user_mobilelogo
Facebook
Dienstag, 13 September 2016 13:42

5 Foto-Formeln auf dem Prüfstand

5 Foto-Formeln auf dem Prüfstand

"Sonne lacht, Blende 8!" hat sicherlich jeder schon mal gehört. Fakt ist aber, die meisten dieser und ähnlicher Regeln stammen aus einer Zeit, in der Kameras noch nicht automatisch belichten konnten und man noch einen Film einlegen musste. Es stellt sich also die Frage: wie sehr sollte man sich daran halten? Macht das noch Sinn?

 

 

 

Regel 1 - Der Klassiker: Sonne lacht, Blende 8!

Das kennt jeder, der schon mal eine Kamera in der Hand hatte. Dummerweise beißt sich das mit diversen anderen Weisheiten, angefangen von: „Für Mensch und Tier nimm Blende vier.“, "Blende auf drei – der Hintergrund ist Brei." bis hin zu "Ist selbst Blende 2 zu knapp, nimm einfach den Deckel ab."

Anwendbar: Jein! Diese Regel beschreibt einen Sachverhalt, der so dermaßen allgemein ist, dass man kaum sagen kann, ob es Sinn macht sie zu befolgen. Grundsätzlich ist an sonnigen Tagen nichts zu sagen gegen Blende 8. Man schränkt sich aber kreativ sehr ein, wenn man sich stoisch daran hält. Während Landschaftsfotos meist noch gut gelingen sollten, stößt man bei Bildern mit Portraitcharakter unter Umständen schnell ans gestalterische Limit. Beispielsweise hält sich der Freistellungseffekt mit Blende 8 stark in Grenzen (bis hin zu ist nicht existent), wenn nicht gerade ein riesiger Abstand zwischen Model und Hintergrund besteht.

 

Regel 2 - Sunny Sixteen: Belichtungszeit = 1 / ISO bei Blende f/16

Oder in Worten: an einem sonnigen Tag, stell die Blende auf f/16 und belichte so lange wie der Kehrwert der eingestellten ISO Empfindlichkeit (also z.B. 1/400 s bei ISO400). Erscheint diese Regel auf den ersten Blick ähnlich allgemein wie die erste, so existieren hier immerhin noch diverse Verfeinerungen (f/22 bei Schnee/Sand, f/11 für leichte Bewölkung, f/8 für normale Bewölkung, f/5.6 für starke Bewölkung, f/4 für Sonnenauf-/untergänge).

Anwendbarkeit: Nein. Diese Regel stammt aus einer Zeit, in der der ISO Wert durch den eingelegten Film fest vorgegeben war .Heute kann man wesentlich flexibler auf die herrschenden Lichtverhältnisse reagieren. Außerdem liegt f/16 bei vielen Objektiven bereits hinter dem sog. "sweet spot" (die Blende, mit der das Objektiv die schärfsten Resultate erzielt). Das heißt, die stark geschlossene Blende verursacht bereits wieder Beugungsunschärfen und somit generell unschärfere Bilder als eigentlich möglich. Nicht zuletzt schränkt man sich hier ähnlich stark kreativ ein wie bei Regel 1.

 

Regel 3 - Looney Eleven: Belichtungszeit = 1 / ISO bei Blende f/11

Diese Regel ist das Äquivalent zu Regel 2, nur das Szenario ist ein anderes, nämlich die Mondfotografie. Auch diese Regel ist sehr allgemein, was aber nicht ganz so schlimm ist, denn die Situation ist auch deutlich eingeschränkter. Wenn man den Mond fotografiert, hat man fast immer viel schwarz und einen helleren Punkt im Bild (es sei denn man trickst mit den Double Exposure Features von modernen Kameras). Wenn man nicht gerade ein Teleskop zur Verfügung hat, ist dieser helle Punkt auch nie übermäßig groß. 

Anwendbarkeit: Ja! Diese Regel wird zwar nicht unbedingt beim ersten Versuch ein korrekt belichtetes Bild hervorbringen, bietet aber einen ausgezeichneten Startpunkt für Belichtungsanpassungen. Man liegt selten komplett daneben. Praxis-Pro-Tipp am Rande: Displayhelligkeit so gering wie möglich einstellen, während man den Mond fotografiert. Die Augen haben sich irgendwann an die Dunkelheit gewöhnt und es besteht die Gefahr, dass man mit einem zu hell eingestellten Display alles als Überbelichtung interpretiert. Aber am besten sowieso immer in RAW fotografieren, da kann man dann hinterher noch fast alles regeln. 

