Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Advice from the Pros
Post Processing Noise and Sharpening in lightroom
Feb 10, 2018 17:24:55   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
Hi
I am interested in how to get the best out of Lightrooms sharpening and noise removal and also figuring out the smallest aperture that doesn't lose detail due to diffraction. My main camera is a Pentax K5 with a 16 Mpix sensor.

I recently tried processing via niks noise reduction > raw sharpening> colorefx > output sharpening. I was quite impressed. But couldnt figure the control points and how to use them (or get the zoom back down once you zoomed in)

I don't really understand in Lightroom sharpening is pixel 0.5 - 3.0 and masking I normally go for around 0.5 and around 70% mask and 70% sharpening. I also try to be shooting at iso 80 - 100 where possible.

Any tips and advice gratefully received.

Thank you

John

Reply
Feb 10, 2018 20:28:28   #
TheStarvingArtist
 
I don't think that is a strong feature of Lightroom. I use Dfine 2 for noise reduction

Reply
Feb 10, 2018 23:07:22   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
blackest wrote:
Hi
I am interested in how to get the best out of Lightrooms sharpening and noise removal and also figuring out the smallest aperture that doesn't lose detail due to diffraction. My main camera is a Pentax K5 with a 16 Mpix sensor.

I recently tried processing via niks noise reduction > raw sharpening> colorefx > output sharpening. I was quite impressed. But couldnt figure the control points and how to use them (or get the zoom back down once you zoomed in)

I don't really understand in Lightroom sharpening is pixel 0.5 - 3.0 and masking I normally go for around 0.5 and around 70% mask and 70% sharpening. I also try to be shooting at iso 80 - 100 where possible.

Any tips and advice gratefully received.

Thank you

John
Hi br I am interested in how to get the best out o... (show quote)


No formula. Each image is different, and what works for one can be a disaster for another. I am certain that is not the answer you are looking for, John, but that's pretty much what it is.

You may want to read http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-sharpening.pdf which is primarily on sharpening, but related to noise.

Reply
 
 
Feb 11, 2018 07:04:23   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
For the effects of diffraction, here's a useful link that I found Googling "diffraction limit f-stop" -

( https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm ).

If you follow the link and scroll down, there's a useful section that shows you the effect of f-stop related diffraction for various cameras. Your Pentax isn't there, but if you know of another camera that uses the same sensor (or the same size of sensor and same resolution), it'll give you relevant results. You're right in thinking that the onset of f-stop related diffraction depends on the physical dimensions of the individual pixels on the sensor.
-
My usual setting for the Masking slider in LR is 80-85. Sharpening is needed most on edges, whereas textures can be problematic in sharpening, so we want to concentrate the sharpening on the edges. In fact the undesirable effect of sharpening on textures is usually what determines how much sharpening we can use. The edges can take significant amounts of sharpening before they appear to be over-sharpened.

And there is an inverse theme at work when it comes to denoise. You can think of luminance noise as fine texture that needs to be softened, but the negative effect of too much denoise is over-softening, in particular of the edges. To achieve softening of the noise texture with minimal softening of the edges, you can keep the denoise Detail slider well to the right (if I had to choose a default setting I'd use 85). I rarely go above 12 with the Denoise slider, and I come below 85 with the Detail slider only if there's a texture rougher than noise (e.g. grain, especially large grain) that needs to be softened. (These figures would probably be a bit different for files other than what my D5200 generates - but probably not significantly different. They should be good ball-park figures to use as a starting point).

I keep hoping I'll find a denoise tool that has masking to keep the denoise away from the edges (the reverse of what masking does in the sharpening tool). The best way to think of it is to see that sharpening needs to be edge-oriented, whereas denoise needs to be texture-oriented. The Detail sliders in both the Sharpening and the Noise Reduction tools give you some control over the effects on textures. In the case of sharpening, the best approach is to avoid the problematic textures by keeping the Masking slider well to the right (higher than 85 if necessary).

Did you know that in LR you can see the effects of all of these sliders by holding down the Alt key while you operate the slider?

