Spot the Difference..
Occasionally, you have a nice picture lined up in your viewfinder but there’s something spoiling your shot. This was the case when I visited Mousehole (pronounced Mowzul) harbour this week. I was standing on the harbour wall, I could see St. Michaels Mount out in the bay, I had a nice oversized cog-wheel attached to the sea wall to add foreground interest to a composition but I had some very ugly railings spoiling my shot. The railings are a modern addition to the harbour and understandable I suppose. Afterall, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve walked off the edge of something because the authorities hadn’t put up a barrier to protect me from myself.. 
Anyway, Photoshop to the rescue. Using the clone stamp tool in Photoshop CS6, I was able to make the railings disappear..
Before
After
24mm f/11 1/80 sec. ISO-100
You may also have noticed while I was editing the photo I added an extra bollard. Things look so much better in threes and this seemed to balance the composition.. 
This is not something I’ve done before. If I couldn’t take my shot because there was something spoiling it, I simply didn’t take it. Is this cheating? Should I have not taken the shot or is photoshopping like this a legitimate exercise? I’d be interested in your thoughts.
You did a great job on the photo. I feel that making the picture is no different than an artist creating a scene. We could not do what people can today, when we where shooting negative film. Sure somethings could be changed but not the way we can today. Good job.
April 10, 2013 at 4:10 pm
Thank you very much James!
April 10, 2013 at 4:57 pm
The amount of time I’ve spent in Mousehole and I’ve never noticed that big cog! As for removing the railings – very irresponsible, they are there for a reason
April 8, 2013 at 7:08 pm
I guess the railings serve a purpose when hundreds of people turn up to view the lights at Christmas. It’s a shame though. Mevagissey manages without railings and I don’t hear of hundreds of tourists walking off the edge into the water each year.
April 8, 2013 at 7:32 pm
I think anything goes as long as you don’t claim the image to be something that it isn’t.
April 4, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Thank you Rhys.
April 4, 2013 at 6:52 pm
I view all my photos with thoughts as to whether they can be improved with some judicious photoshopping. Photojournalism aside since there is the obvious need to record accurately, my photos reflect my vision of the scene no matter how I arrived at it. I like what you very expertly did with the photo.
April 2, 2013 at 1:08 am
Thank you very much Lynne. I appreciate your comment.
April 2, 2013 at 5:59 am
An open and honest discussion …. very interesting to hear other people’s thoughts on the subject ChillB !
You’ve done amazing work with editing and using the clone tool to get the result here, patience and skill comes to mind .
I like it de-railed
March 27, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Thanks Poppy. It didn’t take terribly long truth be told. I prefer it de-railed too but I think I will continue to take the shots without the distractions rather than the ones with and then rely on Photoshop to clean things up. I was disappointed that the harbour at Mousehole was surrounded by these railings when so many similar harbours are not but then Mousehole is famous for its Christmas lights with hundreds of people flocking to see them each night. I imagine in the dark and the crush, quite a few people might end up in the water if not for the railings.
March 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm
It’s a lot of work, but I think you’ve created a better picture. Very nice.
March 23, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Thank you Shimon.
March 23, 2013 at 9:19 pm
Beautiful image. Definately better without the railing.
March 23, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Thank you Jim!
March 23, 2013 at 8:01 pm
You’ve done a great service by navigating this issue so transparently, and throwing it out there for everyone to think about, together. It seems you personally still have some ambivalence about it. Maybe that means playing around more would be a good thing, to see where it takes you. And thank you for the time & effort I know it takes to respond thoughtfully to so many comments.
March 23, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Thank you. I appreciate that!
March 23, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Good thinking to remove those
March 23, 2013 at 7:30 am
Thank you Irena.
March 23, 2013 at 7:34 am
I’ve had similar conversations on my blog a while ago. For me it is not cheating as long as it is not done to deceive, you are not hurting anyone and you are not misreporting an event. The picture is a good work of art; aesthetically pleasing. The addition and subtraction of the elements improved that artwork and you advertise what you have done to change major, fixed the image. I have no problem with that at all. It would not bother me if someone had cloned out a person or some litter in the image and didn’t declare it.