 

Regel 4 - Belichtungszeit bei "Mitziehern": 1 / Geschwindigkeit des Subjekts in km/h

Sogenannte Mitzieher sind Fotos, bei denen die Kamera während der Belichtung einem sich bewegenden Subjekt folgt. Mit etwas Übung bleibt so das Subjekt scharf, aber der Hintergrund verwischt. Auf diese Art und Weise entstandene Bilder vermitteln gut den Eindruck von Bewegung, Dynamik und Geschwindigkeit. Es stellt sich in diesem Fall aber die Frage: wie lange muss man für einen Möglichst guten Effekt belichten? Eine zu kurze Belichtung reicht nicht aus um das gewünschte Gefühl zu vermitteln. Eine zu lange Belichtung kann die Umgebung des Subjektes komplett unkenntlich machen und führt sehr wahrscheinlich auch beim Subjekt selbst zu einer verwackelten Darstellung. Eine Antwort gibt diese Mitzieher-Regel. Beispielhaft: Fotografiere den Rennradfahrer, der mit 40km/h fährt 1/40 Sekunde lang und den Sportwagen auf der Rennstrecke, der mit 250 Sachen an dir vorbeirauscht, mit 1/250 Sekunde.

Anwendbarkeit: Jein! Natürlich kommt es auch auf die Brennweite und den Abstand zum Motiv an, aber sobald das Subjekt das Bild einigermaßen gut ausfüllt, kann man sagen: diese Regel produziert brauchbare Ergebnisse. Beispielhaft zeigt das folgende Bild ein Foto, das ich mal auf einer Hochzeit geschossen habe. Die Belichtungszeit war 1/40 Sekunde und wir waren vielleicht etwas schneller unterwegs, maximal aber 50 km/h.

 

Regel 5 - Maximale Belichtungszeit bei Astrofotografie (die "600er Regel"): 600 / (Brennweite * Cropfaktor)

Diese Regel läuft einem auch häufiger als 500er Regel über den Weg, was aber deren Inhalt nicht extreeem verfälscht. Möchte man den Sternenhimmel fotografieren, "verwischen" die einzelnen Sterne aufgrund der Erdrotation während einer Langzeitbelichtung. Die verwendete Brennweite hat einen maßgeblichen Einfluss darauf, wie schnell das passiert (übrigens auch die Auflösung des Kamera Sensors, aber wir wollen es an dieser Stelle nicht unnötig kompliziert machen). Möchte man diesen Verwischungseffekt nicht haben, sollte man nicht länger belichten, als diese Regel vorgibt. Beispiel 24mm Objektiv an einer APS-C Kamera: 600 / (24*1,6) = 15,6 Sekunden. Belichtet man länger, ziehen die Sterne Spuren im Bild (was manchmal natürlich aber auch erwünscht sein kann). 

Anwendbarkeit: Ja! Das kommt in etwa hin. Wenn man nicht gerade mit einer 150 MP Kamera Bilder macht, die hinterher auf Hauswände tapeziert werden sollen, funktioniert diese Regel ziemlich gut. Das folgende Bild zeigt ein zugegebenermaßen etwas extremeres Beispiel. Verwendet wurde ein 8mm Fisheye an der Canon EOS 7D. Das heißt: 600 / (8 * 1,6) = max. 46,8 Sekunden. Das Bild wurde aber "nur" 30 Sekunden belichtet. Es hätte also noch etwas zeitlichen Puffer gegeben. Dafür gibt's aber auch absolut keine Anzeichen von Verwischungen.

 

Fazit:

Nicht alle Weisheiten aus analogen Tagen machen heute noch Sinn, aber erstaunlich viele. Gerade die Mitzieher- und die 600er Regel haben durch den technischen Fortschritt nichts an Gültigkeit eingebüßt und es kann sich lohnen, sie im Hinterkopf zu behalten.

P.S.: Widersprüche oder Ergänzungen gerne in die Kommentare!

 

 


Dir gefällt was du siehst? Dann zwitschere uns weiter oder like uns auf Facebook

19558 Kommentare

  • Kommentar-Link Victorkab Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 12:51 gepostet von Victorkab

    Scientists have identified an estimated 10% of all species on Earth. Here’s what they found in 2024
    kra24 cc

    A toothy toadstool. A vegetarian piranha with a distinctive mark. And a pygmy pipehorse floating in the Indian Ocean shallows.

    These wild wonders were among the hundreds of previously unknown species of animals, plants and fungi that scientists named and described for the first time in 2024, expanding our surprisingly limited knowledge of Earth’s diversity.

