| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2016 11:39:24 AM · #26 |
| Yes, Larry, to some extent we've ALL been where you are :) |
|
|
|
01/30/2016 12:05:06 PM · #27 |
We also have to remember some people may not have the equipment to create an HDR image the way others want them too.
If we all use the same technique we might be missing out on a better way.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2016 12:26:42 PM · #28 |
| FWIW I've always wondered if there truly is any difference between HDR and bracketing. Both do essentially the same thing, don't they, only HDR actually combines the images for you? |
|
|
|
01/30/2016 12:36:51 PM · #29 |
| "Bracketing" refers to capturing more than one version of the same scene with different exposures, often (previously) with the idea that one can then pick the "best" one to further process. The bracketed exposures can also be combined/blended manually or with software to create an image using the "best" parts of each photo to extend the dynamic range beyond what can be obtained from any single exposure. |
|
|
|
01/30/2016 01:28:14 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
FWIW I've always wondered if there truly is any difference between HDR and bracketing. Both do essentially the same thing, don't they, only HDR actually combines the images for you? |
You bracket to possibly create an HDR image. |
|
|
|
01/30/2016 01:28:22 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Challenge Descriptions are not "rules" as far as whether or not an image is "legal" -- they are more suggestions as to the type of image which is expected. You are free to follow those suggestions or not, but as long as you follow the stated rule set as detailed on the appropriate rules page (Advanced Editing in this case) the image will be considered valid. |
Which is one of the more consistently frustrating (albeit understandable) things about this site. From panoramas that are simply wide crops to HDR photos that are really just single shot edits (I'm sorry but while I realize I can take a single shot from my D800 and create +/- 1 thru 5 images and combine them in an HDR program of choice that's simply only exploiting the dynamic range of the camera and NOT "high dynamic range photography"), doing well in challenges is really just about shooting appealing images that play well with the voters and not necessarily exploiting the techniques outlined in the challenge description (you still need to take a good photograph - the "how" just doesn't matter as much as it should). The more you remember that the easier it is to participate sometimes. I long for special rules when the challenge topic suggests specific techniques, but people toiling in hell long for ice water, so I consider myself lucky.
Not a rant, btw, I'm simply sharing |
Here's my thought, Jake. I think you would like a challenge topic specific enough that everyone would be using the same techniques, & scoring would be technical only, on how each one met the challenge. Kind of like grading homework. Each person would be competing primarily against self, secondarily against others.
As I see it, the trouble with this idea is that voters only get to see the final result, making it impossible to score on how well the photographer used the technique to get there. Nobody gets to see the original scene but the photographer who was there. And the expertise of the voter varies. And the voter is also more likely to be a fellow competitor competitor than a qualified expert.
In the end, the voter best qualified to score the result under these rules is the photographer who got the shot. And the photographer builds expertise by entering challenges.
So...as I see it, the best challenges allow each photographer to explore & discover the process in their own individual way. And scoring all the other entries gives everyone another opportunity to build their skills by critically viewing other results (it's easier to be critical of someone else's end result).
In other words, the way we do it now cannot be improved upon. |
If the description mandates a technique is used on the threat of DQ when it's not then at least we are guaranteed that the top 5 are created with the specific technique in mind, and that is my point. Call it a panorama, mandate 3 or more stitched images. Call it an HDR, mandate at least 2 or 3 images. Don't name a challenge after a known photographic technique if it's not necessary to use it. That would be an improvement. |
|
|
|
01/30/2016 02:02:50 PM · #32 |
| Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
|
|
|
01/30/2016 05:29:35 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
Single image HDRs processed in Photomatix are acceptable, I've been using this method for years. Either way you have to process the images somwehere unless you have a camera that does the work for you. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 08:25:41 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by gipper11:
Not really no ;)
That makes me feel like an outcast ;-( |
We only go through it with the new people that are interested and interesting. :)
We ignore the boring ones. ;) |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 11:13:46 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
I'm more than OK with allowing photographers to use whatever technique they want ... when the challenge doesn't explicitly mention the technique. I'd be more than happy if we never had a challenge with a specific technique in the title again. But if we do then it should center around that technique and not center on getting around that technique. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 12:38:59 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
I'm more than OK with allowing photographers to use whatever technique they want ... when the challenge doesn't explicitly mention the technique. I'd be more than happy if we never had a challenge with a specific technique in the title again. But if we do then it should center around that technique and not center on getting around that technique. |
Jake, you're getting hung up on a very narrow definition of HDR technique. The final effect (of taking a highly contrasted scene and producing an image which has detail in all the tonal ranges) can be achieved in several different ways, discussed in this thread. None of those variations is "getting around" the technique. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 12:43:32 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by gipper11:
Not really no ;)
That makes me feel like an outcast ;-( |
We only go through it with the new people that are interested and interesting. :)
We ignore the boring ones. ;) |
LOL!