If you had done this amount of work to an image, sold it to me and not declared the changes and I later compared the shot to reality, then I would be less comfortable with what had been done and feel deceived. My biggest gripe is when people declare wildlife shots and they have taken them in a zoo or bird of prey centre.
Great clarity and dynamic range in that photo by the way. Your accurate cloning certainly did improve it.
I last visited Cornwall and Mousehole as a boy, 37 years ago. I would love to go back and take my camera.For now I’ll have to browse your blog!
March 22, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Thank you very much Ivor.
March 23, 2013 at 7:32 am
Sorry – I really haven’t time to read all these comments …… and this subject always is a can of worms!
I think the changes you have made are perfect for the picture. The ‘problem’ with Photoshopping is when people try to pass something off as ‘real’. Be honest with yourself, be honest with the world – and read the rules carefully if you’re entering competitions!
March 22, 2013 at 7:18 pm
That just about sums it up Noeline.
March 22, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Good skills Adrian. Now it’s a piece of art – your interpretation – and not just a landscape.
You had some nice summery cirrus clouds down there too. It’s been bleak and freezing cold over here in Cambridge this week!
March 22, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Thanks Finn. It was an absolutely glorious day here on Monday. After taking the pictures at Marazion and then Mousehole, I drove round the coast to Pendeen, stopping along the way and it was like a summer’s day without the tourists. It wasn’t bad Tuesday but it’s deteriorated considerably since then. It’s been raining here solidly for the last 48 hours so Monday seems like a very distant memory.
March 22, 2013 at 7:19 pm
I think that in removing the safety railings, the picture itself becomes a comment on modern civilisation – do we have the right to mar natural beauty in the view of human safety? In that way, I believe the edited image to be much more interesting than the original – a reflection of the beauty that the photographer percieves through his lens rather than an exact depiction of what can be seen.
March 22, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Thank you Joe!
March 22, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Every photograph is manipulated to some extent, even those that are straight from camera, be they film or digital files.The extent to which that manipulation is taken is for me a personal preference. I don’t like HDR particularly but could look at photos taken by the likes of Salgado and Don McCullin, all day long. I guess in a sense there is a pure form of photography, a realists view….this is what the camera saw and then there is an artistic representation. The artist may also be a realist and the realist an Artist and so in between the extremes the lines will and do blur.
In your shot I don’t mind the railings really. If I didn’t want them in shot then I would personally look for another POV.
I’m forever ‘walking into shots’ to get rid of overhead cables. Having said that I am quite happy adding textural layers to create effects in some of my work. Would I substitute a different sky to improve a shot? Or remove people that were there.Yes.
I also have some work that is untouched or ‘straight from camera’ but even these have contrast/brightness adjustments.Ultimately it’s a representation and guided by your own sense of what it is you wish the viewer to see. Opinions will always be there but in the end you can do whatever you like.
March 22, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Thanks Paul.
March 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm
No excuse for not getting that shot now! – just photoshop it in or photoshop it out!
March 22, 2013 at 11:17 am
There really is no substitute for getting things right in camera. If I can’t get the picture I want because something is spoiling the shot, I wouldn’t take the picture or I’ll try and get a different angle. I like to take pictures not spend hours at the computer.
I posted these pictures to open up a discussion and it’s certainly done that. How and where we ultimately draw the line as to what is and what isn’t an acceptable use of photoshop has to come down to personal choice I think but if you’re entering a competition, you’d better be aware of the rules. I wouldn’t have dreamt of posting this picture and passing it off as just another shot from my portfolio but that’s me.
As I’ve mentioned, telling a digital photographer they can’t use Photoshop is like telling a film photographer they can’t use their darkroom but the debate raises interesting issues. As I said to Ben, if you physically remove a piece of rubbish that’s spoiling your beach shot, is that any different to removing it digitally later? The result is the same. Isn’t it?
March 22, 2013 at 1:04 pm
I’m with you Adrian. If it helps the image do it. In my opinion it is no different than a fungi or flower photographer carrying around a pair of scissors to remove unwanted foliage etc.
