 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A rather surreal scene, I don't know why...
Almost done, except for the main subject which is being modelled presently.
This time, I returned to the use of isosurfaces (rocks and ground).
Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology5_06.jpg' (250 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology5_06.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 08/07/2013 16.10 wrote:
> A rather surreal scene, I don't know why...
>
> Almost done, except for the main subject which is being modelled presently.
>
> This time, I returned to the use of isosurfaces (rocks and ground).
> Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
>
> Thomas
The texture of the rocks is very nice, like in a painting.
Imho the boulder is a bit strange.
Nevertheless a great scene!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> A rather surreal scene, I don't know why...
I like the premise! My rock hammer's an Estwing, so you can bet I'd be sore if I
lost it while out mineral hunting. The guy in your image could very well be me
(except for the fact that I always double-or-triple-check my pack before moving
on). The man in your image really should have a pack, BTW.
> Almost done, except for the main subject which is being modelled presently.
>
> This time, I returned to the use of isosurfaces (rocks and ground).
I agree with Paolo that there is something amiss with the boulder. To me it
seems a bit out of place... but of course getting loose rocks to match the
landscape has always been a problem, IME.
> Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
Could be much better, though. Are you using radiosity? If so, you can actually
get away with a count of 1, provided your surfaces are sufficiently detailed.
I'll try to post something to the TINA CHeP EOG thread later today to show you
what I mean.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-7-2013 20:04, Samuel Benge wrote:
> I like the premise! My rock hammer's an Estwing, so you can bet I'd be sore if I
> lost it while out mineral hunting. The guy in your image could very well be me
> (except for the fact that I always double-or-triple-check my pack before moving
> on). The man in your image really should have a pack, BTW.
Great minds think alike ;-) My hammer is also an Estwing, and been with
me for the last 50 years. Never lost it happily. It now gets a bit rusty
in places... I am now modelling it for the scene; first a low detail
version, but I intend to make a high resolution one later on for a
projected close up of sorts. The least I can do for its faithful
services :-)
Indeed, the guy could also be me in fact. The pack is a good idea. I
shall work on that too.
> I agree with Paolo that there is something amiss with the boulder. To me it
> seems a bit out of place... but of course getting loose rocks to match the
> landscape has always been a problem, IME.
Yes, absolutely. I fact I had already decided to throw it out and
replace it with something better integrated in the scene.
>
>> Render time about 5.5 hours. Not too bad.
>
> Could be much better, though. Are you using radiosity? If so, you can actually
> get away with a count of 1, provided your surfaces are sufficiently detailed.
> I'll try to post something to the TINA CHeP EOG thread later today to show you
> what I mean.
I am curious to see what you mean. I am indeed using radiosity. The
isosurface max_gradient is pretty low, much lower than recommended by
POV but giving the details I intend to get. With a lower count, I may
need to increase the max_gradient though.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-7-2013 17:48, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> The texture of the rocks is very nice, like in a painting.
> Imho the boulder is a bit strange.
Yes, I fully agree. I am going to throw it out and put something else there.
> Nevertheless a great scene!
Thanks Paolo!
Btw, you did a great job with your glacier moulin at the TC-RTC. I like
the original idea. One comment though about your second image: the
captions there should be like cardboard cards glued to the model's
surface don't you think? I remember having seen those kind of models in
natural history musea.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 09/07/2013 9.16 wrote:
> Btw, you did a great job with your glacier moulin at the TC-RTC. I like
> the original idea. One comment though about your second image: the
> captions there should be like cardboard cards glued to the model's
> surface don't you think? I remember having seen those kind of models in
> natural history musea.
Thank you for the suggestion: I will update the image!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Some changes.
- Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
- increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
- switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
longer.
This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology5_07.jpg' (252 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology5_07.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Some changes.
>
> - Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
> - increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
> - switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
> longer.