The Radius slider determines how far out from the edges the sharpening is applied. If you had problem textures (or jpeg artefacts) that were persistently responding negatively to sharpening you would find that the negative effect could be reduced by using a low value of Radius. On the other hand, if there is no such negative effect, increasing the Radius value increases the sharpening effect on the edges. But if you use too high a value you could start to see tight haloing (a thin white line along high contrast edges). It's difficult to predict when tight haloing will be a problem - I suspect that so-called raw files aren't as un-processed as the manufacturers would have us believe, and jpegs seem to be more prone to it than raw files.

Tight haloing isn't a natural phenomenon, and sometimes it'll start to emerge as soon as you use any amount of Contrast/Clarity, or as soon as you add any amount of sharpening. Using a high value of Radius together with a high value of Sharpening will increase the chances of it occurring.

I'm sure much of this will be old hat to you, but I thought I'd throw it all in just to cover the possibilities. I hope there's something in here that helps.

Reply
Feb 11, 2018 09:23:22   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
R.G. wrote:
For the effects of diffraction, here's a useful link that I found Googling "diffraction limit f-stop" -

( https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm ).

If you follow the link and scroll down, there's a useful section that shows you the effect of f-stop related diffraction for various cameras. Your Pentax isn't there, but if you know of another camera that uses the same sensor (or the same size of sensor and same resolution), it'll give you relevant results. You're right in thinking that the onset of f-stop related diffraction depends on the physical dimensions of the individual pixels on the sensor.
-
My usual setting for the Masking slider in LR is 80-85. Sharpening is needed most on edges, whereas textures can be problematic in sharpening, so we want to concentrate the sharpening on the edges. In fact the undesirable effect of sharpening on textures is usually what determines how much sharpening we can use. The edges can take significant amounts of sharpening before they appear to be over-sharpened.

And there is an inverse theme at work when it comes to denoise. You can think of luminance noise as fine texture that needs to be softened, but the negative effect of too much denoise is over-softening, in particular of the edges. To achieve softening of the noise texture with minimal softening of the edges, you can keep the denoise Detail slider well to the right (if I had to choose a default setting I'd use 85). I rarely go above 12 with the Denoise slider, and I come below 85 with the Detail slider only if there's a texture rougher than noise (e.g. grain, especially large grain) that needs to be softened. (These figures would probably be a bit different for files other than what my D5200 generates - but probably not significantly different. They should be good ball-park figures to use as a starting point).

I keep hoping I'll find a denoise tool that has masking to keep the denoise away from the edges (the reverse of what masking does in the sharpening tool). The best way to think of it is to see that sharpening needs to be edge-oriented, whereas denoise needs to be texture-oriented. The Detail sliders in both the Sharpening and the Noise Reduction tools give you some control over the effects on textures. In the case of sharpening, the best approach is to avoid the problematic textures by keeping the Masking slider well to the right (higher than 85 if necessary).

Did you know that in LR you can see the effects of all of these sliders by holding down the Alt key while you operate the slider?

The Radius slider determines how far out from the edges the sharpening is applied. If you had problem textures (or jpeg artefacts) that were persistently responding negatively to sharpening you would find that the negative effect could be reduced by using a low value of Radius. On the other hand, if there is no such negative effect, increasing the Radius value increases the sharpening effect on the edges. But if you use too high a value you could start to see tight haloing (a thin white line along high contrast edges). It's difficult to predict when tight haloing will be a problem - I suspect that so-called raw files aren't as un-processed as the manufacturers would have us believe, and jpegs seem to be more prone to it than raw files.

Tight haloing isn't a natural phenomenon, and sometimes it'll start to emerge as soon as you use any amount of Contrast/Clarity, or as soon as you add any amount of sharpening. Using a high value of Radius together with a high value of Sharpening will increase the chances of it occurring.

