera

“When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning.
When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.
Pablo Picasso
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #29
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
i really wanted it to work...it was cheaper than even pse and i like to support apple...but it was deathly slow...at least my trial version...maybe i had it set up improperly?
Don't know what improper setup might look like. I just installed with all the default settings, and ran it. Scrolling through the library was smooth and very fast, and it did not require the time LR does to show full-resolution on images. But other things, I liked less, and overall I like LR more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #30
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 39,742
i'm back to old & familiar...just bought pse 9...
__________________
heart soul & a camera

“When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning.
When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.
Pablo Picasso
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #31
mob81
Registered User
 
mob81 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 481
I use aperture 3 on my 3 years old iMac maxed to 4gigs or rams, no problems and didn't find it slow! I tried LR and it was way slower in my iMac than Aperture.
I really like how easy to edit and orginize photos.
__________________
Mohammed

My Flickr

My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2011   #32
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,457
I bought Aperture about a week and having been using it and going thru the videos at Lynda.com.

Working on a 2.66 Ghz iMac with 4 gigs of ram, it's been OK. I think it would be prudent to create multiple libraries and multiple projects within libraries, to get away from the cpu-sucking business of loading a single giant library.I.e., probably better for new users not to dump years worth of files into Aperture all at once.

I like the interface much better than LR's, but that might be down to familiarity with Apple's design ways. I do like the fact that photo edits are maintained as little scripts that modify images on the fly. That means whatever you do,you're doing it with the single image on the screen.

Frankly, I haven't been impressed with any photo software's litheness or ease of use. They all seem to be fat apps with a zillion options.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Runs great on my old Mac Pro from '06
Old 08-20-2011   #33
andydg
Registered User
 
andydg's Avatar
 
andydg is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Age: 52
Posts: 123
Runs great on my old Mac Pro from '06

I've been running Aperture since its initial release. There have been times that I thought LR was better, it was while Apple was still working out the bugs in the program. Even though my Mac is the slowest Pro out there with just 2ghz xeons, I do have 12GB of memory installed. The most I've seen it use 3Gb. LR on the other hand I've seen grab more than 1/2 what is available on my machine.
I do turn of the faces and at times turn off 'generate previews', it can slow things down. Also the majority of my images reside on another HD outside of the Aperture library, even though the library now is just under 70Gb in size. (Just don't make the mistake of deleting that directory that contains the images, I did that years ago and lost my son's birthday images when he turned 7.) Still kicking myself for being so stupid.
I still have LR, but don't like it all that much anymore. AP does all I need for the images I scan from film and slides.
As for additional memory upgrades on newer Macs, try OWC, they offer higher memory amounts than what Apple specifies. Mine for example will hold up to 32Gb, while Apple initially said it could do 16Gb.
__________________
It is time for me to slow down to analog speed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2011   #34
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,457
Smart move to load up on memory, Andy. Much more important than CPU speed for apps like this.

I suspect Aperture rewards a little thought in how you use it and how you organize your files.

I'll check out OWC for this 2008 iMac. More then 4 gigs would be nice.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2011   #35
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,358
OP is done with this topic, but others aren't. The solution to the need for memory is to buy memory. I also keep my library on an external four drive raid tuned for speed. Eight core/16GB 2008 Mac Pro with fast hard drives and Aperture is fast and does exactly what I want it to do. Memory is cheap these days and core to core the newer processors are much faster. Video/photo centric computers with lots of power have drastically fallen in price. Hardware is cheap today when compared to 2008 and Aperture 3/Recent OS X seem to be better tuned to take advantage of multiple cores. I don't think that I would be better off with iPhoto.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-22-2011   #36
noeyedear
Registered User
 
noeyedear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
I've used every version of Aperture, but haven't found one yet that wouldn't crash (and I have a beefy Mac Pro to run it on). Since it stored everything in a giant package file when I first started using it, I got scared that it would corrupt that one big file and I'd lose my pics. So I moved to Lightroom.

I've since learned that you don't have to store your images that way in Aperture, but I've come to like Lightroom more.

I think they're both pretty equally capable. Each has some weird omissions.
I too have had every Aperture version and crashes are so very very rare I can't think Aperture is the real problem. I had it almost grind to holt on my old machine. It runs very nicely on my new iMac.

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
__________________
Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #37
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by noeyedear View Post
I too have had every Aperture version and crashes are so very very rare I can't think Aperture is the real problem.
Very rare is not non-existent. LR doesn't crash for me, Aperture would crash occasionally. And since my Aperture library was, like I said, in its database-ish package file, even rare crashes were enough to put me off it entirely.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #38
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
Very rare is not non-existent. LR doesn't crash for me, Aperture would crash occasionally. And since my Aperture library was, like I said, in its database-ish package file, even rare crashes were enough to put me off it entirely.
Packages are accessible from the filesystem. Right-click and choose the "Show Package Contents" option.

You can also keep your image files in the filesystem, organized as you wish, and work with them without pulling them into a library.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #39
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgerrard View Post
Packages are accessible from the filesystem. Right-click and choose the "Show Package Contents" option.
Yes, I know. I still trust a package less than I trust a folder, because file operations work on packages that don't work on folders (without confirmations, anyway). And I'm uncertain what's maintaining the package's internal directory structure (whether it's the file system, or an internal directory).

And note I mentioned that it was Aperture's default, which it set me up with right away, not that it doesn't work on flat files.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-23-2011   #40
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard's Avatar
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,457
If asked, I'd say I prefer maintaining my own file structure. On the other hand, that quickly begins to get complicated when you have lots and lots of files in different stages of tweaking. I've lost a significant number of files simply because I couldn't remember what was where.

My first go with Aperture was sans a library. That quickly became more hassle than it was worth, because everything you do in Aperture assumes a library. My library is as safe and secure as any other folder on the machine.

As usual, backups are much more important.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 16:22.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.