>
> This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
>
> Thomas
Hi Thomas,
These are all good improvements, I was going to suggest trying a blue sky to
improve the contrast/make the clouds stand out more. Wish I had done now as it
would make it look like I offered good advice ;-)
Sean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-7-2013 15:55, s.day wrote:
These are all good improvements, I was going to suggest trying a blue
sky to
> improve the contrast/make the clouds stand out more. Wish I had done now as it
> would make it look like I offered good advice ;-)
I knew already that you would say this ;-)
I was not too happy with that media which did not add much to the scene.
However, I might work on a small dust cloud generated by the wind.
Also, to give credit where credit is due: Scott's Skysim is used in
combination with CIE.inc for the sunlight.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 10/07/2013 13.08 wrote:
> Some changes.
>
> - Replaced the rock by a new outcrop.
> - increased the wave length of the ripple function of the sand.
> - switched off the media which washed out the sky and made the render
> longer.
>
> This time, render time is 3 hours and 12 minutes.
>
> Thomas
>
Very good!
But... where is the hammer? Give us some hints!
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-7-2013 16:49, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> Very good!
> But... where is the hammer? Give us some hints!
For the time being, it is really lost. The good news is that it is being
modelled and will soon appear in the scene.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Great minds think alike ;-) My hammer is also an Estwing, and been with
> me for the last 50 years. Never lost it happily. It now gets a bit rusty
> in places... I am now modelling it for the scene; first a low detail
> version, but I intend to make a high resolution one later on for a
> projected close up of sorts. The least I can do for its faithful
> services :-)
Good brand! I've had mine for about 14 years or so now, and it's badly in need
of a second sharpening already. (The ground doesn't dig itself... well sometimes
it does.) I'm looking forward to seeing your model when you finish it!
> I am curious to see what you mean. I am indeed using radiosity. The
> isosurface max_gradient is pretty low, much lower than recommended by
> POV but giving the details I intend to get. With a lower count, I may
> need to increase the max_gradient though.
I'm not sure increasing the max_gradient is necessary, as all that does is fill
in the holes. If anything, you may need to lower the isosurface's accuracy if
you intend to lower the radiosity's count.
One of my isosurface tests has been posted to the TC-EOG-RTC thread:
http://tinachepforum.forumup.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3636&mforum=tinachepforum#3636
That image rendered in 5 minutes 39 seconds, which isn't too bad, all things
considered.
Here's the scene's radiosity block:
radiosity{
count 1
error_bound .1
recursion_limit 1
nearest_count 1
normal on
}
some isosurface settings:
accuracy 0.001
max_gradient 10
and the command line parameters:
+fn +f +a0.3 +am2 +r2 +j0.2
I can post the entire source (with include files) if needed.
An important thing to keep in mind is to always have enough small details on
your surfaces by using things like surface normals and/or and low isosurface
accuracies. Low aa settings help a great deal as far as speeding things up as
well.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-7-2013 0:57, Samuel Benge wrote:
> Good brand! I've had mine for about 14 years or so now, and it's badly in need
> of a second sharpening already. (The ground doesn't dig itself... well sometimes
> it does.) I'm looking forward to seeing your model when you finish it!
Do you have the pick or shovel model? Mine is a pick model and the point
is fairly rounded now although still able to neatly insert itself in
crevices. The head part is now badly chipped in places but I love it
that way; showing its age and wear & tear ;-) The leather handle is
fairly roughened now. In dry environments it needs a bath from time to
time when the leather rings dry out and contract. Oh well... a bit of
nostalgic talking, don't I? I am not going much places anymore these days...
The hammer model is progressing smoothly.
> I'm not sure increasing the max_gradient is necessary, as all that does is fill
> in the holes. If anything, you may need to lower the isosurface's accuracy if
> you intend to lower the radiosity's count.
I am indeed also using a max_gradient of 10 in my scene. THe accuracy
presently is 0. As radiosity count I use the adaptive method, presently
50, 1000. I generally leave it at that, but I probably can lower the
lower end more. I shall test that.