I'm sure much of this will be old hat to you, but I thought I'd throw it all in just to cover the possibilities. I hope there's something in here that helps.
For the effects of diffraction, here's a useful li... (show quote)


Diffraction appears to be related to aperture size as an f-stop value , the actual size of the hole is different for different focal lengths at a given f-stop
but the effect seems consistent. if light was ideal it would head directly to the sensor but diffraction causes the point become a cone the smaller the aperture the wider the cone. Cambridge in color says this cone can be between 2 and 3 pixels in size before it gives a problem. Larger sensors tend to have larger pixels, which allows a bit more diffraction, I guess if you can imagine a pixel that should be red say and the one next to it green diffraction will mix some green into the red and red into the green making the colors muddy if there is little difference in overall color of the 2 pixels next to each other then you have lost detail. I would hazard a guess that since each pixel only records either the red or blue or green component and gets interpolated values from its adjacent pixels a pixel is mixed with its neighbors anyway, without diffraction this is why it can be larger than a single pixel and be ok.

At the other end lens aberration effects get reduced as aperture gets smaller and things like fringing tend to show up more at high contrast edges. As long as this is small enough that the eye can't resolve it , we will not see it. unfortunately we have enlargement so an 8 by 10 has no enlargement an iphone about 49x with lenses of equal quality the aberration may be equal at the sensor but much worse at the enlargement. Still if its still below what we can see it doesn't matter a deal.

Any way for maximum detail and minimal aberration you need to pick an optimal f-stop lens quality affects the degree of aberration but aperture and pixel size sets the limits for detail recorded. I hope i'm interpreting this correctly.

Masking for sharpening needs to be set high to minimise the damage to texture Edges are low frequency but textures are high frequency i guess with a texture thats over sharpened you are getting something similar to crystal facets which is very unnatural looking.

Denoising is in effect like smearing pixels and if the pixels are too smeared high frequency texture is lost but that also looks like noise. I guess your best bet to cmbatting noise reduction is to ensure as much signal is recorded as possible, noise is always going to be worse in the shadows have to wonder if you can do noise reduction by zone in photoshop. E.g apply heavier noise reduction in zone 2 then mask for zone 3 and do a little less and in the brightest areas perhaps non at all.

I will have to look at the effects of the detail slider for noise reduction I probably have been moving it in the wrong direction. both detail sliders I need to be looking at closer. I will try your defaults having a better idea of what they do from your post helps a lot.

Halo's are an issue, my tendency has been to keep radius down to 0.5 maybe that is too tight but I need to be looking at the halo effect to see where it should be for the best result. I wonder if the 3 pixel radius relates to the diffraction radius.

I wonder if unsharp mask applied to zones would help tackle noise.

I think I made a good choice posting my question and I think my understanding of the issues has been improved , do I seem to have a handle on it now?

Thank you.

Reply
Feb 11, 2018 12:23:57   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
blackest wrote:
.......do I seem to have a handle on it now?......


You seem to be doing OK . Just to clarify, tight haloing (the thin white line) is more likely to appear with a high Radius setting (and especially if you also have a high Sharpen setting).

I forgot to mention blur. If you have blur for whatever reason (poor focus, camera shake, subject movement) you need to gauge how extreme it is. The worse it is, the higher the Radius value needs to be. In the case of severe blur it may be too bad for the Sharpen tool to fix. That's when you'll need anti-shake (or whatever the manufacturer calls it). If the blur is too extreme, nothing's going to work and the shot is a write-off. But if blur isn't an issue I find that the default value of 1 (or close to it) works much of the time. Use the Alt button (PCs) to see what's being affected by it. If you see a lot of texture stuff starting to jump out at you it's time to back off with it.

It's very possible that a radius of 3 pixels relates to the diffraction radius. That's an interesting suggestion. Alternatively it may be related to focus issues or the limits of what the Sharpen tool can realistically achieve.

Another interesting point that you raised was the quoted fact that diffraction isn't a serious issue at or below three pixels. That means that for most cameras, diffraction will be acceptable up to fairly high f-stop values. I do mostly landscapes and I don't see that type of softness as being a big issue.

I don't know if you can do noise reduction by zone in PS, but it sounds like an interesting possibility. I believe that "Select similar" is a possibility for making selections, so you could select the dark areas that way and denoise in the usual way. But you're right - it's lightening dark areas that's most likely to bring out noise. That's why ETTR and EBTR are used. Bracketing is another tactic. In fact any kind of merging where different exposures are being blended has a noise-reducing effect. Noise is random, and the merging process reduces any random elements because they will partly cancel each other out.

