# Photo editing or not



## tM1 (Feb 8, 2012)

Do many people use photo editing programs or do they always take that picture perfect photo.. I always get lots of photos but one good one


----------



## tododelsur (Feb 9, 2012)

Lot's of people, professional or otherwise use photo editing software to make their pictures look better. It's probably extremely rare to find people that don't edit their photos. I personally don't edit my photos, but I'm not the best photographer and I like mistakes and things I can't predict.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 9, 2012)

Editing photos is a necessity for me. I shoot solely in RAW, so my images get processed no matter what... Even if it is very minimally. 

I recommend post processing your images if you aim to get the best quality and characteristics out of them.


----------



## printsnpaints (Feb 19, 2012)

Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve. It's good to be good at both, though.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 19, 2012)

I look at digital post processing is the same as when I was manipulating the film and print development ... you cannot avoid "processing" after exposure of the initial medium.

I always try to take the minimalist approach.

In most cases ... if the image sucks ... it will end up as a post processed sucky image.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 19, 2012)

printsnpaints said:


> Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve.



I disagree. 

If you shoot raw, your photos won't necessarily look "good" until after you process them. As it's data straight from the sensor. If you shoot JPEG, that may be a different story due to the in camera processing. 

Furthermore, it's difficult (or impossible) to post process a BAD photo (Bad composition, lighting, etc) into a good one in my opinion. 

With that being said, I think knowledge of photography is paramount, but knowledge of processing digital images is a very close second if you're looking for top notch photos.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 19, 2012)

printsnpaints said:


> Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve. It's good to be good at both, though.



I suspect that:

A. You have no idea what you are talking about! (obviously you have never shot RAW!)

B. That you are a TROLL, trying to start some drama!


----------



## table1349 (Feb 19, 2012)

printsnpaints said:


> Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve. It's good to be good at both, though.



Words of wisdom from a 3 day photographer.  Back in the days of film photos were post processed in the lab.  Now, even when you get it right in camera there is a need for post processing.  Perhaps you have heard of a guy with a camera named Ansel Adams.  You might want to try reading some of his stuff.  I suspect you would find it enlightening.


----------



## ann (Feb 20, 2012)

With film, we always wanted to get as much "right in camera' as possible as it made the darkroom process much easier. However, as others have mentioned there is still lots of PP done in the darkroom.

Digital is no different. I want to get as much "right in camera" as possible so the PP becomes one of creative vision, not fixing mistakes.


----------



## ann (Feb 20, 2012)

P.S.

There is a statement i remember from long ago.  For every hour one spends making the correct decisions in the field before firing the shutter, one saves two hours in the darkroom.

Now for those who are very adept at PS, they probably don't need 2 hours to make magic; but the less time I have to spend looking at a computer screen the happier I am.


----------



## Pocahontas (Feb 21, 2012)

I personally love photo editing; its like creating a whole new feel to a photo. It adds that extra "oomph" and spark to an already extraordinary photo. I have found that editing is a way to really cement your style as well.  Filters & PS actions are my friends 

 Everyone has a personal preference, but to me, half the fun of photography is seeing what you I can ultimately create from the photos I take.  But everyone is different, and I respect photographers who take a perfect photo and do not bother with the editing process.  To each their own.


----------



## MLeeK (Feb 21, 2012)

I do little to no PIXEL EDITING, but I post process everything. Of the game I just processed I shot 237 images and I tossed about 40 of those for being totally jacked or I just plain didn't like them. Of the keepers I edited none. I post processed all of them by applying a curve, a bit of noise removal, raw sharpening and adjusting black level. All of which I have set up Adobe Camera Raw to do automatically for me. To process those 200 images took me about 30 minutes from flat and crappy to this:





You will improve as you gain knowledge. 

Post processing is a necessity. EDITING is not.


----------



## kungfuleg (Feb 24, 2012)

Re the distinction between "editing" and "processing," can anyone recommend a guide or reference that will help me learn the technicalities of digital processing? Please and thank you.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 24, 2012)

RAW needs to be PP just the way film needs to be developed.

If you shoot in JPEG and don't do any editing on the computer, it's still post processed, the camera just does it for you.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 24, 2012)

printsnpaints said:


> Generally, your photos should look good without any processing. If you rely too much on photo editing software, your photography skills won't improve. It's good to be good at both, though.



Yes that is true. I can't think of a single famous photographer who had a dark room. They all just took picture perfect photos and then ran their film through a Fuji developing machine to get the wonderful prints produced last century. 

/ End sarcasm.

