Smartphone photography - worth a look!

acearchie · Apr 3, 2015

Just so everyone knows.

Through a friend of a friend (who was shortlisted) I have since found out that the winning image was as part of a community vote.

I despise competitions like this which essentially end up being a glorified popularity contest!

----------

I7guy said:
A lot of photographers care about the equipment? Do you want to go into surgery knowing the surgeons tools are a rusty razor blade and a hacksaw? The tools are everything whether one discusses them or not. A phone camera from a technical perspective is the biggest compromise in the digital 2015 era. Not to say you can't get a good shot with one: or that surgeon with a rusty razor blade can't perform surgery.

There is a reason most pros used high-end camera to capture the Olympics.

Valid. But there is a lot to be said for right tools right moment.

Why do street photogs favour ricoh GR and similar cameras.

There isn't a one size fits all when it comes to photography and just because it's the most expensive doesn't mean it's the best!

Using your analogy. Would you rather have a doctor working on your with a first aid kit or wait an hour whilst he returns home for his proper 'hi-spec' gear?

Attonine · Apr 3, 2015

I7guy said:
A lot of photographers care about the equipment? Do you want to go into surgery knowing the surgeons tools are a rusty razor blade and a hacksaw? The tools are everything whether one discusses them or not. A phone camera from a technical perspective is the biggest compromise in the digital 2015 era. Not to say you can't get a good shot with one: or that surgeon with a rusty razor blade can't perform surgery.

There is a reason most pros used high-end camera to capture the Olympics.

Like I said, different types of photography, different photographers, different requirements. Olympics, World Cup etc, speed is vital. You need to get those files off to the agency or publication ASAP. Wifi enabled cameras (even ethernet), lightening fast AF and long lenses, etc.

If your contracted by a local housing association to document depravity in a local area, something that's going to take over a year, you don't need the same equipment as a photographer working the Olympics. If you are a sports photographer working at the Olympics, you are unlikely to get contracted for this kind of documentary work, and vice versa.

In both these examples, I am pretty sure the agency, publication, or contracting company do not ask about equipment and do not give two hoots about it. They have seen the work, like that look, and want that. However the photographer gets it is beside the point. As a photographer, you work your way, using your preferred equipment, and have back up equipment for jobs to make sure you can deliver.

The people who get hung up about equipment are usually people who say they are into photography. More often than not they are in fact into cameras. They do not buy prints, monographs, books. They do not study the history. More often than not they do not even know a good photo from a bad one and cannot read a photograph at all.

The photographers I know personally, people whose opinions I respect, want to discuss images, not cameras. That doesn't mean they, or even I, don't care about the equipment. They and I have made purchasing and usage choices based on needs, price, specific requirements. The real point is, the images, communication, capturing something worth while. In fine art photography you have photographers whose method is as important as the image. Tin types, pin hole, staging scenes, constructed images, collage, they're all valid. To get hung up because a cell phone was used and dismiss the image is something I cannot understand, especially when the criteria for the category in the contest is that a cell phone is used.

----------

acearchie said:
Just so everyone knows.

Through a friend of a friend (who was shortlisted) I have since found out that the winning image was as part of a community vote.

I despise competitions like this which essentially end up being a glorified popularity contest!

Agreed. I didn't know this. At least the contest is free!

I7guy · Apr 3, 2015

acearchie said:
Just so everyone knows.

Through a friend of a friend (who was shortlisted) I have since found out that the winning image was as part of a community vote.

I despise competitions like this which essentially end up being a glorified popularity contest!

----------

Valid. But there is a lot to be said for right tools right moment.

Why do street photogs favour ricoh GR and similar cameras.

There isn't a one size fits all when it comes to photography and just because it's the most expensive doesn't mean it's the best!

Using your analogy. Would you rather have a doctor working on your with a first aid kit or wait an hour whilst he returns home for his proper 'hi-spec' gear?

It depends if I'm going to die within the next minute.

Of course one size does not fit all, sometimes you have to eschew technical perfection for imperfection to grab a snap.

Attonine · Apr 3, 2015

I7guy said:
It depends if I'm going to die within the next minute.

Of course one size does not fit all, sometimes you have to eschew technical perfection for imperfection to grab a snap.

