Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

Ann K

Senior Member.
Although I do wonder what they do if they happen across a pic of a crime or something like that.
I've often though about the pics an old school film processor saw in their career. You can imagine
Interesting thought! Perhaps a photographer with either hoaxes or pornography in mind would have a strong incentive to develop their own. Yet if they were young transients, it seems likely that they themselves would have been living in a rented room, so maybe not.

It isn't that complicated to buy a red light bulb and fit the bathroom window with a blackout screen. My mother did it as a hobby in the 1950s, and dad even made her an enlarger to use.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I've lost track of where we are with the film used, but it seems it may have been intended for easy b&w home developing?
IF Robinson is right and Illford XP1 B&W film was used, it was designed to produce B&W photos using the C41 color processing systems common at the local photo lab. So, one could shoot in B&W and have the convenience of dropping the film off at Boots(?) or wherever was common in the UK, for developing.

But Illford did market an XP1 kit for home developing, that was specifically made for the XP1 film. Weather it was easy, is I imagine, depended on one's level of commitment. Here's a guy on a photo forum saying he used to do it:

I used to develop this stuff myself in Ilford's own XP1 processing kits. The basic time specified by Ilford is 5.5 min at 100 degF. It's notable that this is a good bit longer than the standard C41 time of 3.25 min at 100 degF.
Content from External Source
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/ilford-xp1-400-developing-time.79579/

So, it could be done.
 

Darat

New Member
Going back to the idea of colorizing, which I think would be really useful for this photo, I had a quick blast through a couple of dozen of the free online colorizers and found only two that added at least some of the color that Chrissy had found manually in her photo:

img002.jpg img002.jpg
photomyne.com (left) and colourise.com (right)

So in general they seem good at skin and hair and not so great for everything else (apart from, maybe, reds - so not really useful for sky).

I did try those two with the Calvine photo and colourise.com was the better. But who knows if it's anything like reality?

I also see that the latest versions of Photoshop also colorize. Anybody wanna give that a try? (I'm still using Photoshop 2003!)
That's because there isn't colour information so all the "AI" does is introduce colours based on the many images it's been trained with, so skin it gets quite good, but specific colours it's very hit and miss. I've attached what the latest version of "colourise" in PS produces - as you can see it hasn't got a clue!
 

Attachments

  • scottish_ufo_scan_print_front_A4 PS colourise.png
    scottish_ufo_scan_print_front_A4 PS colourise.png
    588.4 KB · Views: 71

jarlrmai

Senior Member
That's because there isn't colour information so all the "AI" does is introduce colours based on the many images it's been trained with, so skin it gets quite good, but specific colours it's very hit and miss. I've attached what the latest version of "colourise" in PS produces - as you can see it hasn't got a clue!
Exactly, colourising is a artistic endeavour, if you have a reference then the colours can be fairly good, and we have many references for human skin, AI programmers/artists can come up with invented clothes colours based on historical references and guesses and "what works" and we will buy it as it looks good enough and at the end of the day it doesn't really matter unless someone specifically remembers the clothes.

You cannot accurately or with any meaning colourise a completely unknown object.

It's the same as using AI sharpening tools etc, the information is being invented based on a guess from reference material.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Nick Pope wrote that the Calvine photos consisted of "colour photographs." However, the photo we have seen is black-and-white. Any explanation? Might this be a print from a black-and-white copy negative of a color original?
https://web.archive.org/web/20190331171512/http://www.nickpope.net/calvine-ufo-photo.htm

Also, how exactly was this photo digitized? Was it done on a scanner, or just using a camera to take a copy photo of it? As I noted before, this photo uses lossy JPEG compression, which does not preserve fine details. It won't be possible to do any serious analysis of the print until it is placed on a high-quality scanner, and re-scanned to produce a lossless copy.
Let's clear up some things...

What is Ilford XP-2 and who used it in the 1990's?

-It's a film designed for convenience. The typical drug store or one-hour photo service typically had one machine; which used a used a C41 chemistry, to make 3x5 color prints.

-C41 chemistry is for color print film and color prints.

-Ilford produced a B&W film that used color film technology. Instead of the traditional silver halide emulsion it uses dyes. It could be printed on color print paper that also used C41 chemistry; also just for convenience.