I'm glad you're finding this section useful. You've raised some interesting points and my descriptions are far from complete, so hopefully some of the others may want to contribute.

Reply
Feb 11, 2018 13:02:04   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
R.G. wrote:
You seem to be doing OK . Just to clarify, tight haloing (the thin white line) is more likely to appear with a high Radius setting (and especially if you also have a high Sharpen setting).

I forgot to mention blur. If you have blur for whatever reason (poor focus, camera shake, subject movement) you need to gauge how extreme it is. The worse it is, the higher the Radius value needs to be. In the case of severe blur it may be too bad for the Sharpen tool to fix. That's when you'll need anti-shake (or whatever the manufacturer calls it). If the blur is too extreme, nothing's going to work and the shot is a write-off. But if blur isn't an issue I find that the default value of 1 (or close to it) works much of the time. Use the Alt button (PCs) to see what's being affected by it. If you see a lot of texture stuff starting to jump out at you it's time to back off with it.

It's very possible that a radius of 3 pixels relates to the diffraction radius. That's an interesting suggestion. Alternatively it may be related to focus issues or the limits of what the Sharpen tool can realistically achieve.

Another interesting point that you raised was the quoted fact that diffraction isn't a serious issue at or below three pixels. That means that for most cameras, diffraction will be acceptable up to fairly high f-stop values. I do mostly landscapes and I don't see that type of softness as being a big issue.

I don't know if you can do noise reduction by zone in PS, but it sounds like an interesting possibility. I believe that "Select similar" is a possibility for making selections, so you could select the dark areas that way and denoise in the usual way. But you're right - it's lightening dark areas that's most likely to bring out noise. That's why ETTR and EBTR are used. Bracketing is another tactic. In fact any kind of merging where different exposures are being blended has a noise-reducing effect. Noise is random, and the merging process reduces any random elements because they will partly cancel each other out.

I'm glad you're finding this section useful. You've raised some interesting points and my descriptions are far from complete, so hopefully some of the others may want to contribute.
You seem to be doing OK img src="https://static.u... (show quote)


hmmm blur that could be my issue i'm so focused on avoiding halo's i am possibly making my images softer than they should be. I'm a bit shaky at the best of times. My camera holding technique could be letting me down.

Might be worth making more use of my tripod and shutter delay to see if i can decrease movement. Although wind tends to be trying to rattle my subject enough to cause too much movement, maybe a wind break would help :)

Reply
 
 
Feb 11, 2018 13:24:05   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
blackest wrote:
...........both detail sliders I need to be looking at closer......


If sharpening is having an adverse effect on texture, noise or grain, the first things you need to do are increase the Masking and reduce the Detail in the Sharpening tool. Those two steps will be the most effective. If the problem persists after that (plus denoise) you would have to consider a smaller Radius, but only after you'd pushed the other adjustments (and denoise) as far as you could. As already stated, using a high Radius value will increase the chances of having problems related to sharpening, so perhaps the issue isn't how low a Radius value to use, it's how much you want to avoid using a high value. Lowering the Radius value below 1 should be seen as a last resort.

The default setting for the Sharpening Detail slider is IMO quite high, so you shouldn't be slow to try a lower value when sharpening isn't going well. However, if texture, noise or grain aren't a problem, using a higher Detail setting can bring out lots of fine detail which can add a touch of clarity and punch to an image - but it has to be used with caution.

Reply
Feb 11, 2018 13:30:22   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
blackest wrote:
....Might be worth making more use of my tripod and shutter delay to see if i can decrease movement. Although wind tends to be trying to rattle my subject enough to cause too much movement, maybe a wind break would help :)


A tripod is a good idea. In cases where movement within the frame isn't a problem, a tripod allows you to forget about shutter speed. To a lesser extent a monopod (or a tripod with one leg extended) will do the same thing. But if wind is moving your subject/s (or the camera itself), a fast shutter speed is a necessity.

Reply
Feb 11, 2018 14:53:43   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
My experience with post processing sharpening, diffraction issues and noise reduction is minimal in that I rarely require theses, to any great extent, in my work. It is not that my particular camera technique or equipment is superior to those of anyone else. It's just that I am mostly working under controlled studio or studio-like conditions with full frame cameras, sometimes digitized medium format gear, usually sharp prime lenses and at comparatively low ISO settings.