Boy, does this bring back some newbie memories :-))
|
|
|
|
01/31/2016 12:59:20 PM · #38 |
Is that why I am usually ignored :-)
|
|
|
|
01/31/2016 01:33:33 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
I'm more than OK with allowing photographers to use whatever technique they want ... when the challenge doesn't explicitly mention the technique. I'd be more than happy if we never had a challenge with a specific technique in the title again. But if we do then it should center around that technique and not center on getting around that technique. |
Jake, you're getting hung up on a very narrow definition of HDR technique. The final effect (of taking a highly contrasted scene and producing an image which has detail in all the tonal ranges) can be achieved in several different ways, discussed in this thread. None of those variations is "getting around" the technique. |
Actually I'm not, I think you're getting hung up on a popular look that comes from HDR. HDR means "High Dynamic Range" which implies that the photograph you're making displays a higher dynamic range than would normally be achievable from a single, well exposed image from your camera, no matter what techniques you use. Yes, you can use HDR software to pull out shadows, tame bright areas, and achieve a compressed image that appears HDR-like, but it's not an "HDR" image. Similarly you can create a quite balanced and "ordinary" looking image from a scene that, when assessed in real time, extremes on both the bright and dark end. For example, a dark church on a sunny day. It would be impossible to capture the inside in a single frame without either missing details in the shadows or having stained glass windows blown out. But by using a series of photos capturing the extremes it's possible to create something that simply looks well lit, but otherwise normal. That is HDR photography. The rest is just processing. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 01:49:52 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
I'm more than OK with allowing photographers to use whatever technique they want ... when the challenge doesn't explicitly mention the technique. I'd be more than happy if we never had a challenge with a specific technique in the title again. But if we do then it should center around that technique and not center on getting around that technique. |
Jake, you're getting hung up on a very narrow definition of HDR technique. The final effect (of taking a highly contrasted scene and producing an image which has detail in all the tonal ranges) can be achieved in several different ways, discussed in this thread. None of those variations is "getting around" the technique. |
Actually I'm not, I think you're getting hung up on a popular look that comes from HDR. HDR means "High Dynamic Range" which implies that the photograph you're making displays a higher dynamic range than would normally be achievable from a single, well exposed image from your camera, no matter what techniques you use. Yes, you can use HDR software to pull out shadows, tame bright areas, and achieve a compressed image that appears HDR-like, but it's not an "HDR" image. Similarly you can create a quite balanced and "ordinary" looking image from a scene that, when assessed in real time, extremes on both the bright and dark end. For example, a dark church on a sunny day. It would be impossible to capture the inside in a single frame without either missing details in the shadows or having stained glass windows blown out. But by using a series of photos capturing the extremes it's possible to create something that simply looks well lit, but otherwise normal. That is HDR photography. The rest is just processing. |
By shooting RAW, you have the information that allows you to get the multiple exposure in one shot. Just because JPEG chooses the info and throws the rest out, didn't mean we can't take advantage of the fact that both the shadows and highlights are stored in the RAW file...
1 shot, HDR |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 02:08:08 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
I'm more than OK with allowing photographers to use whatever technique they want ... when the challenge doesn't explicitly mention the technique. I'd be more than happy if we never had a challenge with a specific technique in the title again. But if we do then it should center around that technique and not center on getting around that technique. |
Jake, you're getting hung up on a very narrow definition of HDR technique. The final effect (of taking a highly contrasted scene and producing an image which has detail in all the tonal ranges) can be achieved in several different ways, discussed in this thread. None of those variations is "getting around" the technique. |
Actually I'm not, I think you're getting hung up on a popular look that comes from HDR. HDR means "High Dynamic Range" which implies that the photograph you're making displays a higher dynamic range than would normally be achievable from a single, well exposed image from your camera, no matter what techniques you use. Yes, you can use HDR software to pull out shadows, tame bright areas, and achieve a compressed image that appears HDR-like, but it's not an "HDR" image. Similarly you can create a quite balanced and "ordinary" looking image from a scene that, when assessed in real time, extremes on both the bright and dark end. For example, a dark church on a sunny day. It would be impossible to capture the inside in a single frame without either missing details in the shadows or having stained glass windows blown out. But by using a series of photos capturing the extremes it's possible to create something that simply looks well lit, but otherwise normal. That is HDR photography. The rest is just processing. |
By shooting RAW, you have the information that allows you to get the multiple exposure in one shot. Just because JPEG chooses the info and throws the rest out, didn't mean we can't take advantage of the fact that both the shadows and highlights are stored in the RAW file...