March 22, 2013 at 8:59 pm
The removal of the railing and the addition of an extra mooring point are aesthetic changes that make the image look better. This though is a contentious issue and with the recent controversy with the British landscape photographer of the year award your image would be disqualified (I wrote about it here http://aperture64.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/seeing-the-wood-through-the-photoshopped-trees/ ).
You have raised a point in showing the two image because if you hadn’t pointed it out, who would have known?
I think the amount of photoshopping is up to each person. I think people (general public) have become so aware of what happens to images it is nice to say “Yes it is edited but no it is not “photoshopped”".
March 22, 2013 at 9:28 am
Thanks for the link Ben, I enjoyed the article. I would not have entered this in a competition regardless of what the rules said. My conscience simply wouldn’t allow it, I’d take a different picture. However, I will happily use ND filters and feel this is legitimate as is adjusting the contrast, brightness, colour etc of my RAW image.
I’ve looked through my viewfinder and seen litter, an old carrier bag, drinks bottles and other rubbish washed up on the beach, and I’ve gone and removed it from my frame, not thought ‘I’ll get to that later in Photoshop’. Was removing the litter from the beach cheating or is it only cheating if I do it later digitally? Obviously nobody is ever going to know that I cleaned up the beach before I took my shot but they might if I cleaned up the beach after. Is there any real difference?
March 22, 2013 at 10:10 am
Funny you talk about removing rubbish, my mother use to ask me if it was right for a photographer to move things in a scene before photographing it, for example cleaning the beach or moving a branch into a better position. My reply was that if you can get it right in camera life is so much easier.
The fact is that there is no difference removing a bottle on a beach in Photoshop or in real life. Some people do it in Photoshop because for them this is easier and others it is easier just to walk those few paces. In both instances the photographers reality is being presented, both images don’t have the bottle.
The question that should be asked is, Does the image represent the reality the photographer sees?
Each person has a different perspective on reality and the way the world looks, in removing or even adding something to a scene is just adapting the image to the reality of the creator, that as viewers we get to see a glimpse of in their work.
A little philosophical but a good starting point of a hypothesis.
March 22, 2013 at 9:37 pm
Absolutely!
March 23, 2013 at 7:33 am
Amazing! You are so creative, and why not. I’ll certainly be getting Photoshop at some point. Carry on creating. I’m learning from you.
March 22, 2013 at 8:08 am
Thank you so much Lizzie.
March 22, 2013 at 8:56 am
If you were a painter and wanted to re-create or capture the image you saw or envisioned from that position, you could just as easily choose to add the extra bollard and remove the railing…or add a sailboat…or a flock of gulls flying overhead…it’s your image, your art…. Beautifully rendered, Adrian…thank you for sharing the images and the platform for dialogue…interesting commentary….
March 22, 2013 at 4:06 am
Thanks Scott. I feel as you do. As I said to Lignumdraco, telling a digital photographer they can’t use Photoshop is like telling a film photographer they can’t use their darkroom. How can you draw a line? It has been an interesting discussion.
March 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
You’re welcome…and yes, very interesting discussion…it’s funny how our species is about lines, isn’t it…first with maps and now with art…arbitrary differences that amount to naught….
March 23, 2013 at 1:07 am
It is indeed Scott.
March 23, 2013 at 7:33 am
Awesome job there! So you cloned the sea to cover the railings, I presume? Very good job!
March 22, 2013 at 3:36 am
I did indeed. Thanks for commenting.
March 22, 2013 at 7:56 am
Well, there are recent examples of prize-winning photographs being disqualified because of photoshopping. I guess it all depends on the occasion/purpose. I see no problem with doing this for your pleasure and the edited photograph is beautiful, but it would be a different situation in a photography contest, depending on the rules.