Routinely, if I employ a bit of sharpening, it is minimal and I try to avoid the “side effects” of over-sharpening where it becomes obvious and distracting in the resulting images. Strangely enough, oftentimes, in my portraiture work, softening is more of a requirement that sharpening!

As far a diffraction is concerned, I find that is is less prevalent in some of my newer prime lenses. This perhaps is due to improved lens formulation and design. Again, in a studio environment with plenty of artificial lighting, I can use slower lenses. Many lenses perform best at approximately 2 stops down from their maximum aperture and diffraction tends to kick in more and more as we stop down towards the smallest aperture. An f/3.5 lens may perform best at around f/8 and a significant level of diffraction my not occur until I get to around f/16. In a typical f/2.8 lens, the best performance my occur at f/5.6 and the diffraction may only become sirously problematic at f/9.5 or f//11. Just as a side note; some of the older iconic and reputedly best performing view camera (large format) lenses were very slow- f/9 (max.) was common- slow as heck and hard to focus on the ground glass without “hot” lights. They could, however, deliver virtually diffraction free images at f/32- some had minimum aperture of f/64. Also- remember, in the film only era, there were no digital remedies for excessive grain, poorly focused images or the ramifications of serious diffraction. Much of this needed to be prevented in camera and lens management and careful native making.

Again, in my studio or architectural work, I get to use either view cameras or DSLRs with tilt lenses or tilt attachment capabilities. By tilting the front standard or the tilt lens or accessory, I can, around or employ the Scheimpflug principle and sometimes achieve remarkably deep depth of field at comparatively wide apertures. This is the way I “cheat” on, circumvent or negate diffraction when ever I can get away with it.

I don't worry about this too much about most of theses issues if any particular image is going to be viewed or displayed in smaller formats like thumbnail screen shots on a E business catalog site or an insert in a brochure or ad. In large format end usages; billboards, large display prints, menu boards, etc, all of those issues like noise, sharpness and diffraction become more worrisome. I just try to head off much of this in the planing stage, and make the right lens choices and methods so as to minimize highly problematic post processing remedies.

When I mess up or grab a shot that is plagued with noise, poor focus and/or diffraction, I “cheat” again and hand the file over to my retoucher/IT guru/computer nerd/wizard, code named “Houdini” and let him fix it. When he tells me what complex shenanigans he had to do to clean up my mess- I just smile, pay him and say “I don't wanna know! The luxury of commercial photography! I hope my preventative suggestions help.

Ed

Reply
Feb 11, 2018 15:10:08   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
Here is a link to a tutorial in my dropbox that I prepared on Sharpening in ACR/Lightroom that some have found useful.

Please let me know if it comes through ok or if there is any problem opening it.

%20SHORT%20VERSION.pdf?dl=0https://www.dropbox.com/s/mpnir58xcmklwpt/ACR%20Sharpening%20-

Best regards,
Dave

Reply
 
 
Feb 11, 2018 15:41:50   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
Another (perhaps obvious) approach is to select problem areas and work on them separately. Global adjustments (which is what the sharpening/denoise section gives you) are your first step, but you may find that it's only certain areas that are giving you problems and causing you to limit the global adjustments that you want to make. Working on problem areas in isolation will enable you to push the global adjustments further.

In Lightroom the sharpen/denoise tools that the Adjustments brush gives you are basic but they're well chosen. The Noise slider will soften the smaller textures like luminance noise, but if you have larger stuff like grain, going left (negative) with the Sharpening slider will help with that. And going positive with the Sharpening slider will give you a good mix of texture-based and edge-based sharpening.

Reply
Feb 11, 2018 17:04:02   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
Correction and additional advice:

I have been contacted by a concerned member who provided me with the following data re "diffraction". I mention that my current, newere prime lenses. do not seem to suffer form as much diffraction issue as the older my older ones and I did qualify my statement with the world "perhaps". Nonetheless, I fell it is important to add more precise and important data to clarify and authenticate my advice and correct any errors or statements which may be misconstrued or that are more opinion that fact. Some of my advice is based on my experience and observations in my day to day work.

