Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 08 Feb 2018 (Thursday) 21:58
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

JPG previews look over sharpened straight out of camera?

 
traciyosh
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Feb 2018
Feb 08, 2018 21:58 |  #1

Hello everybody! I'm brand new and have been endlessly searching for an answer for an issue I've been experiencing.. hoping someone can help :)

When I shoot with close crops (and honestly even from farther away), I've noticed a problem where the preview of an image looks... almost over-sharpened? Seems to happen most with hair and clothing details. I'm not sure how to explain it, but I'm attaching a screenshot of what I mean. On the husband's shirt in this photo, there are all these crazy marks where the camera caught lots of detail. My questions: Is this only a Preview thing? Would this happen if a client were to upload the same image to a website? I'm guessing it has something to do with there being so many condensed details in one area of the image that that's how it handles them?

Sometimes I deliver images via dropbox, and sometimes via this Pass Gallery site. When I've done it via dropbox, I've had a client point this out before and ask to re-edit. I always just go in with the blur tool in photoshop. When I'm choosing photos in lightroom for editing and when I'm editing them, I don't see these problem areas, so I never know they're there until client points out. I'd love to know what's wrong so I don't have to check hundreds of images after they're done processing.

Thanks in advance everyone!!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
tzalman's Avatar
13,388 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Gesher Haziv, Israel
Post has been last edited 12 days ago by tzalman. 2 edits done in total.
Feb 09, 2018 07:47 |  #2

Traci, welcome to POTN.

First off, you should be aware that your photos are not secure on the Pass Gallery site. I was able to enter your album and download IMG_6706 as a full resolution (5616x3644) Jpeg and I could have downloaded another couple hundred photos. Sharing with a client doesn't have to mean giving them away free to the whole world.

Your jpgs are not over-sharpened. The one I examined was fine at the point of focus, her right hand, although somewhat soft elsewhere because of the wide f/stop and close shooting distance causing very narrow DOF.

What you are seeing on the shirt is moire, a repeating pattern artifact caused by the pattern in the fabric being at the right resolution to interfere with the pattern of the camera's sensor. In Lightroom, paint over the shirt with the Local Adjustment Brush and apply some "Moire Reduction".


Elie / אלי

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,749 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 12 days ago by Wilt. 9 edits done in total.
Feb 09, 2018 10:39 |  #3

Hello Traci,

Background situation:

  • I am presuming (from the 5616x3744 resolution of the JPG) that you are using the 1DsIII (not really a material factor in this discussion) and storing JPG in the camera.
  • Are you shooting in RAW in using the JPG simply for client previews?


Background situation aside, some pertinent comments:

  • Even if you are storing RAW-only (or RAW + JPG files) in camera, the Style selected by you in the camera affects both the RAW preview, and the stored JPG files.
  • RAW conversion programs like Lightroom will not actually use the embedded preview in the RAW file, but will create its own preview regardless of camera settings.)
  • The amount of sharpening associated with a factory-defined Style can be overridden in value by the user...perhaps this got inadvertantly set (or deliverately set by the previous owner of the camera)
  • I saw no evlidence of oversharpening



Ancillary comments about your web site photos:

  • "OMG, my eyes!"...
    Your web page has bright white background, and your photos all seemed to be perhaps deliberately styled as High Key...bright and low contrast
    ...(or perhaps your monitor is adjusted too dark in its Brightness setting, causing you to crank up the postprocessing Brightness to glaring levels).
    ... I would suggest selection of a somewhat more subdued background presentation for your web photos, to make it less eye straining in overall brightness (take a hint from the background used by POTN)..
  • The histograms of your JPG images clearly depicts the fact that most of your pixels (two-thirds of them in some shots) are to the right half of the histogram.
    The overall brightness is so high as to lose skin detail in the highlights, such as in her (excessively) milky white skin tones of her shoulders (seen below in #1), and in the rather 'ashy' color of his skin (#3 vs. #4)
    BTW, black models that have asked me to shoot them have lamented to me -- even before I ever shot any of their photos -- that all too often their skin is depicted in 'ashy' in tone in photographs...and such ashy rendition is BAD!)


IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/tracishot_zpsjyoefwn4.jpg


I took the liberty of taking two photos and altering both to what I would consider to be less glaringly bright; to the left of the pair is the unaltered photo from your web site
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/traci_zpsyixdgxzk.jpg

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Post has been edited 12 days ago by BigAl007.
Feb 09, 2018 10:51 |  #4

I don't think it's the case here, since it seems that the image in question is suffering with moire issues. What you have to be careful of when delivering images using Dropbox is that images viewed using the Dropbox gallery feature are actually reprocessed to minimise data transfer and maximise page loading times. Often a client will simply right click the image and save it. This is bad since they end up saving the recompressed image, not the original that you uploaded. To get the original file they need to actually use the download file option instead. This mucking around with files on Dropbox only happens with JPEG images and their website viewing page. So always ensure that your clients are using the full download option to ensure they get the correct original file.

I also downloaded and had a look at the image. I do see a little colour moire in the shirt, but it's not a huge amount IMO. I opened the image in Ps and used the ACR filter, and applied a local brush to the shirt. Applying moire adjustment to it I didn't really like the way it seemed to flatten the colour in the shirt. Of course that is with the fullsize image, and at 100% view.

I downloaded the "Web sized" image which is a nice 1200px long edge, and it has some very severe moire in the shirt caused by the pattern being too high frequency for the new pixel pitch. I don't know if it is the website software doing the resampling, or you, but I don't think it matters very much. I tried resampling the full sized image to 1200px in Ps and got exactly the same result. You might get better luck doing the resampling from the original RAW file, but even that will probably be a no go. Oh and I also tried the moire tool on it in the ACR filter and even at 100% it had no appreciable effect.

Also depending on the viewers exact screen resolution you can induce the moire patterns simply by changing the viewing scale, since the computer is resampling the image on the fly to generate the different sized images. I have a 5K monitor, so it is harder to induce moire in this way. Someone with a large, but low res display, say a big Tv at HD (1920×1080px) could very well end up with a scaling that will show severe moire patterns when the image is displayed at full screen resolution. There is nothing you can really do about this, other than tell the client that the large prints will look great! Personally I blame Nyquist for this happening:lol:.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,749 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Feb 09, 2018 10:59 as a reply to BigAl007's post |  #5

Glad you commented on the moire, which was evident to me even with a 2560 x 1440 monitor.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Feb 09, 2018 13:01 |  #6

Wilt wrote in post #18560042 (external link)
Glad you commented on the moire, which was evident to me even with a 2560 x 1440 monitor.


Oh I could see a little moire in the large sized image, even at 5120×2880 px if I viewed it at 33%. I think some other irrational fractional view sizes would probably do the same. Resizing to 1200 px was a completely different matter though, that is just a really bad size choice for that particular shirt, shot at just that size on the sensor.

Unfortunately the Nyquist - Shannon sampling theorem applies whenever we are sampling data, even when we are simply resampling existing digital data as we do when we resize digital images. You reduce the number of sampling points in a fixed space, you reduce the fineness of the image detail that can be recorded. Since we cannot convert the image back so that it is spatially analogue, it is not possible to filter out the results of undersampling the data. Once it's there you really only have very limited options for partially repairing the damage done.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
traciyosh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Feb 2018
Feb 09, 2018 14:58 as a reply to Wilt's post |  #7

Thank you for your input! I do shoot RAW and go by the JPG preview (shoot with 5d2) and I'm going for the Katelyn James shooting and editing style:) This was my very first round of editing using her education.

I'd love any tips you have for keeping a light and airy image while maintaining true skin tone for black clients. I dove into the deep end and tried to find a happy medium between their skin tones, but with my current skill set, there was none.

Would also love to be pointed to any resources or explanations for how to read the histogram properly, or if you don't mind explaining to me I'd appreciate that as well! I've seen references to it, but haven't dug deep into how to use it as a tool.