1 shot, HDR |
Yes, exactly. I often taken a single, RAW, image, and opened it with three different exposures. Then merging them (either manually or via software). This is more than adequate to achieve the right exposure, and a perfectly valid "technique", which does not make it less an HDR image than any other way.
As for the look, not at all. While highly processed images are more easily identifiable as HDR (and not necessarily my favorite look), it is also true that not all "HDR" images LOOK like an HDR (highly processed, etc.). The most successful, IMO, look like a "normal" image which just happens to have an absurdly wide tonal range which would not be possible under normal conditions.
It really depends on the subject, such as the church you describe. Any interior/exterior situation, or silhouette situation, would benefit from multiple exposures metered to the specific lighting conditions of each region of the image. But to dismiss other subjects because they may not require specifically metered separate captures as not a valid HDR is, to me, an unduly narrow view. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 02:32:52 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
I'm more than OK with allowing photographers to use whatever technique they want ... when the challenge doesn't explicitly mention the technique. I'd be more than happy if we never had a challenge with a specific technique in the title again. But if we do then it should center around that technique and not center on getting around that technique. |
Jake, you're getting hung up on a very narrow definition of HDR technique. The final effect (of taking a highly contrasted scene and producing an image which has detail in all the tonal ranges) can be achieved in several different ways, discussed in this thread. None of those variations is "getting around" the technique. |
Actually I'm not, I think you're getting hung up on a popular look that comes from HDR. HDR means "High Dynamic Range" which implies that the photograph you're making displays a higher dynamic range than would normally be achievable from a single, well exposed image from your camera, no matter what techniques you use. Yes, you can use HDR software to pull out shadows, tame bright areas, and achieve a compressed image that appears HDR-like, but it's not an "HDR" image. Similarly you can create a quite balanced and "ordinary" looking image from a scene that, when assessed in real time, extremes on both the bright and dark end. For example, a dark church on a sunny day. It would be impossible to capture the inside in a single frame without either missing details in the shadows or having stained glass windows blown out. But by using a series of photos capturing the extremes it's possible to create something that simply looks well lit, but otherwise normal. That is HDR photography. The rest is just processing. |
With all due respect, I think you may be getting a little too hung up on strictly interpretations of the challenge themes -- how many images should go into each Panorama entry, how many exposures should go into each HDR entry. My primary desire is that the challenge themes be a catalyst for making good images. If a Panorama looks like a panorama and is interesting to me -- I couldn't care less how many images went into it. If the HDR entry captivates me and has good detail in the shadows and highlight -- I won't spend time worrying that they may have made if from one image or more. I want the challenge themes to inspire -- inspire people to get to try new things, look at things in new ways, and, most importantly, learn to make better images. If I like an image and it seems vaguely related to the challenge theme -- I will give them the benefit of the doubt and a good score. I am not looking for reasons to take points off a good image. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 03:29:54 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
With all due respect, I think you may be getting a little too hung up on strictly interpretations of the challenge themes -- how many images should go into each Panorama entry, how many exposures should go into each HDR entry. My primary desire is that the challenge themes be a catalyst for making good images. If a Panorama looks like a panorama and is interesting to me -- I couldn't care less how many images went into it. If the HDR entry captivates me and has good detail in the shadows and highlight -- I won't spend time worrying that they may have made if from one image or more. I want the challenge themes to inspire -- inspire people to get to try new things, look at things in new ways, and, most importantly, learn to make better images. If I like an image and it seems vaguely related to the challenge theme -- I will give them the benefit of the doubt and a good score. I am not looking for reasons to take points off a good image. |
+1 |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 03:40:15 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by markwiley:
