| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2006 04:05:06 PM · #1 |
These questions have probably been answered elsewhere, but I could not easily locate the information. I'm a newbie at RAW so seeking advice from those of you in the know...
My situation:
1-Canon 10D used to capture RAW images (.CRW, not .CR2)
2-Have Photoshop CS2 and NeatImage Pro
3-WindowsXP PC environment
4-My current sRGB workflow is to convert to Adobe RGB and save in .tiff
My intent is to capture and process large fine art prints and want the highest possibe quality I can get from a digital camera. I'm hoping that by capturing RAW in Adobe RGB that it will improve the out-of-camera image quality and color quality as well as decrease color banding, pixelation and stuff like that.
Q1-What RAW processing software for viewing and/or conversion(processing) would you recommend?
Comments on the Canon supplied software sought. What about other non-Canon software you might recommend and why. Is CS2's built in conversion good enough or would you recommend something better? What about viewing software? Is Microsoft's RAW viewer as easy as the Windows Fax Viewer. I use Windows Fax Viewer for viewing/evaluating images now and that works fine for me. Any comments of NeatImage's Canon 10D filter software and which might be best?
Q2-What about imaging in Adobe RGB instead of sRGB?
Is there a down side to it? How about converting images to 16-bit from 8 bit? Are there disadvantages other than large file sizes?
Q3-Based on your experience, what do you think is most important I should know about image processing with RAW files?
Message edited by author 2006-10-01 16:15:07.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 04:14:19 PM · #2 |
Q1. Raw Converter: Adobe CS2 ACR is a very good converter. I'd use it for conversion.
Microsoft RAW Viewer is very easy to use and works much like Picture/Fax Viewer.
Q2. I convert to SRGB, because I don't need a color managed workflow for most of my work, but...
ProPhoto RGB is an even larger gamut than Adobe RGB -- quite a bit larger. When shooting RAW, camera settings for color space don't count. It only counts in conversion. So, you might want to research ProPhoto RGB, instead of Adobe RGB, if you want the largest possible color space.
Q3. Raw photos are very flat by default, after you do most of the processing on them, you will need to apply a fairly agressive s-curve to make them pop. Also, you will need to sharpen them quite a bit.
Don't try to push exposure in RAW conversion much past 1.5 stops. The result will be pretty grainy.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 04:33:48 PM · #3 |
I shoot in adobe RGB. I use Adobe Bridge to browse and open in photoshop (designate space as adobe RGB).
Typically I fix any color cast, exposure, and contrast issues in the RAW converter than use CS2 to tweak. I have many other programs but this is the simplist by far for me. I rarely do batch processing EXCEPT when I have specifically shot a lot of underexposed images. Then I will batch process.
MS RAW Viewer makes it easy when you are checking images on a card or file and don't want to have to open up Bridge. And its free so you can't loose.
When using Adobe RGB on DPC entries, remember to check your colors BEFORE you do your final save. I have had to go back and fix quite a few as the color lost made a huge difference.
Most important - what is done can be undone. When shooting with JPEG you are stuck with the sharpening, contrast, and color cast. you can tweak a little, but its not the same as having a raw image. Getting rid of yellow casts (tungsten lighting) takes me about 1/2 a second in PS with a raw file. I have some JPEGS that will never lose them. Also, allowing yourself to process images how you see them - maybe soft this edit, sharper that edit, contrasty a third edit, etc. give you much more freedom than working with an image already partially edited. Every once in a while, I put my camera on RAW+JPEG(m) and put in some custom parameters to see what results. If I like where its going, I edit the RAWs to look similar to the JPEGs. But I would hate to be stuck with those JPEGs exclusively.
Good luck! |
|
|
|
10/01/2006 04:39:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Q1. Raw Converter: Adobe CS2 ACR is a very good converter. I'd use it for conversion.
Microsoft RAW Viewer is very easy to use and works much like Picture/Fax Viewer.
Q2. I convert to SRGB, because I don't need a color managed workflow for most of my work, but...