-The point. Snapshot photographers who wanted B&W prints (for some reason) could get them back quickly instead of using a local specialty photo processor, or waiting for a week to get them in the mail from Kodak.

-It was used (primarily?) by advanced amateurs because it has some advantages they liked:
-wider dynamic range
-small grain size
-grain size that is larger in darker areas and smaller in bright areas (of the print). The opposite of silver halide emulsion.

-A print this size would not be made by a one-hour type service. So it was printed on color paper by a specialty service or in an (amateur?) dark room.

The statement in the photo analysis that this film would only be used by a knowledgeable person who made a purposeful choice is suspect. This film could easily have been on the shelf of a drug store or one-hour photo service.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
To add :
Like I previously have mentioned I have suspicions that the ' print ' is just a generic print from a photograph.

What would ' possibly' settle an awful lot of current issues is the original negative.
To colour a photograph properly is a time consuming affair.
It's like painting by numbers but instead of numbers it is shades of light and dark.

That is why if we had full colour images from the exact spot it would only ' help ' in generic colouring but would at least be within the realms of truth.
This is that original copy I posted.
I got to my sisters jumper in the middle I mish mashed the pixels ( not finished.
And the hair on my brothers have not been fixed nor might I add my sister.

FYI Kevin my brother second from left was killed 3 years ago by an intoxicated man in a car whilst he and his wife were riding home on a motorbike He was 63.

It is difficult if I am honest to finish this colouring and thus far I think I still likely have many hours to go.

I shall at some stage but for now it's still a bit raw.
 

Attachments

  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    289.3 KB · Views: 27

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
-A print this size would not be made by a one-hour type service. So it was printed on color paper by a specialty service or in an (amateur?) dark room.
As noted above, Linsday's claim is that the print was made by the photo lab at the Daily Record at his request from the original negatives. This is plausible as the Daily Record was using color photos as far back as the '70s (post 421):
That's not how it would have looked. The Record had actually been printed in "full colour" since 1971. Here's an inside spread from July 1990:
1661040808235.png
I'll note though, that even 1990, a lot of it is in B&W, so it would stand to reason that the photo lab at the Daily Record could make B&W prints, right?

The whole notion that it's "a print made on color paper from an Illford XP1 negative" is from Robinsons 2 reports. He seems to be the expert, but...

According to Robinson, it's printed on everyday Kodak paper, nothing fancy or archival quality. I've wondered if it was a quickly made print and wasn't fixed properly, has it just faded a lot over the 30 years? One would think Robinson would have noticed this though. It's all a bit confusing.

Parts of Robinson's report have been shared in multiple posts on this thread already, so I'll just give this as the place one can see both reports and read them:
https://draftable.com/compare/RSJpUtdqQxfi
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
IMO, I would say that the story of the Daily Record producing that print is probably true
It's a large print, I think (might be wrong) that it may have been expensive back then to get made at a photo processor. It's not something I see someone handing into the Daily Record given it's possible cost and size. You would have expected a normal sized photo to be provided. Of course they could have developed it themselves - but that would require them to have the equipment etc to produce such a large print. I just see it more likely that the Daily Record produced it as has been stated
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
Ok this is just an interpretation of 9pm ish that time of year.
I have used a rastor layer to leave the actual photograph untouched.
Just added a few layers of colour and anyway it is what it is and how it ' might' have kind of looked ( assuming it is genuine ). layer

Won't bother listing all what I did but it looks alright. :)

I have taken the liberty that the ' ufo' has some reflective surface..no big deal.
 

Attachments

  • watermarked-jpeg-2.jpg
    watermarked-jpeg-2.jpg
    148.7 KB · Views: 28

Daves!

Active Member
is it correct that the original picture can be checked by anyone at the SHU ? i just saw this video from Team Disclosure

skip to 3:03. it seems you can even hold it in your hands for a close examination.
Maybe some members here could make a small trip over there and analyse the picture up close ?
@Mick West is this some idea for you since you live in the UK ?
Source: https://youtu.be/jfJbmmLMYVk
 

Itsme

Active Member
When the Condon comittee analyzed the McMinnville photographs, they could give some distance estimates based on a brightness analysis of different parts in the photographs.
See http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/case46.html

Screenshot_2022-08-21-13-17-33-379~2.jpeg

I wonder if something similar can be done here. The object's brightness is similar to that of the jet and much brighter than the nearby trees and fence poles. On top of that, the contrast between the top and bottom half is not big. Maybe this gives some clues about distance, i.e., its distance could be in the same ball park as the jet if its surface has about the same intrinsic brightness.
 