See, this is part of the problem. Reducing something to a 'snap', and putting importance on technical perfection.

Michael Christoper Brown's 'snaps' of the conflict in Libya won him entrance into Magnum. John Stanmeyer's "snap" of the Western Wall in Jerusalem was put on the cover of National Geographic. Both photographers using cell phones, and making 'snaps' by choice. Photography is about much much more than trying to make a perfect facsimile of something you can see with your eyes.

I7guy · Apr 3, 2015

Attonine said:
Like I said, different types of photography, different photographers, different requirements. Olympics, World Cup etc, speed is vital. You need to get those files off to the agency or publication ASAP. Wifi enabled cameras (even ethernet), lightening fast AF and long lenses, etc.

If your contracted by a local housing association to document depravity in a local area, something that's going to take over a year, you don't need the same equipment as a photographer working the Olympics. If you are a sports photographer working at the Olympics, you are unlikely to get contracted for this kind of documentary work, and vice versa.

In both these examples, I am pretty sure the agency, publication, or contracting company do not ask about equipment and do not give two hoots about it. They have seen the work, like that look, and want that. However the photographer gets it is beside the point. As a photographer, you work your way, using your preferred equipment, and have back up equipment for jobs to make sure you can deliver.

The people who get hung up about equipment are usually people who say they are into photography. More often than not they are in fact into cameras. They do not buy prints, monographs, books. They do not study the history. More often than not they do not even know a good photo from a bad one and cannot read a photograph at all.

The photographers I know personally, people whose opinions I respect, want to discuss images, not cameras. That doesn't mean they, or even I, don't care about the equipment. They and I have made purchasing and usage choices based on needs, price, specific requirements. The real point is, the images, communication, capturing something worth while. In fine art photography you have photographers whose method is as important as the image. Tin types, pin hole, staging scenes, constructed images, collage, they're all valid. To get hung up because a cell phone was used and dismiss the image is something I cannot understand, especially when the criteria for the category in the contest is that a cell phone is used.

----------

Agreed. I didn't know this. At least the contest is free!

I didn't dismiss even a pin hole camera. But ive missed too many snaps with my iPhone to know to take my bulky camera when I know I want to capture shots.

Fwiw, i7guys version of street photography is a mixture of iPhone and bulky dslr.

In pro photography gear and method is everything, which is why most pros stack the cards with pro-equipment.

Attonine · Apr 3, 2015

I7guy said:
I didn't dismiss even a pin hole camera. But ive missed too many snaps with my iPhone to know to take my bulky camera when I know I want to capture shots.

Fwiw, i7guys version of street photography is a mixture of iPhone and bulky dslr.

And that's your experience and your choice. There is a growing community of, mainly, young photographers, who have never had any other form of camera other than cell phones. Some by choice, some because of financial restraints, for any number of reasons. Some of these photographers are being commercially successful. They are pros (if it's an important distinction). Should we dismiss their work because of their equipment? This is the real question. Not specifically aimed at you, but certainly to the community that pipe up with, usually, technical camera specs as a justification.

acearchie · Apr 3, 2015

Attonine said:
And that's your experience and your choice. There is a growing community of, mainly, young photographers, who have never had any other form of camera other than cell phones. Some by choice, some because of financial restraints, for any number of reasons. Some of these photographers are being commercially successful. They are pros (if it's an important distinction). Should we dismiss their work because of their equipment? This is the real question. Not specifically aimed at you, but certainly to the community that pipe up with, usually, technical camera specs as a justification.

I'm with this argument.

The kit certainly doesn't make you a great photographer.

The stigma really annoys me. If we'd said some of these photos were taken on DSLRs people probably would have praised them more. Yet because they are on phones all that comes up is that they 'should have used a real camera'!

It's like cars. You can own a ferrari, but if you can't drive well you'll still be beaten by much cheaper models!

robgendreau · Apr 3, 2015

I think it's interesting that some photographers choose to work with an iPhone on occasion, and that there are competitions based on its use.