ProPhoto RGB is an even larger gamut than Adobe RGB -- quite a bit larger. When shooting RAW, camera settings for color space don't count. It only counts in conversion. So, you might want to research ProPhoto RGB, instead of Adobe RGB, if you want the largest possible color space.
Q3. Raw photos are very flat by default, after you do most of the processing on them, you will need to apply a fairly agressive s-curve to make them pop. Also, you will need to sharpen them quite a bit.
Don't try to push exposure in RAW conversion much past 1.5 stops. The result will be pretty grainy. |
Thanks for all the good advice...
I was considering Microsoft's RAW viewer and CS2 for conversion to start anyway... just seems natural and in keeping with my current methodologies.
I will look into ProPhoto RGB. Obvious, since in most output processing (DPC challenge entries and DPCPrints, for example) you always convert back to sRGB anyway I don't know if I would go to a larger color space or not and Adobe RGB is a standard. My experience, though, with processing large print files is that I get reduced color banding and better tonal quality if I do all my processing in the larger color space first.
My old camera always seemed to capture images on the flat side, or maybe I just visualize deeper colors when I take pictures. ;) Anyway, I always have to address that issue in my current workflow.
Because of the softness of RAW images would you recommend adding a light preprocessing sharpening step to my early workflow?
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 04:42:33 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Because of the softness of RAW images would you recommend adding a light preprocessing sharpening step to my early workflow? |
Generally no. Sharpening is probably best left to be the last step you take. Unless some of the editting you might want to do will cause further loss of sharpness, such as adding a "soft focus" effect.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 04:42:57 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Because of the softness of RAW images would you recommend adding a light preprocessing sharpening step to my early workflow? |
On their website, burried somewhere, Canon suggest that before cropping, you should use unsharp mask on the RAW files from their cameras: 300%, .3, 0. Its not noticible unless you view at actual pixel size but I know, for me at least, it makes a noticible difference in the long run. |
|
|
|
10/01/2006 05:01:38 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Because of the softness of RAW images would you recommend adding a light preprocessing sharpening step to my early workflow? |
On their website, burried somewhere, Canon suggest that before cropping, you should use unsharp mask on the RAW files from their cameras: 300%, .3, 0. Its not noticible unless you view at actual pixel size but I know, for me at least, it makes a noticible difference in the long run. |
Courtenay... Thanks for your good advice.
Don't know if you are saying Canon recommends sharpening as part of the RAW conversion process or not, but I'd probably do it all sharpening in Photoshop after conversion. I always feel PS is better for that sort of thing than camera manufacturer's software is. It might be coincidental but their recommended USM settings are almost the same as I applied to web graphics in PS7 after they were resized and just before saving them. I use CS2's Smart Sharpen now and the settings are all different, of course. ;)
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 05:05:02 PM · #8 |
the sharpening canon recommends is part of photoshop.
You might check this out: workshop If you click on tips and techniques you can then scroll down to Sharpening RAW images. Guy has some interesting advice on sharpening which would be of interest to you for your printing.
C |
|
|
|
10/01/2006 05:07:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Because of the softness of RAW images would you recommend adding a light preprocessing sharpening step to my early workflow? |
Generally no. Sharpening is probably best left to be the last step you take. Unless some of the editting you might want to do will cause further loss of sharpness, such as adding a "soft focus" effect. |
I was wondering. My old camera had decently sharp images out of camera so I always did all sharpening as the last step in the workflow. I've read that Canon produces softer images out-of-camera and have seen where some foks recommend an early pre-processing sharpening and was wondering if that applied to Canon or not. I will just keep sharpening the way I have always done unless I have reason to change.
Courtenay... thanks for the workshop suggestion and I will read up from it regarding raw image sharpening.
Message edited by author 2006-10-01 17:10:45.