With all due respect, I think you may be getting a little too hung up on strictly interpretations of the challenge themes -- how many images should go into each Panorama entry, how many exposures should go into each HDR entry. My primary desire is that the challenge themes be a catalyst for making good images. If a Panorama looks like a panorama and is interesting to me -- I couldn't care less how many images went into it. If the HDR entry captivates me and has good detail in the shadows and highlight -- I won't spend time worrying that they may have made if from one image or more. I want the challenge themes to inspire -- inspire people to get to try new things, look at things in new ways, and, most importantly, learn to make better images. If I like an image and it seems vaguely related to the challenge theme -- I will give them the benefit of the doubt and a good score. I am not looking for reasons to take points off a good image. |
+1 |
+2 |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 03:46:36 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Kobba:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Originally posted by markwiley:
With all due respect, I think you may be getting a little too hung up on strictly interpretations of the challenge themes -- how many images should go into each Panorama entry, how many exposures should go into each HDR entry. My primary desire is that the challenge themes be a catalyst for making good images. If a Panorama looks like a panorama and is interesting to me -- I couldn't care less how many images went into it. If the HDR entry captivates me and has good detail in the shadows and highlight -- I won't spend time worrying that they may have made if from one image or more. I want the challenge themes to inspire -- inspire people to get to try new things, look at things in new ways, and, most importantly, learn to make better images. If I like an image and it seems vaguely related to the challenge theme -- I will give them the benefit of the doubt and a good score. I am not looking for reasons to take points off a good image. |
+1 |
+2 |
+3 |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 04:30:31 PM · #46 |
I Do care because it is very easy to make one frame look like a pano and it is not that easy to stitch frames together and have them be perfect. The ones who did not put in the effort are likely to win.
When I first joined this site I was told the point of the contests are to force you to get up off your butt and do different things, if you don't know how to create a pano other than just cropping one single frame then learn how to do it or just name the challenge something like "make a pano either by cropping or stitching" I really like playing on a fair set of rules.
I was also told that if I was worried about how the voting system that I was at the wrong site. Low and behold as soon as a contest goes into voting there post tracking each vote so it does seem to matter to a lot of people.
I am doing this on my phone so forget about any mistakes - I am out getting some shots do the contests closing soon and getting wet doing it.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2016 04:33:19 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by Kroburg:
Why make things so difficult. Let it be the photographer who decides which technique he wants to use and let him/she use his/her imagination and creativity to make the final submission. At the end it is the voter who decides whether the image meets the challenge. In this case, does the image look like a HDR in B&W or not and he/she will vote accordingly. |
I'm more than OK with allowing photographers to use whatever technique they want ... when the challenge doesn't explicitly mention the technique. I'd be more than happy if we never had a challenge with a specific technique in the title again. But if we do then it should center around that technique and not center on getting around that technique. |
Jake, you're getting hung up on a very narrow definition of HDR technique. The final effect (of taking a highly contrasted scene and producing an image which has detail in all the tonal ranges) can be achieved in several different ways, discussed in this thread. None of those variations is "getting around" the technique. |
Actually I'm not, I think you're getting hung up on a popular look that comes from HDR. HDR means "High Dynamic Range" which implies that the photograph you're making displays a higher dynamic range than would normally be achievable from a single, well exposed image from your camera, no matter what techniques you use. Yes, you can use HDR software to pull out shadows, tame bright areas, and achieve a compressed image that appears HDR-like, but it's not an "HDR" image. Similarly you can create a quite balanced and "ordinary" looking image from a scene that, when assessed in real time, extremes on both the bright and dark end. For example, a dark church on a sunny day. It would be impossible to capture the inside in a single frame without either missing details in the shadows or having stained glass windows blown out. But by using a series of photos capturing the extremes it's possible to create something that simply looks well lit, but otherwise normal. That is HDR photography. The rest is just processing. |
By shooting RAW, you have the information that allows you to get the multiple exposure in one shot. Just because JPEG chooses the info and throws the rest out, didn't mean we can't take advantage of the fact that both the shadows and highlights are stored in the RAW file...
1 shot, HDR |
Yes, exactly. I often taken a single, RAW, image, and opened it with three different exposures. Then merging them (either manually or via software). This is more than adequate to achieve the right exposure, and a perfectly valid "technique", which does not make it less an HDR image than any other way.