On a more serious note, processing as a fundamental part of photography. There is nothing, NOT A THING, you can do in your camera to balance highlights and shadows to make a picture look as natural as you can see it with your naked eye. Historically many of the greatest photographers in history spent many hours in the dark room dodging and burning to get a perfect tone in an image. They selected many different forms of paper to get their look after developing and after taking a picture. They used developer at different temperature for different lengths of time to fine tune their tone after taking a picture. Even selecting different developers to achieve certain effects, and lets not forget about the wide choices of different film types. 

I am of the complete opposite view to you. In my humble opinion if you don't process your photos you've effectively only taken half of the picture. The other half was taken by some engineer at Nikon who came up with a generic algorithm that he thinks will fit every photo, which is fine if you only spend your time taking the photos he used for references. But we don't.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 24, 2012)

kungfuleg said:


> Re the distinction between "editing" and "processing," can anyone recommend a guide or reference that will help me learn the technicalities of digital processing? Please and thank you.



Honestly I suggest you try youtube. Here's some key words for you:

Dodging
Burning
Curves
Saturation

That covers the basics. But really the best thing you can do is have a play in the software find out what it's capable of. If there's something you don't understand search it on youtube and someone will likely offer you an example, or if there's a specific image you like post it here and ask us what the technique is called and you'll easily be able to find information online on how to replicate it.


----------



## kungfuleg (Feb 25, 2012)

Thanks!


----------



## fokker (Feb 25, 2012)

I guarentee you that editing, at some level, can markedly improve on ANY photo that is straight outta the camera. If you doubt the benefits of knowing how to edit, check out this guy's thread, his editing work is absolutely top notch and all his shots are stunning as a result.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/156045-mostly-automotive-my-photos.html


----------



## marmots (Feb 25, 2012)

you can do a lot with just a little bit of editing too

here is something i did in less than 10 min


----------



## manaheim (Feb 25, 2012)

^ I mean no offense... I really don't... but I might not post that picture as a good example of editing.

BTW, did you notice the dust and fingerprints in same?


----------



## marmots (Feb 25, 2012)

manaheim said:


> ^ I mean no offense... I really don't... but I might not post that picture as a good example of editing.
> 
> BTW, did you notice the dust and fingerprints in same?



do you mean the editing is bad, or the overall image is bad?

i didn't take the picture, but i thought the editing was an improvement


----------



## manaheim (Feb 25, 2012)

Both, frankly. :-(


----------



## marmots (Feb 25, 2012)

.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 25, 2012)




----------



## skieur (Feb 26, 2012)

kungfuleg said:


> Re the distinction between "editing" and "processing," can anyone recommend a guide or reference that will help me learn the technicalities of digital processing? Please and thank you.



Most photographers don't make the distinction.  Postprocessing includes editing or editing includes postprocessing in the generalizations used. There is no general guide that I know of on the "technicalities of digital processing".  There are however several books on how to use Photoshop,(the program that does the editing and postprocessing) but you really need the program in order to understand the book and the program has a steep learning curve.

You would probably do better trying to find a general book on photography that includes digital processing or buying a magazine that covers the basics of postprocessing.

skieur


----------



## greybeard (Feb 26, 2012)

All of my pictures need post processing.  They usually need straightened and cropped to some extent.  I would suggest that you down load Adobe Lightroom 4.0 beta.  or Adobe Lightroom 3.6 trial.  The beta is free and the trial version is free for 30 days.  I've been using the beta for a while now and have had no problems.  These programs offer the basic photo editing such as white balance, cropping, spotting, and straightening.  They also organize things for you so you can find what you want when you need it.


----------



## fokker (Feb 26, 2012)

If you had to choose between lightroom and photoshop, its lighroom for me all the way. i do about 95% of my editing in lightroom and only use photoshop for serious stuff.


----------



## KmH (Feb 26, 2012)

I have Lightroom and CS5 and do most of my editing in CS5 by using Bridge and/or CS5 to host Camera Raw.

Camera Raw CS5 and Lightroom 3's Develope module, which is where editing is done in Lightroom, are both ACR 6 (Adobe Camera Raw 6)

Camera Raw CS6 and Lightroom 4's Develope module both use ACR 7.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 26, 2012)

skieur said:


> kungfuleg said:
> 
> 
> > Re the distinction between "editing" and "processing," can anyone recommend a guide or reference that will help me learn the technicalities of digital processing? Please and thank you.
> ...



I agree that most photographers don't.  I do have one general distinction that I make between the two.  When you begin to add or remove an artifact or artifacts from the photo such as wires, leaves, hair, people etc. to me you have moved from post processing to editing.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 26, 2012)

fokker said:


> If you had to choose between lightroom and photoshop, its lighroom for me all the way. i do about 95% of my editing in lightroom and only use photoshop for serious stuff.