No one disagrees that it has limitations, but those handicaps can make the use of it an interesting challenge. It can actually take some impressive photo chops to use one well: knowledge of the dof characteristics, grain, contrast, etc. And that can be a stylistic choice as well; people are still using software to emulate film, and even in the film era people used certain tools to get certain effects, not accepting one-size fits all.

I'm curious about whether there will in fact be an iPhone-influenced style. Maybe smaller images, dimension wise. Noisier. Less bokeh, and distortions in angle and such. Are people who sell photos seeing a demand for iPhone-like shots? From my friends who aren't exactly selling fine art, they find that many folks do like these images, but maybe that's just because they'd be viewing them on iPhones and whatnot.

I7guy · Apr 3, 2015

Attonine said:
And that's your experience and your choice. There is a growing community of, mainly, young photographers, who have never had any other form of camera other than cell phones. Some by choice, some because of financial restraints, for any number of reasons. Some of these photographers are being commercially successful. They are pros (if it's an important distinction). Should we dismiss their work because of their equipment? This is the real question. Not specifically aimed at you, but certainly to the community that pipe up with, usually, technical camera specs as a justification.

The choice of equipment limits or expands what you can do is the point. If the scene being captured aligns with the equipment you have, you have the shot.

Ansel Adams could have used a Kodak brownie for he had an eye, but im sure the prints would not have been as compelling as his using a large-format camera.

Attonine · Apr 3, 2015

I7guy said:
The choice of equipment limits or expands what you can do is the point. If the scene being captured aligns with the equipment you have, you have the shot.

Ansel Adams could have used a Kodak brownie for he had an eye, but im sure the prints would not have been as compelling as his using a large-format camera.

These kinds of comparatives are worthless. If Capa had tried to use the same equipment as Ansel Adams he wouldn't have been able to capture the D-day landing shots. So what? They both used what was appropriate.

Your first point is correct. However, we have to use what we have, or what we want. There's always some kind of compromise. Even with the most highly specced gear, there is a compromise somewhere.

I7guy · Apr 3, 2015

Attonine said:
These kinds of comparatives are worthless. If Capa had tried to use the same equipment as Ansel Adams he wouldn't have been able to capture the D-day landing shots. So what? They both used what was appropriate.

Your first point is correct. However, we have to use what we have, or what we want. There's always some kind of compromise. Even with the most highly specced gear, there is a compromise somewhere.

I agree with your second paragraph; we can go round about discussing the first paragraph.

robgendreau · Apr 5, 2015

I7guy said:
The choice of equipment limits or expands what you can do is the point. If the scene being captured aligns with the equipment you have, you have the shot.

Ansel Adams could have used a Kodak brownie for he had an eye, but im sure the prints would not have been as compelling as his using a large-format camera.

Ah, Adams. A member of the highly influential Group f/64. Their manifesto (thank you wikipedia) might make an appropriate post to this thread; although an argument for a unique photo vs painting aesthetic, it might make sense even within photography itself (my emphasis):

"The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group.
The chief object of the Group is to present in frequent shows what it considers the best contemporary photography of the West; in addition to the showing of the work of its members, it will include prints from other photographers who evidence tendencies in their work similar to that of the Group.
Group f/64 is not pretending to cover the entire spectrum of photography or to indicate through its selection of members any deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows. There are great number of serious workers in photography whose style and technique does not relate to the metier of the Group.
Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.
The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.
The Group will appreciate information regarding any serious work in photography that has escaped its attention, and is favorable towards establishing itself as a Forum of Modern Photography."

AlaskaMoose · Apr 5, 2015

Zaqfalcon said:
Although some of these compositions are nice, I would personally be dissapointed with the image quality of many of them, noisy, narrow tonal range, incorrect white balance (first place!), halo effects from needing to over manipulate, over sharpened, over saturated etc etc...

A photo that tells a story is a lot better than a photo that's just technically perfect.

Apple fanboy · Apr 6, 2015

AlaskaMoose said:
A photo that tells a story is a lot better than a photo that's just technically perfect.

True, but a technically perfect photo that tells a story and looks stunning is best of all...

Of course you can buy the equipment to do some of that. The hard part is the other part...

But I keep on trying!

Attonine · Apr 6, 2015

Apple fanboy said:
True, but a technically perfect photo that tells a story and looks stunning is best of all...