March 22, 2013 at 1:44 am
Thanks for your comment. I find this whole topic quite bizarre which is why I posted. The 2012 World Press Photography competition was won by Paul Hanson. The photograph has come in for criticism for being overly processed in Photoshop. Who are these people that are drawing these lines and how are they drawing them? I can’t see how anyone can assume to dictate to an individual photographer just how they can go about realising their artistic vision. If a competition says I can’t use Photoshop in the rules, then how do I process my RAW competition entry. It’s like telling a film photographer they can’t use their darkroom. If I can use Photoshop to process but I can’t manipulate the photo in any way would that extend to not being able to remove a dust spot or a bird that appears as a black spot on the photo? It’s an interesting debate that will run and run I’m sure.
March 22, 2013 at 7:55 am
At the moment, I guess its a bit like backyard cricket with regards to competitions: my bat, my rules.
Seriously, I think common sense has to prevail. Until then, the debate continues.
March 22, 2013 at 9:19 am
This one will run and run..
March 22, 2013 at 10:11 am
Well you certainly have improved the view. Be careful without those railings there! ; )
March 22, 2013 at 1:12 am
Thank you Karen.
March 22, 2013 at 7:31 am
It’s your image, you’re the artist. You make up the rules to suit you. End of discussion as far as I’m concerned. The next question is whether your audience likes the result or not. In this case, I like it very much. I don’t do this sort of stuff simply because I haven’t learned my way around in Photoshop… otherwise I would probably clean up my images some. Perhaps someday.
March 22, 2013 at 1:01 am
Thanks for your comment Gunta. I’m inclined to agree with you.
March 22, 2013 at 7:31 am
I am a failure at spot the difference, or its late and i’m tired…but either way I didn’t notice what you had done.
I like both of them, and personally I don’t see a problem with creative edits, It is all a matter of degree, after all I doubt that the colors in those pictures match the colors on the actual day. If we have already bumped up the color and contrast etc. then what is a little spring cleaning of other unwanted elements?
No one criticizes black and white pictures, but they are some of the biggest manipulations around:)
March 21, 2013 at 11:42 pm
Thank you James. I removed the railings and added a bollard..
March 22, 2013 at 7:29 am
Great Composition and I like the third bollard inserted in the shot and the modern safety fence removed.
I erase little bits and pieces in my photos all the time, perhaps not quite a whole fence, but if it works for you, use Photoshop. I’m not a great photo editor per se, but I do alter the contrast, lighten dark shadows, or increase the highlights or midtones if it creates a more balanced exposure. I guess if I knew all the technical side of my DSLR, I would attempt this type of ‘tweaking’ in camera. I’ve never used the histogram in my camera.
March 21, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Thank you Victoria. I check the histogram to get a rough idea as to whether the exposure is correct. I tend to expose to the right, that is add a little bit of exposure compensation to shift the histogram to the right. When shooting RAW this ensures all details are captured. It’s necessary to do all the tweeks you mention in editing software if you are shooting RAW.
The idea that people with some kind of assumed authority can draw a line and say beyond this you cannot go when processing your photograph completely baffles me. It’s yours and unless you are a photojournalist or you’re producing photos for holiday brochures where you should be shooting what is, not what you’d like it to be, you have the creative vision and I don’t think anyone has the right to tie your hands and tell you what you’ve done is wrong. Liking or not liking is another matter. Clearly these things are subjective.
March 21, 2013 at 11:04 pm
I also like your transition to three; as a complete newbie to Photoshop, it’d be interesting to hear how long this edit took you.
March 21, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Thank you Tricia. I guess this took about an hour, maybe a bit less. As with any tool, once you get the hang of it and recognise the pitfalls to avoid, the job can be done a lot faster.
March 21, 2013 at 10:48 pm
I am going to rain on the parade Adrian. As much as I love your insights into how to alter shots, you know that I am all about making the normal beautiful. Perhaps there was another angle to shoot from, or you could have navigated the lens differently. That said, if it isn’t an image for photojournalism but for aesthetics, there’s nothing wrong unless you can tell the story of what was changed and why… which you have
March 21, 2013 at 9:45 pm
Not at all Marina, I appreciate your comment. There wasn’t another workable angle for this photo and normally I just wouldn’t have taken it. I used this picture specifically to raise this issue. All the lead-in lines in the composition lead to a vanishing point that culminates with St Michael’s Mount. I couldn’t get higher and lower would have made a difference. Bottom line, the fence was fouling the shot.