This is what I do too.  Unless you need to do things like darkening the sky, removing or replacing objects and the like, Lightroom will do what you need and much more easily and faster than anything else.


----------



## KmH (Feb 26, 2012)

For me the "technicalities of digital processing" are mostly about tone mapping from linear to a gamma-encoded space because the camera's analog, linear image sensor doesn't 'see' the way we humans see, which is non-linear.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 26, 2012)

A TRUE photog does no editing whatsoever! He/she is a master of the one shot kill/shot.

Editing is for pussies. Either that or for real photogs. 





Real photogs and TRUE photogs are very different breeds.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 26, 2012)

greybeard said:


> Unless you need to do things like darkening the sky, removing or replacing objects and the like,



Greybeard hit the nail on the head.
For many people and styles and subjects, there just isn't any way to get a perfect picture sooc even without bit-level editing.
In an uncontrolled environment, you take the shot you can get and work from there.

If you always shoot senior shots or portraits in a studio or landscapes where you get to wait until the light is 'right', then maybe only a little PPing is all you'll ever need.
For those of us who shoot where we can get it, we use all the tools we can.


----------



## fokker (Feb 26, 2012)

greybeard said:


> fokker said:
> 
> 
> > If you had to choose between lightroom and photoshop, its lighroom for me all the way. i do about 95% of my editing in lightroom and only use photoshop for serious stuff.
> ...



Yep, although I've just started using LR's gradfilters and brush tool a lot more, which are not only both great tools on their own but they also completely reversible and editable edits - that's the true beauty of lightroom for me.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jan 25, 2016)

Editing software is a tool that photographers use. I do I am not a pro but I find it a necessity to get the best/beater final result. A plumber or mechanic don't need spanners or wrenches always but they wouldn't get fare without them.


----------



## EIngerson (Jan 25, 2016)

You will never see a photo I've taken until it's been "developed". I edit every photo.


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 25, 2016)

WOW! a resurrected 4 year old thread - truly a ZOMBIE.
Very interesting subject though and I vote with the "Edit everything to make it better!" gang.........


----------



## jake337 (Feb 1, 2016)

I'm sure I've said this before but......

Post processing is just as important as pre-planning and everything in between.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 1, 2016)

I try to get as close to being perfect coming out of the camera, but realistically, getting the composition right at the start is what I'm really trying to do. I always make adjustments to the images, even if it's just a small crop or contrast adjustment.  Pretty much always minor adjustments.  I'm terrible with keeping my horizontal lines straight, so that one almost always gets the fix. I hand hold all my lenses and shooting sports and following plays it doesn't take much to get a little out of straight.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 1, 2016)




----------



## ShootersIN (Feb 1, 2016)

dxqcanada said:


> I look at digital post processing is the same as when I was manipulating the film and print development ... you cannot avoid "processing" after exposure of the initial medium.
> 
> I always try to take the minimalist approach.
> 
> In most cases ... if the image sucks ... it will end up as a post processed sucky image.


 i have been shooting Raw sense 2008. My photos look great but i also shoot brackets for hdr. Photo editing sees beyond the image you shot and sometimes there could be 2 or 3 images from that one shot you took. Not to mention removing subjects or backgrounds from the photo. Sometime wb needs to be addressed or sharpening of an image or adding or taking away color. Photo editing is a much needed tool for photography. I am starting a business where i take an image and can turn it into a painting or drawing. What you discussing is perception more then editing. Perception can change when your looking at a photo. I learned that from NYIP and my favorite teacher Michael Freeman. I love His Books. Don't close off your minds Eye. Its valuable


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 1, 2016)

ShootersIN said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > I look at digital post processing is the same as when I was manipulating the film and print development ... you cannot avoid "processing" after exposure of the initial medium.
> ...



The business you're starting where you turn an image into a painting or drawing, isn't that a simple photo shop filter?   I do a lot of graphics work and use photo shop for all that, photographically though I can't be removing objects or changing backgrounds, mostly media related pictures.