LOG IN TO REPLY
traciyosh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Feb 2018
Feb 09, 2018 15:03 as a reply to BigAl007's post |  #8

Thank you - finally have a term for it! I've googled so many variations of descriptors, haha.

So the moire happens in dropbox as well (or possibly just the preview once downloaded) as the client is the one who said "it looks almost over sharpened on her hair" for some photos. Is that something that would show up on a website (I shoot for a local boutique and I think she uses Shopify)? I will do some additional digging to see if it's something I can eliminate altogether because I'd much rather deliver her hassle-free images than have to assure her it'll look great on her website, but it'll still be good to know.

Also, since you mention the resolution: I'm going into senior and family photography soon and will be displaying images on an iPad (I think, haven't decided) for them to choose which ones to purchase. Is there a way to know which images that'll happen with before it's the middle of a sale and they're uncomfortable with it? I have a lot of faith in my reassurance skills but just another situation I'd rather avoid altogether if possible.

Also, thank you for the dropbox input. I'm honestly not a huge fan at all for using it for image delivery, but I also edit from it after failed externals so it's just been the only thing I can find that works well. Any other recommendations that has a Download All option?




LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,749 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 12 days ago by Wilt. 10 edits done in total.
Feb 09, 2018 15:06 |  #9

traciyosh wrote in post #18560221 (external link)
Thank you for your input! I do shoot RAW and go by the JPG preview (shoot with 5d2) and I'm going for the Katelyn James shooting and editing style:) This was my very first round of editing using her education.

I'd love any tips you have for keeping a light and airy image while maintaining true skin tone for black clients. I dove into the deep end and tried to find a happy medium between their skin tones, but with my current skill set, there was none.

Would also love to be pointed to any resources or explanations for how to read the histogram properly, or if you don't mind explaining to me I'd appreciate that as well! I've seen references to it, but haven't dug deep into how to use it as a tool.

there is no 'proper histogram'. Any histogram merely shows how YOU recorded the scene, right or WRONG!

  • A high key photo will put most of the pixels to the right of midline
  • A low key photo will put most of the pixels to the left of midline
  • Pixels will be distributed anywhere on the histogram based upon the INHERENT BRIGHTNESS of elements in the scene and subject, when exposed per a reflected light meter reading an 18% gray card (or when using an incident light meter)


This is the histogram of something black and 18% gray, when exposed to record 'at inherent brightness'
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/hist4_zpsupticuqk.jpg

This is the histogram of the same black and 18% gray item, when overexposed!
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/hist3_zpsitnzcqqx.jpg
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/black%20histogram_zpshgjuuwy1.jpg

OK, so you are after a particular 'look'. In looking at the rendition of the B&G on http://katelynjames.co​m/ (external link) labeled 'Weddings'...the black tux is 'ashy' and not true black. But if that is the look you want to achieve, that is your choice as an artist.

One CAN simply lift Black or Shadows in post processing RAW, rather than overexpose the entire shot and lose highlights. Same shot, same overall exposure, just different postprocessing. 18% gray central area is still exposed so it appears 'at inherent brightness'...
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/ashy_zpsi7eqwjux.jpg

Lifted black and shadows (#2) vs simply overexposed (#3) with blown out highlights...
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/overexposed_zpsjmtujcki.jpg

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
DaviSto's Avatar
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Feb 09, 2018 15:28 |  #10

traciyosh wrote in post #18560221 (external link)
Thank you for your input! I do shoot RAW and go by the JPG preview (shoot with 5d2) and I'm going for the Katelyn James shooting and editing style:) This was my very first round of editing using her education.

I'd love any tips you have for keeping a light and airy image while maintaining true skin tone for black clients. I dove into the deep end and tried to find a happy medium between their skin tones, but with my current skill set, there was none.

Would also love to be pointed to any resources or explanations for how to read the histogram properly, or if you don't mind explaining to me I'd appreciate that as well! I've seen references to it, but haven't dug deep into how to use it as a tool.

Getting good exposure for shots where you have both black and white complexioned people in shot can be a challenge.