As for the look, not at all. While highly processed images are more easily identifiable as HDR (and not necessarily my favorite look), it is also true that not all "HDR" images LOOK like an HDR (highly processed, etc.). The most successful, IMO, look like a "normal" image which just happens to have an absurdly wide tonal range which would not be possible under normal conditions.
It really depends on the subject, such as the church you describe. Any interior/exterior situation, or silhouette situation, would benefit from multiple exposures metered to the specific lighting conditions of each region of the image. But to dismiss other subjects because they may not require specifically metered separate captures as not a valid HDR is, to me, an unduly narrow view. |
First off, yes, I am getting hung up on the challenge titles and descriptions because, well, there are other, better and more accurate ways to describe what the challenge is really about without using terms that are ultimately ignored because they might as well all have "-ish" appended to them. I get that actually tying a real photographic technique to a DQ-able rule will never happen here, but my point is that once in a while it really, really, really should.
That said, no, no, no, no, no, ladies!! The accepted definition of HDR on just about every photographic website I've been to is, "High dynamic range (HDR) images enable photographers to record a greater range of tonal detail than a camera could capture in a single photo."
I've emphasized the important part. This has NOTHING to do with JPEG vs. RAW, it has to do with going beyond the dynamic range that your camera is capable of capturing within a single RAW capture (usually about 7 to 10 stops depending on the sensor). Making +/- 3EV copies of your single image facilitates extracting the existing light information by throwing it into you HDR software, but it's not allowing you to access light information that's not there. Using actual +/- 3EV images effectively gives you 6 stops of additional light information for a higher dynamic range. What you're describing is just exploiting the dynamic range of your camera to its fullest. That's not HDR photography. It never has been, it never will be. All you're doing is perpetuating a far too widely held misconception about HDR. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 04:51:55 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by gipper11:
I Do care because it is very easy to make one frame look like a pano and it is not that easy to stitch frames together and have them be perfect. The ones who did not put in the effort are likely to win.
When I first joined this site I was told the point of the contests are to force you to get up off your butt and do different things, if you don't know how to create a pano other than just cropping one single frame then learn how to do it or just name the challenge something like "make a pano either by cropping or stitching" I really like playing on a fair set of rules.
I was also told that if I was worried about how the voting system that I was at the wrong site. Low and behold as soon as a contest goes into voting there post tracking each vote so it does seem to matter to a lot of people.
I am doing this on my phone so forget about any mistakes - I am out getting some shots do the contests closing soon and getting wet doing it. |
No... if you look at the top ten images in the pano, it looks like the majority were done by stitching images.
Plus -- you get out of the site what you put into it. There will always be people who take short cuts. In a previous challenge, supposed to be taken close to your house, one of the top 5 completely ignored that and actually boasted of it in the comments. It wasn't a DQable offense. People got irritated. However, those of us who actually did the challenge learned how to see the world a little differently.
You will find that the vast majority of people here put the effort in, because the want to learn/explore/experiment. That's why we're here.
HDR -- this is simply a difference of opinion as to what constitutes HDR. I will definitely bracket when doing this. But I've often found that, even when I bracket, I have enough info in a single RAW file. And perhaps that's just because my chosen shots don't have the full range?
Same thing with silhouette. I actually put a heck of a lot of work into my shot. Some people truly disagree on whether it's a silhouette. I think it fits the challenge perfectly.
So while there will always be the classmate that wants the easy grade, most people here truly put the work in -- they just might see things in a different way. Truly. This is a spectacular group of very diverse people. They sometimes will annoy the heck out of you. But the amount that I've learned since I've been here is truly invaluable.
Message edited by author 2016-01-31 18:30:02. |
|
|
|
01/31/2016 07:19:53 PM · #49 |
"In a previous challenge, supposed to be taken close to your house, one of the top 5 completely ignored that and actually boasted of it in the comments. It wasn't a DQable offense"
I would like to know why it was not DQable? If the intent of the challenge was clearly stated then it should have been DQ'd for sure, I can see why others were irritated, that is probably one of the reasons membership is decreasing..
|
|
|
|
01/31/2016 07:33:49 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by gipper11:
I Do care because it is very easy to make one frame look like a pano and it is not that easy to stitch frames together and have them be perfect. The ones who did not put in the effort are likely to win.
|
The blue ribbon in the pano challenge was made up of 10 images stitched together! |
|