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 05:29:21 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Because of the softness of RAW images would you recommend adding a light preprocessing sharpening step to my early workflow? |
On their website, burried somewhere, Canon suggest that before cropping, you should use unsharp mask on the RAW files from their cameras: 300%, .3, 0. Its not noticible unless you view at actual pixel size but I know, for me at least, it makes a noticible difference in the long run. |
Before cropping or before resizing? Why would it matter to run USM before cropping? |
|
|
|
10/01/2006 06:25:18 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Q1-What RAW processing software for viewing and/or conversion(processing) would you recommend? |
I don't have any experience with Canon so I can't recommend RAW processing software, sorry.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Q2-What about imaging in Adobe RGB instead of sRGB?
Is there a down side to it? How about converting images to 16-bit from 8 bit? Are there disadvantages other than large file sizes? |
If your camera can capture in Adobe RGB and your workflow supports processing completely in that color space, then go for it. I only convert to sRGB as the final step in my workflow, and even then that's only for displaying on web. My printer accepts Adobe RGB.
There shouldn't be an advantage in up converting to 16 bit from 8 bit. Theoretically, 8 bit data converted to 16 bit still only holds 8 bits of info. Ditto for up converting from sRGB to Adobe RGB. Convert down when needed, but the only thing going up will do is slow you down with larger files and longer processing times.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Q3-Based on your experience, what do you think is most important I should know about image processing with RAW files? |
Design your workflow so that you're always working with as much data as possible, and tailor any destructive changes specifically for your output device (meaning save resize, profile conversion, and sharpening for last).
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 07:34:08 PM · #12 |
Adobe RGB vs sRGB: If your printer or print service supports the wider gamut and can handle Adobe RGB, and you've taken the trouble to do color management, go for it! And if most of your output is fine art prints, it's probably worth the effort. If you find yourself converting most of your photos to sRGB (e.g., for web display or a print service that assumes that color space), just stick with it and save yourself the trouble. Keep in mind that any kind of interpolation, including color space conversion, will reduce quality slightly (although probably unnoticably). But don't skip the conversion to sRGB if it is needed or the resulting colors will be a bit dull.
The downside to a wide color space is that you have the same number of colors spread out over a wider range, so things like posterization are more likely. Of course, representing some colors is impossible in sRGB, so you don't have much choice if you want them!
Sharpening: There are certainly a lot of opinions on this! There are also a lot of reasons for sharpening, and it makes sense to me to sharpen at different times for different purposes. Sharpen near the beginning of the workflow to compensate for the softening that is a side effect of digital capture, and give a more realistic view of the photo while you're making other adjustments. Sharpen portions of the photo as a creative step to bring out details or emphasize textures. Resizing has a softening effect that sharpening can compensate for. And sharpen just before output to adjust for things like ink spread (and be sure to examine the actual print to make sure you have the right settings).
Or simplify your process and just sharpen once at the very end. This is the most common workflow and the end result is usually great. But always sharpen after resizing; if you have multiple sizes (e.g., print and web), sharpen each size individually; they will need different settings. |
|
|
|
10/01/2006 07:39:17 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Because of the softness of RAW images would you recommend adding a light preprocessing sharpening step to my early workflow? |
On their website, burried somewhere, Canon suggest that before cropping, you should use unsharp mask on the RAW files from their cameras: 300%, .3, 0. Its not noticible unless you view at actual pixel size but I know, for me at least, it makes a noticible difference in the long run. |
Before cropping or before resizing? Why would it matter to run USM before cropping? |
I don't know except that a lot of people crop and resize at the same time (i.e. to 8X10 or something similar). This changes the pixel/image relationship. If you just crop, I don't think it would be a problem or matter.
I looked and couldn't find that bit of wisdom again but I didn't look very hard. I think General E knows what I'm referring to. |
|
|
|
10/01/2006 08:06:57 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
... Q1-What RAW processing software for viewing and/or conversion(processing) would you recommend?
Comments on the Canon supplied software sought. What about other non-Canon software you might recommend and why. Is CS2's built in conversion good enough or would you recommend something better? What about viewing software? Is Microsoft's RAW viewer as easy as the Windows Fax Viewer. I use Windows Fax Viewer for viewing/evaluating images now and that works fine for me. Any comments of NeatImage's Canon 10D filter software and which might be best? ... |
All experience from a Nikon perspective, so your milage may vary.