Duke

Active Member
Have any of the UK tabloids offered up a reward to be presented to the individual(s) who can:

1) Prove they took the original Calvine photos, be they real or "spoofed,"
2) Take a representative of the paper to the site where the photo was taken,
3) Agree to an interview/press conference to tell his/their story.

If everything with their story checks out, they get the money. In theory, they could probably still remain anonymous throughout the process.

Offer up £10K (hell, I'd be good for £500 of it myself...anyone else want to kick in a few quid?) and see who shows up. A statement from the MoD or other government entity guaranteeing no prosecution would also help in case the individual(s) come clean they perpetrated a hoax or otherwise broke (within reason) some other law(s).

Anyone have an "in" with any of the UK tabloids? Would be interesting to at least see which of them would be willing to have a go.
 
Last edited:
Disinformation, The Calvine UFO & The Aurora Project

At the min. 8:51 of that interview, Nick Cook, as a guest on Jay Anderson's YT channel Project Unity, has just stated that the photocopy of the original Clavine UFO photo was touted as having been blown up into a poster and shoved on the wall of DI55, not only by Nick Pope but by others as well (so why they prefer to not share their personal impressions on this subject?)

Furthermore, he gives interesting evidences that point to Aurora having really been real, or else probably some piece of American black budget secret technology having being covered up with that whole fuss created by the Calvine story.

Judging by what's been investigated and analysed thus far, yet again this Calvine UFO story is raising even more unanswered questions to the large bunch...
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
Maybe this gives some clues about distance, i.e., its distance could be in the same ball park as the jet if its surface has about the same intrinsic brightness.
Wouldn't that depend on the albedo (what percentage of light sttiking the object is reflected) of the objects? I guess somebody could get pretty close to figurting out the albedo of a Harrier, assuming that is what the "plane" is. But the value for a man in a rowboat would likely be different, and the UFO would just be a guess.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Disinformation, The Calvine UFO & The Aurora Project

At the min. 8:51 of that interview, Nick Cook, as a guest on Jay Anderson's YT channel Project Unity, has just stated that the photocopy of the original Clavine UFO photo was touted as having been blown up into a poster and shoved on the wall of DI55, not only by Nick Pope but by others as well

That guy doesn't seem to have looked at the story very closely and has quite a shaky grasp on the facts. Not very well-informed.

Is he any more worthy of being listened to than the dozens of people on Twitter who think that the photo had been kept hidden and that the MoD had confirmed it was a craft?
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Senior Member.
Disinformation, The Calvine UFO & The Aurora Project

At the min. 8:51 of that interview, Nick Cook, as a guest on Jay Anderson's YT channel Project Unity, has just stated that the photocopy of the original Clavine UFO photo was touted as having been blown up into a poster and shoved on the wall of DI55, not only by Nick Pope but by others as well (so why they prefer to not share their personal impressions on this subject?)

Furthermore, he gives interesting evidences that point to Aurora having really been real, or else probably some piece of American black budget secret technology having being covered up with that whole fuss created by the Calvine story.

Judging by what's been investigated and analysed thus far, yet again this Calvine UFO story is raising even more unanswered questions to the large bunch...
Does Nick Cook have evidence for his claims? Does he cite an authoritative source? Or is this just another chapter in the on-going self-help saga of "How Fiction Writers can Exaggerate and Speculate for Fun and Profit"?
 

Duke

Active Member
Disinformation, The Calvine UFO & The Aurora Project

At the min. 8:51 of that interview, Nick Cook, as a guest on Jay Anderson's YT channel Project Unity, has just stated that the photocopy of the original Clavine UFO photo was touted as having been blown up into a poster and shoved on the wall of DI55, not only by Nick Pope but by others as well (so why they prefer to not share their personal impressions on this subject?)