Of course, the OP's inquiry was more directed at remedial aspects and my answer was more preventative.

Thanks with appreciation to Scotty- here's the science:

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
As far a diffraction is concerned, I find that is is less prevalent in some of my newer prime lenses. This perhaps is due to improved lens formulation and design. Again, in a studio environment with plenty of artificial lighting, I can use slower lenses.

Diffraction has nothing to do with lens design. It is a simple mechanical problem separate from lens design.

You have already noted that the size of the format is one of the major factors that determine diffraction limits. It affects digital sensors differently than film sensors.

Under normal circumstances a 24x36 film lens is not diffraction limited at f/16 but a digital camera higher than 12MP is, as you will see at https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm#calculator

What you might be seeing in better lens design are improvements in their ability to focus different wavelengths of light at the same distance to address chromatic aberration.

Another factor is that lenses designed with larger maximum apertures are sacrificing a little sharpness in order to let in more light. It's well known that f/2 and f/1.8 lenses appear to be sharper than f/1.4, f/1.2 or f/0.95 at f/2.8. But by the time you get down to f/8 most small format lenses overcome many of the aberrations that bother them wide open.

Reply
Feb 11, 2018 19:29:22   #
btbg
 
I don't use lightroom for sharpening or noise reduction. I prefer Topaz denoise and do my sharpening in photoshop.

Like Gene51 said there isn't a true formula for sharpening. It depends on what the image will be used for and the individual image.

For example I sharpen much more for newsprint than for print on photographic paper as ink tends to blur somewhat in newsprint and halos are unlikely to show.

My preferred sharpening tool is to use unsharp mask in photoshop with the image in LAB mode. I go to channels and only sharpen the lightness mode. I use a sharpening amount of 144 percent or less, usually much less with a radius of approximately 1.5 and a threshold of between 4 and 11.

If there is a lot of luminous noise at the same time that I am sharpening the lightness channel I may also use gaussian blur on either the A or B channel, whichever shows the most noise. On the blur I use a radius of between 2 and 8 depending on the amount of visible noise in the channel.

This does not address all noise problems, but it seems to help with problems caused by oversharpening in the lightness channel.

When I am satisfied with the amount of sharpening then I change the mode to RGB if I am going to do any noise reduction, or CMYK if it is going to press at the newspaper.

Reply
Feb 13, 2018 17:30:22   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
btbg wrote:
I don't use lightroom for sharpening or noise reduction. I prefer Topaz denoise and do my sharpening in photoshop.

Like Gene51 said there isn't a true formula for sharpening. It depends on what the image will be used for and the individual image.

For example I sharpen much more for newsprint than for print on photographic paper as ink tends to blur somewhat in newsprint and halos are unlikely to show.

My preferred sharpening tool is to use unsharp mask in photoshop with the image in LAB mode. I go to channels and only sharpen the lightness mode. I use a sharpening amount of 144 percent or less, usually much less with a radius of approximately 1.5 and a threshold of between 4 and 11.

If there is a lot of luminous noise at the same time that I am sharpening the lightness channel I may also use gaussian blur on either the A or B channel, whichever shows the most noise. On the blur I use a radius of between 2 and 8 depending on the amount of visible noise in the channel.

This does not address all noise problems, but it seems to help with problems caused by oversharpening in the lightness channel.

When I am satisfied with the amount of sharpening then I change the mode to RGB if I am going to do any noise reduction, or CMYK if it is going to press at the newspaper.
I don't use lightroom for sharpening or noise redu... (show quote)


I appreciate the help and advice on this all the advice is useful and opened up avenues to explore, I had some photo's printed yesterday, there is still a place locally that does wet printing with a fuji machine, I was pleased to see that some of the defects I saw at 100% just were not present at 7 by 5 in the print. (7x5 costs me 50cents but 8 by 10 is about $6 a time ).
maybe I should be scaling my images in the end if I am at 300dpi and 3000 x 2400 resolution, everything should look good even for pixel peepers. :)

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Advice from the Pros
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.