I use Pixmatic RawShooter Essential (RSE) to convert from RAW, works well and is feature rich enough for my limited use of it.
Windows RAW viewer works much like Windows Fax Viewer, just a bit slower since it is generally opening bigger files. I use it for a quick look thru, but to evaluate and sort I use RSE. It allows me to catagorize and more as I evaluate, so I'm not handing the same document more than once for the same task.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
... Q2-What about imaging in Adobe RGB instead of sRGB?
Is there a down side to it? How about converting images to 16-bit from 8 bit? Are there disadvantages other than large file sizes? ... |
First rule to consider adopting is to always work from largest to smallest -- never go smaller to larger unless there is just no other alternative (such as stock sites that insist on upsized images).
AdobeRGB and ProPhotoRGB are both larger than sRGB, so they cover a larger range of color -- however, yes there is a down side. The color space is larger, but there are still the same number of steps across it. That is, with 8-bit sRGB there are 256 steps from darkest to lightest for each of the color channels. sRGB is sufficiently small for each of the 256 steps to be only a slight (mostly unnoticable) change from the step on either side of it. AdobeRGB and ProPhotoRGB are larger (much larger in the case of ProPhotoRGB) so the distance between the steps is larger. This makes it much easier to see the difference between each step and those next to it. This brings the danger of a posterized look to what should be smooth gradients.
It makes no sense (to me anyway) to use AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB without also working with 16-bit files as much as possible. The greater bit-depth increases the number of steps to the point posterization isn't a problem. The main disadvantage of a 16-bit workflow are the tools. In older versions of PS (and many other tools) many of the tools, filters and such are simply not available. Fortunately, you state you have PSCS2, so that is not as big a problem. Adobe has made great progress toward allowing a full-featured 16-bit workflow since PSCS -- it's not there yet as there are still some things not possible in 16-bit, but the most common activities are.
BTW: A RAW file does not have a color-space -- that is added in the conversion.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
... Q3-Based on your experience, what do you think is most important I should know about image processing with RAW files? |
The RAW converter is not a image processing tool. It has many of the same options (contrast, sharpening and so on), but their purpose is different. A RAW image is flat, soft and generally uninspiring when first viewed -- and is quite a different experience than viewing 'raw' jpegs from a camera. The greatest danger in RAW processing is in trying to process the image in the converter instead of just converting it.
I, like most P&S users, found that allowing the camera to add any sharpening or contrast or anything to the image limited what could be done to the image later in PS. The same is true when I do the conversion myself -- less is definitely more. Do just enough in the conversion to give you what you need to work with in PS -- that takes a bit of getting use to and a lot of practice.
David
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 08:59:46 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by David.C:
The RAW converter is not a image processing tool. It has many of the same options (contrast, sharpening and so on), but their purpose is different. A RAW image is flat, soft and generally uninspiring when first viewed -- and is quite a different experience than viewing 'raw' jpegs from a camera. The greatest danger in RAW processing is in trying to process the image in the converter instead of just converting it.
I, like most P&S users, found that allowing the camera to add any sharpening or contrast or anything to the image limited what could be done to the image later in PS. The same is true when I do the conversion myself -- less is definitely more. Do just enough in the conversion to give you what you need to work with in PS -- that takes a bit of getting use to and a lot of practice.
David |
I disagree. A RAW converter is definitely an image processing tool! Not as powerful as Photoshop to be sure: you can't make selections or use layers for example. If you convert to 16-bit files and plan on extensive processing in Photoshop, you might as well do all the processing there. But if you convert to 8-bit files, you'll get better quality if you make all the overall image adjustments you can in the RAW converter since it uses 16-bit mode. And for photos that don't need any further processing, you might as well do everything (even sharpening) in the RAW converter.