----------



## calamityjane (Mar 6, 2016)

MLeeK said:


> I do little to no PIXEL EDITING, but I post process everything. Of the game I just processed I shot 237 images and I tossed about 40 of those for being totally jacked or I just plain didn't like them. Of the keepers I edited none. I post processed all of them by applying a curve, a bit of noise removal, raw sharpening and adjusting black level. All of which I have set up Adobe Camera Raw to do automatically for me. To process those 200 images took me about 30 minutes from flat and crappy to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


EDITING is vital - editing is deciding what to keep/prioritise and what to throw out. Then comes processing.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 7, 2016)

When I first started taking photos, I retouched and processed every shot, and I spent hours doing it. 7 years later, I do anything I can to reduce the amount of editing I do to my photos. I used to spend hours on a single photo. Now I try to find ways to use light to "retouch" for me, which cuts editing time by more than half, and every once in awhile I just leave a photo as it was captured. Editing is definitely not necessary to the craft, and can be avoided in many instances. I often see photographers say that they use editing to make their photos better, and then I see their photos and realize that they ruined them with editing. I think it's a good exercise as a photographer to learn to "edit" before you take the shot, and learn to appreciate your photos without manipulating them.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 7, 2016)

DanOstergren said:


> When I first started taking photos, I retouched and processed every shot, and I spent hours doing it. 7 years later, I do anything I can to reduce the amount of editing I do to my photos. I used to spend hours on a single photo. Now I try to find ways to use light to "retouch" for me, which cuts editing time by more than half, and every once in awhile I just leave a photo as it was captured. Editing is definitely not necessary to the craft, and can be avoided in many instances. I often see photographers say that they use editing to make their photos better, and then I see their photos and realize that they ruined them with editing. I think it's a good exercise as a photographer to learn to "edit" before you take the shot, and learn to appreciate your photos without manipulating them.


This is plausible where there is time and opportunity 'to use the light.'   
Many circumstances just don't allow that because the photo opportunity is unpredictable and fleeting and Mother Nature may just not cooperate.


----------



## GHK (Mar 12, 2016)

In digital photography editing is* ESSENTIAL*.   The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless.
The image which is recorded on the sensor is a RAW image; it is called that for obvious reasons.
You normally have two options as to how your images will be saved on your camera card, RAW or JPEG (maybe both).
If you choose JPEG the image from the sensor will be *EDITED (*using software that is built in to the camera) before it is saved.
If you choose RAW the sensor image will be saved directly to the card without editing.   (It has to be rendered into a RAW saving format, which is usually 
specific to the manufacturer, and, often, to the camera model itself but it is not subjected to anything that would constitute editing as normally understood).
So, the JPEG has already been edited before you ever open it by something foisted upon you with giving you any say in the matter.   It is hardly surprising that
JPEGs, almost invariably, will benefit from further editing, done by you and, most importantly, under your control.
The situation with a saved RAW is quite different.   Not only has it not been edited, it is not fit for purpose.   If you were to see a raw image (it is not at all easy to do this) you would probably dismiss it as *totally useless.   *RAW images are completely different their nature from such as JPEG, PSD, TIFF, etc. all of which
were invented by humans specifically to have responses which correspond to those of the human visual system; (film has similar responses).   
In RAW images the relationship between the exposure and the density of the image is described as linear.
In all the other cases mentioned the relationship is described as exponential or logarithmic (two ways of saying basically the same thing).

When you open a RAW image into Adobe Camera Raw, what you see is not the RAW image.   During the opening process the linear image is converted to the exponential PSD format; this is, of course, a form of editing, but there is no further 'enhancement' of the type which is involved in JPEG saving.   
This is whythe JPEG may well look better at this stage than the opened RAW.   You will now go on to edit the image in ACR.   It will not be obvious, but your changes will be made to the linear RAW image although they will only be seen in  the exponential display.   The RAW image will still retain its linear format.   
After editing the image should be opened into Photoshop (when further beneficial editing can be done) and saved as a true PSD.   Further changes can still, of course, be made later.
GHK


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 12, 2016)

I can't understand a 'disagree' with a post that restates facts.


----------



## pjaye (Mar 12, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> View attachment 117705
> 
> I can't understand a 'disagree' with a post that restates facts.



But you had to take the time to point it out? 

I disagree with your assertion that his post is "facts" too. I also disagree with parts of his post that aren't fact but opinions.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 12, 2016)

Perhaps if you had pointed out the points that were incorrect your comments would have been clearer.

And I took the time to point it out because it seemed incongruous to declare facts wrong without a stated reason.
And incongruity attracts my attention.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 12, 2016)

"*The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"*

Seriously?


----------



## GHK (Mar 13, 2016)

symplybarb said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 117705
> ...




I'm not so arrogant as to believe that everything I say is absolutely accurate, so I should be interested to learn which parts of my post are incorrect and which are merely opinions.   Supporting arguments would also be welcome.
GHK


----------



## GHK (Mar 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> "*The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"*
> 
> Seriously?