>
> One of my isosurface tests has been posted to the TC-EOG-RTC thread:
>
> http://tinachepforum.forumup.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3636&mforum=tinachepforum#3636
>
> That image rendered in 5 minutes 39 seconds, which isn't too bad, all things
> considered.
Yes, that is very fast.
> An important thing to keep in mind is to always have enough small details on
> your surfaces by using things like surface normals and/or and low isosurface
> accuracies. Low aa settings help a great deal as far as speeding things up as
> well.
Yep.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 10/07/2013 16.56 wrote:
> On 10-7-2013 16:49, Paolo Gibellini wrote:
>> Very good!
>> But... where is the hammer? Give us some hints!
>
> For the time being, it is really lost. The good news is that it is being
> modelled and will soon appear in the scene.
>
> Thomas
>
Ok, this is a comforting news ;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-7-2013 9:40, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 11-7-2013 0:57, Samuel Benge wrote:
>> I'm not sure increasing the max_gradient is necessary, as all that
>> does is fill
>> in the holes. If anything, you may need to lower the isosurface's
>> accuracy if
>> you intend to lower the radiosity's count.
>
> I am indeed also using a max_gradient of 10 in my scene. THe accuracy
> presently is 0. As radiosity count I use the adaptive method, presently
> 50, 1000. I generally leave it at that, but I probably can lower the
> lower end more. I shall test that.
>
Just a quick note.
I am not correct when I say adaptive /count/. It should be adaptive
/nearest_count/ of course, for which I use the values 10, 5.
After a quick test, I see that I can get away with a much lower count
value. In general, I think I am using too high radiosity settings in my
scenes as I generally leave them at settings I consider as my defaults...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Next, with the hammer and some flying dust.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology5_08.jpg' (248 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology5_08.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/07/2013 1:13 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Next, with the hammer and some flying dust.
>
Nice composition too. It makes me want to shout out to him.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Do you have the pick or shovel model?
The pick model, just like the one in your most recent rendering, only less rusty
;)
My brother did happen to find me an old army spade. Great tool; the shovel part
folds back into the wooden handle, so it just barely fits into my backpack. My
prospecting toolkit now has four implements: rock hammer; shovel; flat head
screwdriver; screen (1/4" carpenter's cloth + narrow steel rods for edge
support). All that extra weight means I'm going to need a backpack frame,
though. Don't know if I should buy one or make one yet... I might go with an
Alice pack, like the ones the US military uses.
> I am not going much places anymore these days...
That's a shame! You've got to get out there sometime :)
> I am indeed also using a max_gradient of 10 in my scene.
Oftentimes I can get away with a max_gradient of 1 or 2. POV-Ray usually
suggests values much higher than those which are really needed.
> After a quick test, I see that I can get away with a much lower count
> value. In general, I think I am using too high radiosity settings in my
> scenes as I generally leave them at settings I consider as my defaults...
Makes all the difference in the world. For isosurface scenes I begin with a
count of 1 and work my way up if needed, usually up to 16.
Whats up with importance sampling, BTW? I thought it would allow you to
effectively use a lower count for specified objects in a scene, but my tests
didn't seem to support that notion. It would be nice to force isosurfaces to
render with lower rad counts than other objects.
> Next, with the hammer and some flying dust.
Nice! I love the irony :)
That reminds me, just this week I was playing with Blender's smoke simulation. I
have now managed to get smoke from Blender to actually render in POV-Ray. (I
think somebody was asking about that very same thing awhile ago in p.general,
but explaining my process is probably going to require a tutorial, and I'm not
up for that right now.)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-7-2013 22:18, Samuel Benge wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Do you have the pick or shovel model?
>
> The pick model, just like the one in your most recent rendering, only less rusty
> ;)
>
> My brother did happen to find me an old army spade. Great tool; the shovel part
> folds back into the wooden handle, so it just barely fits into my backpack. My
> prospecting toolkit now has four implements: rock hammer; shovel; flat head
> screwdriver; screen (1/4" carpenter's cloth + narrow steel rods for edge
> support). All that extra weight means I'm going to need a backpack frame,
> though. Don't know if I should buy one or make one yet... I might go with an
> Alice pack, like the ones the US military uses.