Although it is hard to say from these images, judging by hair colour, she is likely alabaster white. Despite that, I don't think 'black and white' should be a major challenge in this instance ... because his complexion is actually quite fair as well. You don't need a high DR sensor to catch this shot!

Taking an incident light meter reading should have been all you needed to do to get a well balanced exposure for the shot. Given she is at the white end of white, you should not aim to get your 'light and airy' tone by raising the overall exposure level in post, because you will blow out her skin/face completely. You need to make some more subtle adjustments to the mid-tones and highlights instead.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Feb 10, 2018 10:15 |  #11

traciyosh wrote in post #18560225 (external link)
Thank you - finally have a term for it! I've googled so many variations of descriptors, haha.

So the moire happens in dropbox as well (or possibly just the preview once downloaded) as the client is the one who said "it looks almost over sharpened on her hair" for some photos. Is that something that would show up on a website (I shoot for a local boutique and I think she uses Shopify)? I will do some additional digging to see if it's something I can eliminate altogether because I'd much rather deliver her hassle-free images than have to assure her it'll look great on her website, but it'll still be good to know.

Also, since you mention the resolution: I'm going into senior and family photography soon and will be displaying images on an iPad (I think, haven't decided) for them to choose which ones to purchase. Is there a way to know which images that'll happen with before it's the middle of a sale and they're uncomfortable with it? I have a lot of faith in my reassurance skills but just another situation I'd rather avoid altogether if possible.

Also, thank you for the dropbox input. I'm honestly not a huge fan at all for using it for image delivery, but I also edit from it after failed externals so it's just been the only thing I can find that works well. Any other recommendations that has a Download All option?


What you often have to worry about with Dropbox is that when you view the image on their website they substitute showing the original version of the image with a quite highly compressed, and certainly on mobile devices, a much smaller image. Since they tend to use very high levels of JPEG compression for this it means that your image can suffer from high levels of JPEG compression artifacts. To the point that they are even visible to a client. Clients these days also seem to be very good at the right click save of online images, and will often do this in preference to using the correct download feature. Let's face it they will always go with what they know if possible. Thus you get hit with this as a problem.

The moire issue you got with particularly file IMG_6706 is completely unrelated to the above situation. The full resolution image maybe has a little colour moire on the shirt, but it's really hard to decide to be honest. As I said attempting to fix it IMO made the shirt look a little flat, and so I would have left it alone myself.

The problem really was with the resampling of the image. Not having the original CR2 file to try it's not possible to see what you get from exporting the image directly at 1200px on the long edge. My expectation is that with that particular shot the pattern of the shirt is perfectly matched to the resolution to produce moire. In the digital world moire is almost always the result of exceeding the Nyquist-Shannon sampling limit for digital sampling.

The biggest issue with Nyquist is that if your input data exceeds the cutoff frequency of the digital sample, in this case it is how fine a repeating pattern is in space, you cannot fix the issue after the conversion from analogue (continuous) space to digital. In this case the original sampling frequency was much higher than that of the pattern of the material, so no problems. For no problems you have to have two samples for every repeat of the pattern. Unfortunately when you reduce the resolution of the image, so that you only have 1200 px on the long edge you reduce that sampling frequency. So now you have three or four repeats of the pattern for every sampling point. What happens in that case is the higher frequency pattern is interpreted as being a much lower frequency pattern instead.

The only way to prevent this happening is to put an analogue filter in place before digitisation takes place. That is what the Optical Low Pass Filter in front of a sensor does. It literally filters out the highest frequencies of patterns that are above the Nyquist limit that might be passed by the lens to the sensor. Sensors have much lower colour resolution than for grayscale contrast, hence the slight colour effect being visible if you look really closely at the large image. Once you have recorded the artifacts from the undersampling of the image it is impossible to remove them with a generally applicable filter, as you can in the analogue space. There are some things you can apply manually, such as the moire tool on the local brush in ACR, but that mostly only works for small amounts of colour moire, and not the levels seen in this image.