Is it?

I don't understand the obsession with technical details.

I think the most haunting work I've ever seen is Paolo Pellegrin's As I were Dying. A lot of technical problems with these shots, most notably the work was in the time of film, Paolo was often working in very low light. Despite these limitations, this work is perhaps the most disturbing I've ever seen.

Remember "Don't shoot what it looks like. Shoot what it feels like." DAH

I7guy · Apr 6, 2015

Attonine said:
Is it?

I don't understand the obsession with technical details.

I think the most haunting work I've ever seen is Paolo Pellegrin's As I were Dying. A lot of technical problems with these shots, most notably the work was in the time of film, Paolo was often working in very low light. Despite these limitations, this work is perhaps the most disturbing I've ever seen.

Remember "Don't shoot what it looks like. Shoot what it feels like." DAH

I feel like shooting a low noise, high dr, technically good composition. I do understand the obsession with a clean shot with good artistic temperament.

Attonine · Apr 6, 2015

I7guy said:
I feel like shooting a low noise, high dr, technically good composition. I do understand the obsession with a clean shot with good artistic temperament.

Good try, but misinterpreted.

sarge · Apr 6, 2015

I was among those endorsing the iphone as a serious image capturing instrument during that last thread. In the ensuing months, I was invited to exhibit a body of work which was shot entirely with an iphone at the New England School of Photography. The images were printed 10x10 on Ilford Galerie Digital Silver paper and hand toned in gold and selenium.

I'm happy to report that one of the most common questions I fielded from students, most of whom were enrolled in traditional darkroom studies, was 'did you really take these with an iphone?'

I'm not sure what kind of comparative reasoning is in operation when we bring up rusty surgical instruments... I think we can all agree that dull blades are a bad thing -the question should be does one use a saw make an incision or should a scalpel be employed to sever a bone? In my opinion, for what it's worth, the iphone 6 has entered the realm of a precision tool. The iphone 3,4,and 5 do not properly meet that distinction for me, but then again I've only been a serious photographer for 20 years give or take.

Technical perfection is something to strive for but beware of achieving it consistently -it's the kiss of death where art is concerned.

I7guy · Apr 6, 2015

Attonine said:
Good try, but misinterpreted.

I'm not so sure. Smartphone cameras of today are head and shoulders above early expensive digital cameras. After a year and a half with my iPhone, I know what it does well and where it doesn't fare well is my point; not that you can't get a good shot out of it. on the other side a pro camera with good glass suffers from much less of the limitations; unless somehow the form factor becomes an issue if you're trying, for example, to take a picture of your chimney.

DevNull0 · Apr 8, 2015

Attonine said:
True, but a technically perfect photo that tells a story and looks stunning is best of all…

Click to expand...

Is it?

I don't understand the obsession with technical details.

I think the most haunting work I've ever seen is Paolo Pellegrin's As I were Dying.

So you're saying that technically poor photo that tells a story and looks stunning is just as good as a technically perfect photo that tells a story and looks stunning? And basing that off some specific work you liked despite the fact it was technically poor?

Wow. People really do think differently from each other.

----------

sarge said:
I was invited to exhibit a body of work which was shot entirely with an iphone at the New England School of Photography.

I'm not sure what kind of comparative reasoning is in operation when we bring up rusty surgical instruments...

The thing is, you have a special category for iPhone photography because it is simply not in the same league as other cameras. You don't have a DSLR only exhibit, or MLIC only exhibit because those cameras hold their own and take the top quality pictures. If you want the best pictures period, you've eliminate iPhone pictures. So to see the iPhone pictures exhibited, you need a special showing.

You have an iPhone exhibit in the same sense as you have a special olympics. It will never be competitive with the top tier and wouldn't exist if it had to compete in the main category, but some people find the result interesting.

----------

sarge said:
Technical perfection is something to strive for but beware of achieving it consistently -it's the kiss of death where art is concerned.

Technical perfection should be a given. Then you can start trying to do something artistic. Anyone who tells you they create their pictures otherwise is a snake-oil salesman. And there's a lot of them on forums like this and in the fringes of the art world.