Same with a P&S camera. If you want to do extra processing, make the camera do as little as possible. But if you don't need the extra processing, let the camera do the work! Of course, the catch is that you may not be able to tell from just the preview screen whether extra work is needed or not. So if your goal is a work of art, then play it safe and turn off the camera options. But if you're just taking snapshots or doing throwaway composition exercises, you might reach your goals more easily by turning them on. |
|
|
|
10/01/2006 11:01:00 PM · #16 |
| I use the 10D and Photoshop CS and have been quite happy with Photoshop's RAW converter. But I'm curious why would you save in TIFF and not PSD? Aren't TIFF files just bigger and slower to open? They don't contain any more information than a 16bit PSD, and if you need to add layers in Photoshop then you can just keep working on the same PSD file. Right now, the only reason I ever use a TIFF is because that's how Lightroom forces you to export to Photoshop. Am I missing some vital advantage to TIFF? |
|
|
|
10/01/2006 11:08:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by magnus:
... the only reason I ever use a TIFF is because that's how Lightroom forces you to export to Photoshop. Am I missing some vital advantage to TIFF? |
I would say that is the one advantage to using TIFF over PSD files -- portability. Moveing files between aplications is easier with TIFFs because more applications accept them than accept PSD files.
David
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 11:20:18 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by dr rick:
Originally posted by David.C:
The RAW converter is not a image processing tool. ...
... Do just enough in the conversion to give you what you need to work with in PS -- that takes a bit of getting use to and a lot of practice.
David |
I disagree. A RAW converter is definitely an image processing tool! Not as powerful as Photoshop to be sure: you can't make selections or use layers for example. If you convert to 16-bit files and plan on extensive processing in Photoshop, you might as well do all the processing there. But if you convert to 8-bit files, you'll get better quality if you make all the overall image adjustments you can in the RAW converter since it uses 16-bit mode. And for photos that don't need any further processing, you might as well do everything (even sharpening) in the RAW converter. ... |
Exactly, the converter is the place to make any adjustments needed to make the image fit into the the desired color-space and bit-depth as well as possible. But, because of the limitations you mentioned, no selections, layers and so on, it is usually at best a rough fit. Sure there may be the occasional image that is near enough perfect out of camera, but I haven't seen too many of them. But I am willing to believe that is just me. :/
The converter makes it fit and overcomes many of the limitations of the camera -- but attempting to do detailed work with it (in my limited experience) is just asking for trouble.
David
|
|
|
|
10/01/2006 11:31:22 PM · #19 |
I use Nikon View, and if the image doesn't need any noise reduction, then I am fine with using NV's sharpening. It often does a better job than I can do on my own with USM. And I love it's sepia option. It does such a lovely job that I figure tinkering with it in PS is a waste of time.
FWIW, 99% of the pp work on my High Contrast entry was done in NV, with just crop, resize, and one very minor tweak done in PS. That's rather unusual for me, if I'm being honest, but it illustrates the point nicely .
Message edited by author 2006-10-01 23:34:42.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 12:07:50 PM · #20 |
Wow... thanks... this discussion is everything I hoped it would be. It is exactly what I'm looking for.
Up till now I've done all image processing starting from an sRGB and .jpg file because that is what my camera supported. Mine was a Sony F-717. My first workflow steps were to convert sRGB to Adobe RGB (1998), duplicate the background layer and save in .tiff, then did all image processing after that.
I'm decent with PS image processing and have taught workshops and tutored individual students. I'm impressed with what I've read here. It is nice to know there are so many people that understand image post processing and can give solid advice. The level of expertise expressed in this discussion so far is very high. Anyone reading this would be well served to listen to what has been said.
Some may think there is no advantage to converting to Adobe RGB from an sRGB original. Not true. I've found in preparing large files for fine art prints that digital effects such as pixelation and fine tonal transitions in critical areas like the sky are considerably rteduced if you convert first. That is even true if you must convert back to sRGB for an output file. I'm a stickler for quality and often check these things to the pixel level. You have to do that to make a decent print. None of this matters much for web graphics where you can get away with a lot of sloppy processing.