So this is a problem when you resize a digital image and make it smaller. You are effectively re-digitising it, but you don't have an analogue image to filter out the higher frequency parts of the image. You could do some clever processing and use an FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) to convert the existing image data to the frequency domain, then filter out any elements that are going to be above the cut off frequency of the resized image. You would then need to use the inverse FFT to convert back to the spatial domain, where you can now do the resize operation, knowing that you are not going to be undersampling the image. Doing this on what is a large amount of two dimensional data though is going to be very compute intensive indeed. Another objection to this is that you will need to calculate a new digital frequency cutoff for every single possible set of pixel dimensions that are smaller than the original image, based on the relative values of the size before and after resizing.

For that image you simply can't use 1200px long edge as a viable image size. You need to make the image a little larger, even using 1280 px reduces the visible moire by quite a bit, and the frequency of the moire is less intrusive too. I also tried 1500 and 2048 px too. At 2048px the moire was pretty much removed.

You ask if uploading the image to another website will improve it, and the answer is simply no. Once you have the moire present you can't get rid of it, not even if you resize the image again in either direction. So nothing is going to enable you to be able to use that image at that size without the moire. Sometimes life just kicks us swiftly between the thighs and laughs at us. This is one such occasion.

With the iPad thing you should be OK if you are putting the JPEG files directly on the device. That way you can use the full size image, and if you do get some moire at full screen view, you can zoom into 100% view and show them that the issue is with the display panel, not the image file itself. The print in such a situation will always be OK.

Finally when you get told by the client that you have issues with the images that are being downloaded from Dropbox, or anywhere else for that matter, you shouldn't really just be going to those images directly to fix them. What you need to do is go back to the originals, and QC check them at every stage to find out what the problem really is. When you are in a situation where moire is possible in downsampled images I would always do a QC check, even if that means I have to do it on images uploaded to the website that have been automatically resized, before setting them to be visible by the client.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
traciyosh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Feb 2018
Feb 13, 2018 20:46 as a reply to BigAl007's post |  #12

Thank you so much for such a thorough response. Up to now, when she's pointed out the moire in some images, I just go in with the blur brush on photoshop. It works, but your idea is a lot smarter :) Lots to learn.

I just feel like there's something obvious I have to be missing. There are TONS of boutique owners out there photographing their products sharply who definitely don't have the time to figure out this issue. My original screenshot was of an image that's 5616px on the long side; it was smushed in terms of file size to upload faster, so maybe that's the issue. Honestly, I'm usually pretty good at figuring out new terms and language, but I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what might be going wrong/where I need to fix this. My process is really basic - load into LR, edit exposure/color, then export straight into dropbox with no file size or dimensional changes, only that they convert to JPG (with the exception of this one couples shoot, but this issue does happen when I don't change anything). Does anything jump out that I should look at first?




LOG IN TO REPLY
traciyosh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Feb 2018
Feb 14, 2018 14:06 as a reply to BigAl007's post |  #13

I'm working on my next set of photos and there's visible moire directly on import on her dress, next to the seam, without any edits being done.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Feb 14, 2018 18:29 |  #14

traciyosh wrote in post #18563773 (external link)
I'm working on my next set of photos and there's visible moire directly on import on her dress, next to the seam, without any edits being done.
thumbnailHosted photo: posted by traciyosh in
./showthread.php?p=185​63773&i=i43160109
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing


I can't see it myself, at least not in this image. As with everything making the file in question available for us to see would be very helpful. If you were to upload the CR2 file in question to Dropbox, and you then posted the link to it in the thread we could take a look at the original file and be in a better position to give you some considered opinion.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
traciyosh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined Feb 2018
Feb 15, 2018 07:56 as a reply to BigAl007's post |  #15

Here's the CR2 file for the original image in the screenshot!

https://www.dropbox.co​m ...0er4kss/IMG_6706.CR​2?dl=0 (external link)




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,245 views & 3 likes for this thread
JPG previews look over sharpened straight out of camera?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00122 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is gkefalas
873 guests, 328 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017