Those spades are great indeed. I had one too. It can also be fixed
perpendicular to the handle for shovelling sand rapidly.
I need to model a backpack now...
>
>> I am not going much places anymore these days...
>
> That's a shame! You've got to get out there sometime :)
Oh well. I have done my lot of travelling over the world. Nowadays I am
just content to watch other people going places. ;-)
>> Next, with the hammer and some flying dust.
>
> Nice! I love the irony :)
<grin>
>
> That reminds me, just this week I was playing with Blender's smoke simulation. I
> have now managed to get smoke from Blender to actually render in POV-Ray. (I
> think somebody was asking about that very same thing awhile ago in p.general,
> but explaining my process is probably going to require a tutorial, and I'm not
> up for that right now.)
All the more reasons for me to get a grip on Blender. :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-7-2013 14:33, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/07/2013 1:13 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Next, with the hammer and some flying dust.
>>
>
> Nice composition too. It makes me want to shout out to him.
>
>
He won't listen, I know. ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/07/2013 12:05 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-7-2013 14:33, Stephen wrote:
>> On 13/07/2013 1:13 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Next, with the hammer and some flying dust.
>>>
>>
>> Nice composition too. It makes me want to shout out to him.
>>
>>
> He won't listen, I know. ;-)
>
> Thomas
>
LOL Speaking from experience?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/07/2013 12:03 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> I need to model a backpack now...
>
>
> All the more reasons for me to get a grip on Blender. :-)
>
> Thomas
>
Goes together. I suppose that you are going to use Poser's cloth room.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-7-2013 14:04, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/07/2013 12:05 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 13-7-2013 14:33, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2013 1:13 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> Next, with the hammer and some flying dust.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice composition too. It makes me want to shout out to him.
>>>
>>>
>> He won't listen, I know. ;-)
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
> LOL Speaking from experience?
>
Yeah... A bit stubborn I guess ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-7-2013 14:07, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/07/2013 12:03 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>
>> I need to model a backpack now...
>>
>>
>> All the more reasons for me to get a grip on Blender. :-)
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
> Goes together. I suppose that you are going to use Poser's cloth room.
>
Possibly. Not sure yet if I make it purely a prop or if I combine that
with the cloth room for the straps.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 14-7-2013 14:07, Stephen wrote:
> > On 14/07/2013 12:03 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I need to model a backpack now...
> >>
> >>
> >> All the more reasons for me to get a grip on Blender. :-)
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >
> > Goes together. I suppose that you are going to use Poser's cloth room.
> >
> Possibly. Not sure yet if I make it purely a prop or if I combine that
> with the cloth room for the straps.
>
> Thomas
I was thinking of the cloth room for the shape of the pack. In my mind’s eye I
see the backpack as being of the smaller type and either frame less or having an
internal frame.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-7-2013 13:24, Stephen wrote:
> I was thinking of the cloth room for the shape of the pack. In my mind’s eye I
> see the backpack as being of the smaller type and either frame less or having an
> internal frame.
Frame-less (or internal indeed). Something like the image. I have used
all sorts of packs, from one-strap canvas side-packs to the old
onion-shaped backpacks, and even thin nylon flimsy packs, not to mention
supermarket carrier bags ;-) It really depends on the project under way.
My preference is for the one shown on the image.
As far as Poser is concerned, the body can be as rigid as necessary
while only the straps need Cloth Room modelling to settle the whole
thing on the back of the figure, or that is how I imagine things presently.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'fjallraven-20l-backpack.jpg' (146 KB)
Preview of image 'fjallraven-20l-backpack.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 15-7-2013 13:24, Stephen wrote:
> > I was thinking of the cloth room for the shape of the pack. In my mind’s eye I
> > see the backpack as being of the smaller type and either frame less or having an
> > internal frame.