Thanks again to all of you for sharing your experience and for your advice. I will be trying these suggestions and let people know what I have learned.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 01:04:22 PM · #21 |
Hey Steve,
I didn't see a couple things covered above, so:
- Note that if you select RAW image recording, there is essentially no color space, the camera's setting is written as metadata and applied on conversion *if* you use the Canon software. If using CS2 to convert, PS will use your application-specified defaults. For your purposes, since you well-understand color management, your options are completely open to whatever color space works best for your editing and output needs. Simply tell PS to convert from RAW using that destination space; there is no source space.
- Canon's recommendations of 300/0.3/0 for USM work pretty well with the 10D. I strongly recommend raising the threshold to about 3, and applying 150/0.3/3 *twice* instead of 300/0.3/3 once. Sometimes the second application could be a bit much, and I faded it back using edit>fade.
- The ACR converter by default applies some sharpening. Turn this off if you use the above sharpening recommedations. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 01:30:14 PM · #22 |
A few thoughts about your questions:
..................................................
I am finding Microsoft RAW Image Viewer becomming very fussy - and interacts with Bibble Pro & possibly Adobe Lightroom in unfavorable ways. Seems not to have any effect w/ bridge.
I think Adobe Raw conversion from bridge slow, but very good.
Adobe Lightroom (beta 4) is fast, is interesting and am finding it a valuable program. At the moment it has no browser to speak of. I think it will become a prefered method of conversion for many.
Bibble Pro is very fast, a buggy inconsistant program which I think if set up correctly could be very useful- when it works for me it is a very good converter. Am just beginning to use this program and lots to learn with it.
Both Bibble and Lightroom have a fabulous resize function absent in Adobe Raw Converter.
Canon supplied software produces very good conversions, but I find the basic Canon browser is unreliable because of other program settings and does not necessarily depict what will show up in Adobe CS2.
...........................................
...........................................
I think it might be an advantage to convert 8 bit to 16 bit, it may help, but starting in 16 bit rgb would be optimum. With a few exceptions I have read that there is no advantage.
I always shoot RGB and use 16 bit as long as possible through out the workflow, and convert to 8 bit & srgb just before save to web.
There are many other large gamut colour profiles to choose for workspace and are worth some investigation, it can be a bit tricky and if used, one has to be careful about intended file purpose.
The reason for 16 bit or higher & large gamut colour profiles will become obvious especially for print, but also useful for extending tonality, and alternate comparison & colour variation in web files.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 08:17:34 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
- Canon's recommendations of 300/0.3/0 for USM work pretty well with the 10D. I strongly recommend raising the threshold to about 3, and applying 150/0.3/3 *twice* instead of 300/0.3/3 once. Sometimes the second application could be a bit much, and I faded it back using edit>fade.
- The ACR converter by default applies some sharpening. Turn this off if you use the above sharpening recommedations. |
Is the Canon recommendation made as a first step in a post processing workflow separate from 'normal' sharpening at the end?
Message edited by author 2006-10-02 20:33:27.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 08:51:01 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Is the Canon recommendation made as a first step in a post processing workflow separate from 'normal' sharpening at the end? |
Yes... it's intent, IMO, is to counter the effect of the 10D's rather strong AA filter. It's probably all the sharpening you need if your destination is print and you're not downsampling significantly. If you're downsampling for the web, you might consider forgoing the up-front sharpening and applying USM to taste after resizing. I've gotten good results that way, and found that, again, a ver small radius and large amount, with a small but non-zero threshold usually gives best results.
Edit:
I've had to retrain myself for the 5D. The AA filter is quite weak by comparison, and I find that when I'm using a very sharp lens, the output needs very little in the way of sharpening.
Message edited by author 2006-10-02 20:52:53. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 09:16:28 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Some may think there is no advantage to converting to Adobe RGB from an sRGB original. Not true. I've found in preparing large files for fine art prints that digital effects such as pixelation and fine tonal transitions in critical areas like the sky are considerably rteduced if you convert first. That is even true if you must convert back to sRGB for an output file. I'm a stickler for quality and often check these things to the pixel level. You have to do that to make a decent print. |
Exactly the reason I reccomended ProPhoto RGB. If you are going to the "hassle" of a color managed workflow, it seems logical to use the largest gamut possible.
|
|