Photojournalists don’t have to resort to Photoshop for their pictures to be biased. As I said to Phil, if the photographer crops out the guy in the crowd with the Kalashnikov, then the picture showing the policeman firing on an apparently innocent crowd is very damning. I’ve absolutely no doubt this has happened.
If we see a wonderful landscape shot in a magazine with three trees perfectly placed creating a very pleasing composition, how do we know an extra tree hasn’t been removed. Does it hurt us in any way if this is the case. I just wonder if we can trust anything we see now or maybe we never could.
March 21, 2013 at 10:46 pm
Well the removed and added portions definitely improve the photo greatly I believe.
Since it’s something you do for yourself it’s fine to present a touched up version. If you were working as a photojournalist that would be a different story. I know of a news photographer that was fired from a paper because he embellished the flames in photos taken at a fire scene.
Beside, so many of the images we see today are much more photo illustrations then they are photographs anyway.
This truly does look super Adrian!
March 21, 2013 at 9:41 pm
Thank you Phil. Quite right I’d say that a photojournalist should be fired for embellishing a photograph. Photojournalism is an area where photoshop has no real part to play beyond basic processing however, a photographers angle of shot can greatly influence the story being told. Crop out the guy with the kalashnikov and a policeman’s actions, shooting at apparenlty innocent people, could look excessive and be very damning for example. I’m sure this has happened. How do we know now what is real? No one can be truly impartial.
March 21, 2013 at 10:15 pm
I think it was a legitimate exercise.You make the photo better.
March 21, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Thanks very much Lou!
March 21, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Hi Adrian,
Definitely improved without the fence, but in my opinion the extra bollard which is also a bit obvious the same as the next, you went a bit too far!
Interesting subject, where does editing stop, personally i wouldnt make it if there´s something spoiling it (like you normally) and specially not with landscape or any documenting type of photograpy,i think…
Greetings, Ron
March 21, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Thanks Ron. As I said, it’s certainly not something I’ll be making a habit of. I like to shoot the landscape as it is. There are many harbours in Cornwall that don’t have barriers around them so I don’t know why this one has but it certainly spoils the aesthetic.
March 21, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Skillful cloning! Not cheating at all, but more work for sure. It’s beautiful!
March 21, 2013 at 9:19 pm
Thank you very much Elena.
March 21, 2013 at 10:03 pm
Nicely done! You’ve improved the image without drastically changing everything in it. I think some people go totally crazy photoshopping their photo into an entirely different image and I’m not so fond of that. Not so here, this is lovely!
March 21, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Thank you very much.
March 21, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Although I’m a bit of a minimalist with Photoshop changes, I think the change was warranted and did not significantly change the actual picture besides making it much better.
Nancy
March 21, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Thank you Nancy.
March 21, 2013 at 7:58 pm
I don’t think it’s about cheating, or not cheating, I think it’s about you, and what you want your photos to reflect.
I have zero issue with someone digitally altering/enhancing a photo to make it more symmetrical and visually appealing. I also have great respect for people who create entire images digitally in Photoshop, making landscapes and things that don’t really exist. I don’t think any of that is cheating — I think that is a reflection of the artist and his/her art.
Personally, I do not make alterations to my photos. I have ‘healed’ a spot or two, if there was a speck of dust on the lens, or something small. But no large scale changes. I will turn the colors/shadows/highlights up and down, sharpen the image, and, maybe switch it from color to b&w. But, that’s just me… I like my photos to represent the world as I see it, flaws and all. For you, your artist’s eye sees the image as it is, then imagines it as it could be. Both are just fine.
It’s a beautiful scene, either way… and, you’ve captured it beautifully.
March 21, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Thanks for that John. It’s not something I’ve done before and I don’t see myself making a habit of it as my photography, like yours, is about representing the world as it is. It was an interesting exercise for me and I’m glad I went through the process. In this digital age, possibilities seem limitless.