    “Scientists estimate that we’ve identified only one-tenth of all species on Earth,” said Dr.
    Shannon Bennett, chief of science at the California Academy of Sciences, in a statement.

    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken тор
    “While it is critical to place protections on known threatened species, we must also allocate resources towards identifying unknown species that may be just as important to the functioning of an ecosystem,” Bennett said.

    Researchers connected to the institution described 138 new species in 2024, including 32 fish. One standout was a pygmy pipehorse named Cylix nkosi. The seahorse relative was originally found in 2021 in the cool temperate waters surrounding the North Island of New Zealand, but the species described this year was discovered in the subtropical waters off South Africa, expanding the known range of this group to the Indian Ocean

    “South African reefs present notoriously difficult diving conditions with rough weather and intense, choppy waves — we knew we only had one dive to find it,” underwater photographer and marine biologist Richard Smith said in a statement.
    “This species is also quite cryptic, about the size of a golf tee, but luckily we spotted a female camouflaged against some sponges about a mile offshore on the sandy ocean floor.”

    The researchers involved in describing the new species chose nkosi as its name. A reference to the local Zulu word for “chief,” the name reflects the species’ crown-like head shape and acknowledges South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal province where it was found.

  • Kommentar-Link DanielKes Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 12:51 gepostet von DanielKes

    Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
    [url=https://kra23c.cc]кракен[/url]
    First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

    For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

    The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken marketplace
    Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

    And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

    Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

    Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
    Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

    His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

  • Kommentar-Link JosephNak Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 12:47 gepostet von JosephNak

    The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
    [url=https://kra23c.cc]кракен ссылка[/url]

    Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

    The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken ссылка
    The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

    So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

    In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

    Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
    But does that still hold true in 2024?

    According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

    “There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

    “If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

    Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

  • Kommentar-Link Joshuahamma Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 12:27 gepostet von Joshuahamma

    What New Glenn will do
    In some ways, New Glenn has already made its mark on the launch industry. Blue Origin has for years pitched the rocket to compete with both SpaceX and United Launch Alliance — a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin that buys engines from Blue Origin — for lucrative military launch contracts.
    omg сайт
    The US Space Force selected Blue Origin, ULA and SpaceX in June to compete for $5.6 billion worth of Pentagon contracts for national security missions slated to launch over the next four years.
    Blue Origin also has deals with several commercial companies to launch satellites. The contracts include plans to help deploy Amazon’s Kuiper internet satellites and a recently inked deal with AST SpaceMobile to help launch the Midland, Texas-based company’s space-based cellular broadband network.

    New Glenn could also be instrumental in building Blue Origin’s planned space station, called Orbital Reef. Blue Origin and it commercial partners, including Sierra Space and Boeing, among others, hope the station will one day provide a new destination for astronauts as the International Space Station is phased out of service.
    https://omgprice10.com
    омг вход
    New Glenn vs. other powerful rockets
    New Glenn packs significant power. Dubbed a “heavy-lift” vehicle, its capabilities lie between SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and the more powerful Falcon Heavy launch vehicle.

    SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9, for example, can haul up to 22.8 metric tons (50,265 pounds) to space. While New Glenn is capable of carrying about double that mass, it may also be roughly the same price as a Falcon 9: reportedly around $60 million to $70 million per launch.

    “I think in order to compete with Falcon 9, you have to go head-to-head or better on price,” said Caleb Henry, the director of research at Quilty Space, which provides data and analysis about the space sector.

    The question, however, is whether Blue Origin will be able to sustain a competitive price point, Henry added.

    Still, one feature that makes New Glenn stand out is its large payload fairing, or nose cone. The component protects the cargo bay and is a whopping 23 feet (7 meters) wide — nearly 6 feet (2 meters) larger than that of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy.

    Henry said Blue Origin likely opted to outfit New Glenn with such a large fairing in order to help fulfill Bezos’ vision of the future.

  • Kommentar-Link HarryLes Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 12:00 gepostet von HarryLes

    Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
    kraken вход
    First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

    For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

    The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
    https://kra23c.cc
    kra23 cc
    Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

    And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

    Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

    Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
    Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

    His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

  • Kommentar-Link Mosesnesia Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 11:57 gepostet von Mosesnesia

    The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
    kraken официальный сайт

    Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

    The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken войти
    The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

    So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

    In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

    Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
    But does that still hold true in 2024?