Furthermore, he gives interesting evidences that point to Aurora having really been real, or else probably some piece of American black budget secret technology having being covered up with that whole fuss created by the Calvine story.

Judging by what's been investigated and analysed thus far, yet again this Calvine UFO story is raising even more unanswered questions to the large bunch...
Bait and switch stories claiming UFO sightings have been used to cover up black programs (and vice versa some believe) have been around since UFOs became "a thing." Could that be the case here? Sure, but unless the guys who took the photos were read in and were/are part of the deception, no amount of governmental flim-flamary changes the quest to explain the photos.

Btw, there was no Aurora.
 
Does Nick Cook have evidence for his claims? Does he cite an authoritative source? Or is this just another chapter in the on-going self-help saga of "How Fiction Writers can Exaggerate and Speculate for Fun and Profit"?

Yea, let us see what comes next, I reckon only time will tell.
 
Sure, but unless the guys who took the photos were read in and were/are part of the deception, no amount of governmental flim-flamary changes the quest to explain the photos.

Well, as far as what I could gather from Nick Cook's observations, I guess he also implied what I highlighted in bold. And I'm not sure his thoughts on it might fit as one more of those bait and switch stories you referred to. Who knows anyway, I may well be wrong.
 
That guy doesn't seem to have looked at the story very closely and has quite a shaky grasp on the facts. Not very well-informed.

Come to think about it again, I think you're indeed right. My fault then for not having realised it, he once even admitted not having the full awareness of the details. English is not my mother language anyway, sorry.
 

Duke

Active Member
Well, as far as what I could gather from Nick Cook's observations, I guess he also implied what I highlighted in bold. And I'm not sure his thoughts on it might fit as one more of those bait and switch stories you referred to. Who knows anyway, I may well be wrong.
Considering the Calvine story didn't go public for several years (Pope's book) after the sighting was allegedly made, I wonder then, when ol'Nick reckoned the chefs/dishwashers/poachers were hired to be part of the cover up?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Damn, why do I always need to become a member of twitter to see interesting stuff. Sigh.

Don't worry, we'll keep you up to date with anything interesting - and also some non-interesting stuff too!

Honestly, you're better off out of it. :rolleyes:

is it correct that the original picture can be checked by anyone at the SHU ? i just saw this video from Team Disclosure

skip to 3:03. it seems you can even hold it in your hands for a close examination.
Maybe some members here could make a small trip over there and analyse the picture up close ?

You can actually see pretty much the entire back of the photo at 3:13 and there's no trace of writing, redacted or otherwise:

1661103675815.png
(Frames around this point reveal more of the corner hidden by Vinnie's hand)

Anyway, I'm sure the question about "the name on the back" will be addressed/resolved in the Q&A tomorrow.

The photo appears to be in SHU's Special Collection archive located on Level 4 of Adsetts Library. In general they say you can look at things if you give them 48-hours notice (and receive confirmation). I don't think this photo has been catalogued yet though, and appears to be in a filing cabinet in a locked office.

Also, the library website says access to the Special Collection is currently suspended due to Covid-19 - though I'm wondering if maybe that might simply be a leftover on the website that needs fixing, since they haven't updated it since January and things have changed a lot since then.

Though to my mind, cool as it is to see things like that in the flesh, I'm not sure what more one could discern that we can't from the high-res scans and the analysis of Andrew Robinson.

Anyone have an "in" with any of the UK tabloids? Would be interesting to at least see which of them would be willing to have a go.

I think this is a great idea. But I'm also a bit skeptical that the tabloids are as excited about this particular case as we and a few hundred people on Twitter/reddit are. Call me a cynic but it seems to me UFO stories are ten-a-penny to them and they'll just print whatever's new in order to get a few clicks and views. I mean, it's not like they've mentioned it again since the story first emerged on August 12/13 (and AFAIK it wasn't mentioned at all by The Express or The Metro).
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Ok this is just an interpretation of 9pm ish that time of year.
I have used a rastor layer to leave the actual photograph untouched.
Just added a few layers of colour and anyway it is what it is and how it ' might' have kind of looked ( assuming it is genuine ). layer

Won't bother listing all what I did but it looks alright. :)


1661106682451.png

That looks really good, and it's interesting to see the sky like that.