>
> Frame-less (or internal indeed). Something like the image. I have used
> all sorts of packs, from one-strap canvas side-packs to the old
> onion-shaped backpacks, and even thin nylon flimsy packs, not to mention
> supermarket carrier bags ;-) It really depends on the project under way.
> My preference is for the one shown on the image.
>
Yes, your preference would be easier to model. My romantic image is of an onion
type with or without a bullwhip. ;-)
> As far as Poser is concerned, the body can be as rigid as necessary
> while only the straps need Cloth Room modelling to settle the whole
> thing on the back of the figure, or that is how I imagine things presently.
>
Very important IMO, not to have the straps looking as if they are made of wood.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-7-2013 16:13, Stephen wrote:
> Yes, your preference would be easier to model. My romantic image is of an onion
> type with or without a bullwhip. ;-)
<grin> Those were hell to carry. Pulling you shoulder out of joint.
> Very important IMO, not to have the straps looking as if they are made of wood.
Absolutely.
Quick & Dirty: a first /portrait/ of my hammer.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'elements of geology6.png' (270 KB)
Preview of image 'elements of geology6.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 16-7-2013 16:13, Stephen wrote:
> > Yes, your preference would be easier to model. My romantic image is of an onion
> > type with or without a bullwhip. ;-)
>
> <grin> Those were hell to carry. Pulling you shoulder out of joint.
>
>
> > Very important IMO, not to have the straps looking as if they are made of wood.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
> Quick & Dirty: a first /portrait/ of my hammer.
>
>
> Thomas
Even this one is nice. The picture is a little bit small to really judge it. I
think the rust stains are a little bit to sharp. And for the backpack in the
original scene, why bother about the straps? The guy is only seen from behind.
If you will not reuse him with other pictures just put the backpack believable
at his back and forget about the cloth room.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 13-7-2013 22:18, Samuel Benge wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >> I am not going much places anymore these days...
> >
> > That's a shame! You've got to get out there sometime :)
>
> Oh well. I have done my lot of travelling over the world. Nowadays I am
> just content to watch other people going places. ;-)
No need to do much traveling, unless you live in a city. Seeing things firsthand
can produce fresh inspiration above and beyond that which is produced by merely
looking at images. The complexity of the natural world never ceases to amaze me.
> > That reminds me, just this week I was playing with Blender's smoke simulation. I
> > have now managed to get smoke from Blender to actually render in POV-Ray. <snip>
>
> All the more reasons for me to get a grip on Blender. :-)
Ain't nothing to it but to do it (c:
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-7-2013 20:53, MichaelJF wrote:
> Even this one is nice. The picture is a little bit small to really judge it. I
> think the rust stains are a little bit to sharp.
Thanks Michael. There is more work to do on the model indeed as this is
just an in-between render just for showing progress.
> And for the backpack in the
> original scene, why bother about the straps? The guy is only seen from behind.
> If you will not reuse him with other pictures just put the backpack believable
> at his back and forget about the cloth room.
>
Yes, that might be a good idea indeed. I like to make complete models
but in this case I just might get away with your suggestion. I have no
immediate use of a backpack at this moment ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-7-2013 2:24, Samuel Benge wrote:
> No need to do much traveling, unless you live in a city. Seeing things firsthand
> can produce fresh inspiration above and beyond that which is produced by merely
> looking at images. The complexity of the natural world never ceases to amaze me.
Oh yes! I absolutely agree. I live in the country, with a mixed
landscape of cultivation, woods, and moors. I do a lot of bicycling
around, often with camera, at all times of the year. Having worked on
the geology in this area, I like to peel off the different layers in my
mind and reconstruct former worlds around me :-) Even in a 'flat'
country like NL, the geological past can be quite complex in some
places. No much use of a hammer though, hence the rust. ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Thomas de Groot on date 13/07/2013 14.13 wrote:
> Next, with the hammer and some flying dust.
>
> Thomas
A very neat image!
Perhaps needs some crow watching at the scene?
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