    According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

    “There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

    “If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

    Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

  • Kommentar-Link Hermantup Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 11:56 gepostet von Hermantup

    A year ago today, things went from bad to worse for Boeing
    kraken даркнет

    At 5 p.m. PT on January 5, 2024, Boeing seemed like a company on the upswing. It didn’t last. Minutes later, a near-tragedy set off a full year of problems.

    As Alaska Airlines flight 1282 climbed to 16,000 feet in its departure from Portland, Oregon, a door plug blew out near the rear of the plane, leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage. Phones and clothing were ripped away from passengers and sent hurtling into the night sky. Oxygen masks dropped, and the rush of air twisted seats next to the hole toward the opening.
    https://kra23c.cc
    кракен онион
    Fortunately, those were among the few empty seats on the flight, and the crew got the plane on the ground without any serious injuries. The incident could have been far worse — even a fatal crash.

    Not much has gone right for Boeing ever since. The company has had one misstep after another, ranging from embarrassing to horrifying. And many of the problems are poised to extend into 2025 and perhaps beyond.

    The problems were capped by another Boeing crash in South Korea that killed 179 people on December 29 in what was in the year’s worst aviation disaster. The cause of the crash of a 15-year old Boeing jet flown by Korean discount carrier Jeju Air is still under investigation, and it is quite possible that Boeing will not be found liable for anything that led to the tragedy.
    But unlike the Jeju crash, most of the problems of the last 12 months have clearly been Boeing’s fault.

    And 2024 was the sixth straight year of serious problems for the once proud, now embattled company, starting with the 20-month grounding of its best selling plane, the 737 Max, following two fatal crashes in late 2018 and early 2019, which killed 346 people.

    Still the outlook for 2024 right before the Alaska Air incident had been somewhat promising. The company had just achieved the best sales month in its history in December 2023, capping its strongest sales year since 2018.

    It was believed to be on the verge of getting Federal Aviation Administration approval for two new models, the 737 Max 7 and Max 10, with airline customers eager to take delivery. Approvals and deliveries of its next generation widebody, the 777X, were believed to be close behind. Its production rate had been climbing and there were hopes that it could be on the verge of returning to profitability for the first time since 2018.

  • Kommentar-Link Stacyric Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 11:55 gepostet von Stacyric

    Scientists have identified an estimated 10% of all species on Earth. Here’s what they found in 2024
    kraken тор браузер

    A toothy toadstool. A vegetarian piranha with a distinctive mark. And a pygmy pipehorse floating in the Indian Ocean shallows.

    These wild wonders were among the hundreds of previously unknown species of animals, plants and fungi that scientists named and described for the first time in 2024, expanding our surprisingly limited knowledge of Earth’s diversity.

    “Scientists estimate that we’ve identified only one-tenth of all species on Earth,” said Dr.
    Shannon Bennett, chief of science at the California Academy of Sciences, in a statement.

    https://kra23c.cc
    kraken ссылка
    “While it is critical to place protections on known threatened species, we must also allocate resources towards identifying unknown species that may be just as important to the functioning of an ecosystem,” Bennett said.

    Researchers connected to the institution described 138 new species in 2024, including 32 fish. One standout was a pygmy pipehorse named Cylix nkosi. The seahorse relative was originally found in 2021 in the cool temperate waters surrounding the North Island of New Zealand, but the species described this year was discovered in the subtropical waters off South Africa, expanding the known range of this group to the Indian Ocean

    “South African reefs present notoriously difficult diving conditions with rough weather and intense, choppy waves — we knew we only had one dive to find it,” underwater photographer and marine biologist Richard Smith said in a statement.
    “This species is also quite cryptic, about the size of a golf tee, but luckily we spotted a female camouflaged against some sponges about a mile offshore on the sandy ocean floor.”

    The researchers involved in describing the new species chose nkosi as its name. A reference to the local Zulu word for “chief,” the name reflects the species’ crown-like head shape and acknowledges South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal province where it was found.

  • Kommentar-Link skoraya narkologicheskaya pomosh_zrKt Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 11:31 gepostet von skoraya narkologicheskaya pomosh_zrKt

    скорая наркологическая помощь на дому в москве скорая наркологическая помощь на дому в москве .

  • Kommentar-Link CalienteCasino Mittwoch, 08 Januar 2025 11:29 gepostet von CalienteCasino

    caliente.directorio-de-casinos-mx.com

    Download apk file online casino caliente - win right now!
    caliente casino

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.

Diese Website verwendet Cookies – nähere Informationen dazu und zu Ihren Rechten als Benutzer finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung im Impressum der Seite. Mit einem Klick auf OK stimmen Sie der Verwendung von Cookies zu.