I'm curious though as to what suggested the pinks? Was there something in the photo data or was it based on what other skies are like close to sunset?
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
That looks really good, and it's interesting to see the sky like that.

I'm curious though as to what suggested the pinks? Was there something in the photo data or was it based on what other skies are like close to sunset?
It's Scotland. It's just as likely to be silvery-grey. :)
 

Itsme

Active Member
Wouldn't that depend on the albedo (what percentage of light sttiking the object is reflected) of the objects? I guess somebody could get pretty close to figurting out the albedo of a Harrier, assuming that is what the "plane" is. But the value for a man in a rowboat would likely be different, and the UFO would just be a guess.
The difference in brightness between parts illuminated by the sky and parts not illuminated by the sky tells you something about the albedo. A very shiny surface would lead to a big difference in contrast between the top and the bottom of the object, like this example:
p03nnflj.jpg
The harrier in the photo shows larger differences in contrast than the ufo, especially the wing that seems to directly reflect the skylight towards the photographer. A bit like this:
winston-salem-airshow-2012-1315_edited-1-741x472.jpg
So, the object's surface is not expected to be bright and shiny, but the object is much brighter than the vegetation in the foreground which seems to indicate it is much further away than the foreground vegetation (which is not bright and shiny either).
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Damn, why do I always need to become a member of twitter to see interesting stuff. Sigh.

You might want to try this: https://github.com/SimonBrazell/privacy-redirect
A simple web extension that redirects Twitter, YouTube, Instagram & Google Maps requests to privacy friendly alternatives.
Content from External Source
Specifically, it redirects twitter links to "nitter" sites. You could just use nitter directly, of course.

https://nitter.net/about
About
Nitter is a free and open source alternative Twitter front-end focused on privacy and performance. The source is available on GitHub at https://github.com/zedeus/nitter

No JavaScript or ads
All requests go through the backend, client never talks to Twitter
Prevents Twitter from tracking your IP or JavaScript fingerprint
Uses Twitter's unofficial API (no rate limits or developer account required)
Lightweight (for @nim_lang, 60KB vs 784KB from twitter.com)
RSS feeds
Themes
Mobile support (responsive design)
AGPLv3 licensed, no proprietary instances permitted

Nitter's GitHub wiki contains instances and browser extensions maintained by the community.

Why use Nitter?

It's impossible to use Twitter without JavaScript enabled. For privacy-minded folks, preventing JavaScript analytics and IP-based tracking is important, but apart from using a VPN and uBlock/uMatrix, it's impossible. Despite being behind a VPN and using heavy-duty adblockers, you can get accurately tracked with your browser's fingerprint, no JavaScript required. This all became particularly important after Twitter removed the ability for users to control whether their data gets sent to advertisers.

Using an instance of Nitter (hosted on a VPS for example), you can browse Twitter without JavaScript while retaining your privacy. In addition to respecting your privacy, Nitter is on average around 15 times lighter than Twitter, and in most cases serves pages faster (eg. timelines load 2-4x faster).
Content from External Source
 

john.phil

Member
Ok this is just an interpretation of 9pm ish that time of year.
I have used a rastor layer to leave the actual photograph untouched.
Just added a few layers of colour and anyway it is what it is and how it ' might' have kind of looked ( assuming it is genuine ). layer

Won't bother listing all what I did but it looks alright. :)

I have taken the liberty that the ' ufo' has some reflective surface..no big deal.
If the brightness on the top left of the photograph you colorized is due to the Sun behind the clouds, then the photo could not have been taken at the alleged time, at the spot Dr David Clarke believes. At that spot, the valley is in the South-Eastern direction, at 9:00pm the Sun would've been behind the photographer.

1661116322728.png
1661116680747.png

1661117051853.png
https://www.suncalc.org/#/56.763,-3.9845,14/1990.08.04/21:00/1/0
 
Last edited:

Tim Printy

Member
Someone earlier said Ilford XP-2 wasn't available until 1991. See also: http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html
(Robinson also mentioned this in his report.)
Ilford's XP-2 replaced XP-1 (which was available in 1990). Other than improvements/modifications made to the film made by Ilford, they both performed the same way as far as being developed in C-41 (vice a black and white developer) and being a "black and white" film.
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
That looks really good, and it's interesting to see the sky like that.