Or am I an abstract artist the second I buy some cheap paint at Michael's and slap it on their budget canvas in a random Jackson Pollockesqe style?

Am I a street photographer just by shooting a random guy on the street and spinning some story why it's interesting?

Attonine · Apr 8, 2015

DevNull0 said:
So you're saying that technically poor photo that tells a story and looks stunning is just as good as a technically perfect photo that tells a story and looks stunning? And basing that off some specific work you liked despite the fact it was technically poor?

Wow. People really do think differently from each other.

----------

Yes to the bolded part. No to the rest. I used one example to illustrate a point. I hope people do think differently, otherwise there would be very little point to much of life and existance.

If individuals wish to use photography as an exercise in capturing perfect facsimiles of what their eyes see, that's fine. For me I see little point in such an exercise other than for producing picture postcards (someone has to take the pictures right?). For me the task is to add something to what the eyes see. This is the hard task, and makes photography much larger than technical specs (perfection).

----------

DevNull0 said:
Am I a street photographer just by shooting a random guy on the street and spinning some story why it's interesting?

I don't think the photographer should be spinning a story as to why something is interesting. If the photographer has to explain something, he (she)'s failed in their task. The viewer is the one responsible for interpreting the image.

----------

DevNull0 said:
----------

DevNull0 said:
The thing is, you have a special category for iPhone photography because it is simply not in the same league as other cameras. You don't have a DSLR only exhibit, or MLIC only exhibit because those cameras hold their own and take the top quality pictures. If you want the best pictures period, you've eliminate iPhone pictures. So to see the iPhone pictures exhibited, you need a special showing.

You have an iPhone exhibit in the same sense as you have a special olympics. It will never be competitive with the top tier and wouldn't exist if it had to compete in the main category, but some people find the result interesting.

----------

Again, you are demonstrating a staggering lack of knowledge about work that is being done in the field of photography.

I7guy · Apr 8, 2015

Attonine said:
Yes to the bolded part. No to the rest. I used one example to illustrate a point. I hope people do think differently, otherwise there would be very little point to much of life and existance.

If individuals wish to use photography as an exercise in capturing perfect facsimiles of what their eyes see, that's fine. For me I see little point in such an exercise other than for producing picture postcards (someone has to take the pictures right?). For me the task is to add something to what the eyes see. This is the hard task, and makes photography much larger than technical specs (perfection).

----------

I don't think the photographer should be spinning a story as to why something is interesting. If the photographer has to explain something, he (she)'s failed in their task. The viewer is the one responsible for interpreting the image.

----------

Again, you are demonstrating a staggering lack of knowledge about work that is being done in the field of photography.

The comments are spot on. I would say there is a staggering amount of indifference to opinions expressed about the field of photography.

sarge · Apr 8, 2015

DevNull0 said:
The thing is, you have a special category for iPhone photography because it is simply not in the same league as other cameras. You don't have a DSLR only exhibit, or MLIC only exhibit because those cameras hold their own and take the top quality pictures. If you want the best pictures period, you've eliminate iPhone pictures. So to see the iPhone pictures exhibited, you need a special showing.
You have an iPhone exhibit in the same sense as you have a special olympics. It will never be competitive with the top tier and wouldn't exist if it had to compete in the main category, but some people find the result interesting.

The whole point of relaying the news of the exhibit was that, had I not explicitly mentioned that the images were made w/an iphone, no one would have been the wiser. If anything there was a general disbelief that such favorable results were produced with a phone and not a dedicated camera. This from an audience of photo students and professionals, not philistines on the sidewalk. FWIW, I was initially invited to exhibit some chromes that I made with my 6x7...it was assumed that I made these on a 4x5 view camera...proving only that a 6x7 image made w/Mamiya glass on modern slide film looked so good it could have only been shot on a sheet of film with 3 times the area.

DevNull0 said:
Technical perfection should be a given. Then you can start trying to do something artistic.

No, artistic perfection should be the given, otherwise you are ONLY doing something technical. Anyone who places more importance on either the technical or the emotional will never begin to approach making anything we recognize as 'art'... a synthesis of that which can be described and that which is invisible.

DevNull0 said:
Or am I an abstract artist the second I buy some cheap paint at Michael's and slap it on their budget canvas in a random Jackson Pollockesqe style?