Yes, seriously.   As I have already pointed out, the RAW image on the storage card, if you had the facility to see it, look hopeless.   I put this down to the linearity of the file.   I also chose not to mention, at least at that stage, that the basic RAW image has only one channel and is a simple greyscale image.   All the rest of the image information colour, white balance, etc. is encoded as vector based data.   I like to think of this as data which is sort of floating around, waiting for me to give it some body by deciding where to put my points on the various vector curves, i.e.. that the image, at this stage, is a sort of ethereal thing, floating around, waiting to be brought down to earth and reality in Adobe Camera Raw.
GHK


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2016)

GHK said:


> symplybarb said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...




well, not everyone shoots raw. so....if you dont shoot raw and instead shoot jpeg, then "getting it right in camera" becomes much more important. I always shoot raw so I have the data leeway, just in case. 
editing is just another of many choices one has to make when they decide to press the shutter button. 
since I shoot raw, all of my photos get edited to _*some*_ degree. 
I think people put _*way*_ too much emphasis on editing, whether they feel its a necessity, or whether they take a minimalist approach. 
I believe its the end product that should be judged, not the process. some people are better photographers, and some people are better editors. if they both produce the same image at the end of the day, what difference does it really make how each of them got there?


----------



## 407370 (Mar 13, 2016)

pixmedic said:


> I believe its the end product that should be judged, not the process


I could not agree with you more. 
It is meaningless to say that a digital image has been put through Lightroom / Photoshop / Photomatix etc. The final image presented to the viewer is all that is really important.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 13, 2016)

GHK said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > "*The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"*
> ...


Here is a photo of  a wheat field. Didn't get it right in the camera.  Little blown out.  How about fixing it for me?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> "*The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"*
> 
> Seriously?


Precisely.  Why is it any different with digital than it was with film?  To be honest. the only major difference I've found since going digital is that my hands don't smell after processing.  The process, including "getting it right*" in camera is more or less unchanged, other than the actual equipment.

*To be clear, like the "Rule" of thirds, "Getting it right in camera" really means "Getting it as close as you can in camera".  I've rarely (ever?) shot an image that didn't require some form of "post-processing" regardless of whether film or digital.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 13, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> Perhaps if you had pointed out the points that were incorrect your comments would have been clearer.
> 
> And I took the time to point it out because it seemed incongruous to declare facts wrong without a stated reason.
> And incongruity attracts my attention.


Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that people are disagreeing with the portions of the post which are opinion vice those which are fact?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2016)

tirediron said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps if you had pointed out the points that were incorrect your comments would have been clearer.
> ...



no. 
because this is the internet. 
if you dont spell out your every little intention in a detailed dissertation, someone will misunderstand, make a rash assumption,  and get offended. 
and then call you out on it. 


and then be offended again when you tell them they were wrong in their assumption.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 13, 2016)

pixmedic said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


I disagree, and I am offended that you would disagree with us.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



I am equally offended by your disagreeing offendedness to my disagreeing on whatever the heck was being discussed.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 13, 2016)




----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


>




damn. ya got me. 
I got nothing.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 13, 2016)

I wonder what an exposed but un-developed sheet of Super-XX film looked like when it came out of Ansel Adams's camera...I bet that sheet of film looked fricking awesome! All dull-finished, and pinkish-tinged light gray in color on the emulsion side, and tantalizingly mirror-smooth shiny and anti-halation-backing purple-y in hue on the back side! Fricking awesome image quality!


----------



## 407370 (Mar 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> GHK said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Reduced the highlights a wee bit and added a bit of saturation. I think your bracketing settings need looking at. I had to do it


----------



## GHK (Mar 13, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Didn't





gryphonslair99 said:


> GHK said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



All I can see is a white rectangle.   I assume that it is intended as a joke; I agree that it is somewhat blown out.
GHK
I've just see the post from 407370 who seems to have found a wheat field.   I assume that the displayed image is his edit, not your original.   Perhaps you weren't joking after all?
GHK


----------



## GHK (Mar 13, 2016)

Derrel said:


> I wonder what an exposed but un-developed sheet of Super-XX film looked like when it came out of Ansel Adams's camera...I bet that sheet of film looked fricking awesome! All dull-finished, and pinkish-tinged light gray in color on the emulsion side, and tantalizingly mirror-smooth shiny and anti-halation-backing purple-y in hue on the back side! Fricking awesome image quality!



I wouldn't bet against your being correct, but if you had taken the trouble to check you would have burnt it out completely.   What then?
GHK


----------



## jake337 (Mar 13, 2016)

Another 6 pages filled with a dead horse being pummeled.

When will it ever end.......


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2016)

jake337 said:


> Another 6 pages filled with a dead horse being pummeled.
> 
> When will it ever end.......




now.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 13, 2016)




----------