I'm curious though as to what suggested the pinks? Was there something in the photo data or was it based on what other skies are like close to sunset?
Hi there Rory and anyone else interested :

OK so this is what I did.
Original downloaded photograph and I create a ' duplicate' this adds a protective layer to the photo.
Then I looked at the pixels of the 'ufo' and used an ' interpretation ' of presumed colour ( similar to the colours of metallic aircraft and such but dulled within the actual photo and on the surface leaving original ufo untouched ( Aircraft included )..

This was done in this instance using a ( Raster Layer ) imagine subtle painting over an image leaving behind the detail originally established.

Next ( sky is mostly ( contrary to the human eye and belief ) a bluey haze whatever the time of day ( when clouds of any description are visible.

Of course red sky at night etc can be acheived with white balance.

So I coloured over the sky in a generic light blue again leaving the original pixels only coloured leaving all shade contrast and pixel pattern.

After this I covered the ENTIRE photograph with that finished ' haze / colour to give an interpretation of reflection on the ' ufo'

Then I used white balance:
White balance is often misunderstood. In generic terms it is the temperature of the colours including shaded areas but.
It is also used ( least by myself ) and especially with 'sky ' amongst other things.
So I simply altered all aspect of temperature / white balance simply to give my ( interpretation) within the realms of possible.

Imagine when one takes a photo with mostly overcast sky.
If you manipulate the white balance / blacks and whites / shadows etc the original sky is still there you have simply altered temperature of which reflects in the desired image.
It's not a science just an interpretation.

Obviously this particular photograph is rather originally pixelated ( lower resolution ) and such the finished representation exaggerates that fact.

To NOTE : Any added colours can be actually interpreted to some extent that is by painting pixel by numbers if you will.

There are indicators for example that like I afore mentioned 'leaves' are generally certain greens/ browns/ reds perhaps in seasons.
Fence posts are made in this instance of wood and again there are limited but variable colours that will represent that.

And so on and on and on and it would be an extremely and mind numbing process to physically / actually alter each pixel ( there is software that guesses but it is poor.

Thank you for reading..
 

Attachments

  • watermarked-jpeg-2.jpg
    watermarked-jpeg-2.jpg
    148.7 KB · Views: 23
Last edited by a moderator:

Ann K

Senior Member.
Fence posts are made in this instance of wood and again there are limited but variable colours that will represent that.
Are they? They look rather flimsy for the purpose if they're made of wood, and I thought they were probably metal.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Three photos from Scotland taken twenty minutes before sunset this week:

1661127616526.png 1661127653531.png1661127671270.png

Left of the picture is looking north and right of the picture is looking a little north of east. So rightside may be similar to Calvine (assuming photographer wasn't facing between NE and SW).
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
This is not to show off my stuff but to show colouring process warts and all. Re the 'UFO'.
So here's the original damaged photo scan then a restored version I did followed by a BASIC thus far colouring.
It takes a while before it shall start to blend together. Quite a few hours left :)

I don't mind in the slightest showing mistakes for it all blends together in the finished version.

IF it is acceptable to this sites needs / rules I shall add eventually the finished to show the reader how colouring progresses.
This I am hoping may shed light on the ' UFO' written about previous.

NOTE: That's it for today will continue this work tomorrow and display accordingly :)
Added some depth. Photo cropped.


Tomorrow will do :
Window reflections / skin needs work. toning down colours more of clothing/ and more :)
 

Attachments

  • col 1.jpg
    col 1.jpg
    355 KB · Views: 26
  • DONE.jpg
    DONE.jpg
    382 KB · Views: 23
  • restoration original..jpg
    restoration original..jpg
    356.8 KB · Views: 32
  • LAST COLOUR DATED..jpg
    LAST COLOUR DATED..jpg
    390.4 KB · Views: 32
  • LAST COLOUR G 2.jpg
    LAST COLOUR G 2.jpg
    340.2 KB · Views: 21
  • so far coloured.jpg
    so far coloured.jpg
    189.6 KB · Views: 44
Last edited by a moderator:
Top