Action Painting was in large part a response to the medium of photography. I guess you are a painter the moment you pick up a brush just as you are a photographer as soon as you pickup a camera. The question is are you any good at it. You seem to acknowledge how difficult it is to achieve a strong abstract painting and that not everyone who splatters paint on a canvas is a Pollack. It might be helpful to remember that Jackson Pollock used household paint - not Windsor and Newton. So maybe that answers your question.

DevNull0 · Apr 8, 2015

sarge said:
The whole point of relaying the news of the exhibit was that, had I not explicitly mentioned that the images were made w/an iphone, no one would have been the wiser.

If you are trying to say that at this New England School of Photography, students looking at 10x10 prints don't believe iPhone pics were actually shot with an iPhone then either the school and all its students are a bad joke or you are lying about the entire anecdote. The iPhone's lens isn't sharp enough to print 10x10, and even if you're doing some sort of toy-camera style editing so you don't see the limits of the iPhone, it's not going to make actual photo students disbelieve an iPhone could have done it.

FWIW, I was initially invited to exhibit some chromes that I made with my 6x7...it was assumed that I made these on a 4x5 view camera...proving only that a 6x7 image made w/Mamiya glass on modern slide film looked so good it could have only been shot on a sheet of film with 3 times the area.

What are you saying? They wanted a medium format exhibit and decided to switch to an iPhone format? Again, what kind of school does its exhibits based the camera used. That makes no sense.

You're the one who pretends to be saying the artistic merit of the image is everything and yet you're so caught up on the exact tech used to make the picture? It really makes it sound like you're either full of it or just trolling and can't keep your trolling position straight.

So now you're saying your 6x7 cm prints look so good people thought they were shot on a 4x5 inch camera? Where are you finding all these people who look at your "artistic" photos and then start trying to guess what it was shot with?

6x7 and 4x5 should look identical until you print very large. (a lot larger than those 10x10s you were talking about).

sarge said:
No, artistic perfection should be the given, otherwise you are ONLY doing something technical.

Artistic perfection is impossible simply because it's so subjective. How can something subjective be a given. Do you even know what you're talking about? Are you just arguing to provoke a response?

Technical perfection must be a given because before you master the technique, you're not able to do anything more than push a button and pretend the crap that comes out because of your lack of ability is your artistic vision.

Action Painting was in large part a response to the medium of photography.

And this is relevant how? Seriously? I assume you mean when film got fast enough to capture activities that were too fast for a painter to capture, painters started copying the style or something?

What in the world does that have to do with anything that has been said on this thread? I mean really, do I need to be high on something to follow your logic or something?

sarge · Apr 8, 2015

Careful or we'll have to charge you w/a technical foul here...
(sorry bad pun on unsportsman like conduct -oh nevermind you'd have to be high to get it)

No, they didn't curate the show based on image formats or sizes. They had no idea of them beforehand and only offered a show based on the artistic merit (I suppose). I'm not sure why you keep misunderstanding that point.

The 6x7 images were in fact printed at 40x50 and again, lots of people thought it was taken with 4x5. What can I tell you? You want that I should blow it up to 80x100 so that you can prove that it would have looked better shot on 4x5??!

By your very own logic though, unless I printed my iphone a lot larger than 10x10 nobody could tell. Especially not stupid idots and big fat liars. But I didn't, I printed them at a size that maintained an intimacy and the level of detail that rivaled images I've made w/film cameras. Now maybe you're saying that because I studied fine art and can actually draw and paint, and after graduating worked in photo labs, darkrooms, stock photo agencies, and photographic museums for most of my adult life, that I'm better qualified to take a picture w/an iphone, well then maybe you're on to something there.

----------

..and you're the one who brought up abstract expressionism, not me!

Smartphone photography - worth a look!

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502a

macrumors Nehalem

macrumors 6502a

macrumors Nehalem

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68040

macrumors Nehalem

macrumors 6502a

macrumors Nehalem

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68040

macrumors Ivy Bridge

macrumors 6502a

macrumors Nehalem

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors Nehalem

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502a

macrumors Nehalem

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502a

Our Staff