March 21, 2013 at 7:55 pm
The editing clearly made a world of difference and opened up the view significantly! Love it. It’s fun to experiment isn’t it! Sharon
March 21, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Thank you very much Sharon.
March 21, 2013 at 7:50 pm
Three is definitely better. It’s amazing the balance it brings. Wish I had your skills. Wish I had Photoshop. Wish I had a decent camera. That’s three wishes. OK, I’m opening my eyes now. Nope, they haven’t come true.
March 21, 2013 at 6:33 pm
Thank you. I hope your wishes come true!
March 21, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Excellent work! I think it is only considered cheating if you lied about “photoshopping” some parts of the photo. I agree with what the rest of the comments say, the “after” shot was your vision when you took the shot, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.
March 21, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Thank you very much Gracie.
March 21, 2013 at 6:49 pm
In my eyes excellent done and I agree with “Gracie” and her comment…
March 21, 2013 at 9:58 pm
Thank you very much Mr Drake!
March 21, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Hi Chillbrook, I’ve always been a purist but this comparison is persuasive. An utterly gorgeous result!
Viv
March 21, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Thanks for that Viv. As I said, it’s not something I’ve done before and I don’t intend to make a habit of it but in this case, it did have a positive impact.
March 21, 2013 at 6:51 pm
The editing adds well to your image
March 21, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Thank you Ravi.
March 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Wow, that’s really wonderful magic, Adrian. I know I shouldn’t believe everything I see in photos, but I didn’t know that it was possible to make things disappear into thin air, and add stuff like bollards.
Great photo either way.
March 21, 2013 at 6:08 pm
Thank you very much Sylvia. The camera most certainly does lie. We certainly have to question how fabulous all those celebrities really look..
March 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm
I do, constantly. It’s a great comfort. 😄
March 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm
March 22, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Hm, I have had that discussion with others before. I think it depends how you see your work. Do you want to record what you see as it is? Like: ‘This is a photo of Kinloss Abbey’ Or do you want to convey a feeling, an emotion, a mood? In that case the subject is really secondary anyway. As far as I am concerned anything goes. If I want to achieve a certain outcome in my art or my photography, I do whatever it takes to get it. Call it cheating if you like, but there are so many things beyond a photographer’s control, so when I am after a particular end result I will use any means I have at my disposal. It could mean moving the subject into an artificial environment. Or introducing an artificial background. But it also includes editing software, I’m afraid, not that I have too much of that at my disposal as yet.
March 21, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Thanks Sonja. I agree with you. Artists have always had a great deal of license when it came to painting a scene. As photographers, with the editing software now available, we too can add and take away to create the composition we want.
March 21, 2013 at 6:21 pm
When you can produce a beautiful result like this, should it really matter whether or not it is cheating? I think the fact that you could see how removing this and adding that would result in something great, and then carrying it out, is always worth it, and is a great exercise.
March 21, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Thank you. I appreciate your comment very much!
March 21, 2013 at 6:18 pm
How can there be cheating if there are no rules?
It’s up to each and everyone to decide for themselves, no? I think the “after” pictures is nicer, without distracting railings. Very beautiful place, I wish I had one of the houses. 
When I learn how to use Photoshop, I’ll try to edit like this as well. 
March 21, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Thanks Camilla. I agree. I’d also like on of those houses.
March 21, 2013 at 6:17 pm
It took a while to notice the changes
Nice job!
March 21, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Thank you.
March 21, 2013 at 6:11 pm
You did a nice job with that clone stamp. The picture worked either way, but it is better for sure without the rails locking us in.
March 21, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Thank you very much Mike. Appreciate that.
March 21, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Good job! Beautiful shot.
March 21, 2013 at 5:50 pm
Thanks Neil!
March 21, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Fabulous changes! I really like what you did. You worked harder to create an image that met your standards. Its not like you are trying to pass this off as a factual representation of something. It’s art – it’s wonderful!
March 21, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Thank you very much!
March 21, 2013 at 6:10 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with what you’ve done. As an artist you have a certain vision and I agree I think it looks better.
March 21, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Thanks Edith. I appreciate your comment.
March 21, 2013 at 6:10 pm