Is iWeb 08's image quality horrible?...

Has Apple resolved the image quality problems we are having?
Does anyone have a workaround for the poor image quality we're getting in iWeb - one that doesn't involve converting images to swf and embedding as a web snippet.
If others are experiencing the same problems with image quality please speak up and voice your experiences.

You might want to just check this thread if you're looking for others experiencing the same problem.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1078666&tstart=0

Similar Messages

Photo Quality horrible in iWeb....any ideas?

Hey everyone. I just finished making my website. Its very early, and Im just working out the kinks until worrying about making it a bit more appealing. Anyways, one of the issues Im having is photo quality. I am taking my photos on an 8mp camera. When I import them into iWeb they look compressed and horrible when viewed (once enlarged through slideshow or just clicking). If you want to check out the website to see what I mean, the adress is:
http://web.mac.com/jon_leibowitz/iWeb/Site/Home.html
go to gallery and click on any of them. The main aim of my website is my photography, so its crucial for the photos to look top notch. btw, Im using high resolution pictures, imported them into iPhoto, and then used the multimedia button to import them into iWeb. Thanks!

Hello Jonathan!
Really nice photos! You, no doubt, have a much better eye than I do for details and such and it's no wonder that various compression artifacts would be more noticeable to you! Your photos look very acceptable to me.
The downside to the iPhoto-to-iWeb one-click automatic process is that you the photographer lose control over two things... the quality of resolution scaling and the quality of jpg (re)compression. Preprocessing of your images in something like Photoshop would definitely give you more control over these variables and would most likely allow you to see more acceptable images as posted online.
For your information, the max resolution for the Apple enhanced slideshows is 800x600. If you import a photo at any higher resolution, iWeb will take over again and resize and recompress your photo. So my recommendation to you would be to preprocess your images to make them look good at 800x600 and prevent iWeb from doing anything else to your images.
I hope this helps.

IWeb and image quality of Photoshop jpegs

i am constructing a website consisting of my photography... with color shots i am noticing a dramatic 'flattening' of the vivid nature of my shots in iWeb as opposed to how they appear on photoshop... i believe i have followed the photoshop process properly... so there would be an image now at 72 ppi about 6 inches by four inches as a jpeg looking pretty vivid in photoshop on my screen. when i bring this over, via iPhoto, into iWeb image quality is lost... of note as well though is that this image does not look to hot in iPhoto as well... not sure then what forum this question belongs in... any quidance at all is appreciated.

hi Tomas... thanks for your response... i did drag a photo from my finder directly into iweb and within the iweb program it looked great but as soon as i published i lost saturation... odd... so i can avoid iphoto now, which is great, but something is happening in the process still... i have turned off the iweb image optimization and played with tiffs and jpegs within photoshop to try to get the final image to come out as intended... if you have any other suggestion please let me know... thanks again for your post... i will check out your link.

Horrible image quality?

I'm not sure if it's just me not being happy with the image quality as I haven't seen many people mention it before, but most (if not all) of my images come out with very obvious artifacting/noise/discolouration - whatever you want to call it.
Link to one of the most obvious examples: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8721/img0885jw.jpg
Is it just me that's having this issue? Tried in all sorts of lights, with/without flash etc. Front facing camera doesn't seem to have this issue

Red seems to be a problem for a lot of image / video compression, I can't tell you how many shows I've watched that red looks terrible. (not saying that is the problem, just a common thing I see).
Having said that, I don't have anything red besides an all red CD here and it looks a little crappy, but not nearly as crappy as your flower (but it doesn't have any differing shades of red, just solid red). Plus I am indoor with non-ideal lighting.
No one elses pictures here had something really really red. Do your pictures look decent if you take a picture of a non-red flower?
Message was edited by: HawksFan

Poor image quality when publishing to .mac

This is very frustrating.
I buy a high resolution, high quality, royalty-free image. I resize it and crop it in my image editing program and save it as a maximum size .jpg.
I preview the image in Apple preview, and also drag the image into my web browser and it looks crisp and sharp.
I put the image on my iWeb page and publish to .mac. I check my site and the image looks horrible! It looks as though it got compressed again on the lowest setting.
Something very weird is happening to some people. I've read other discussion on this but they are all unresolved.
I'm a graphic designer and I've used dreamweaver and published to other servers. I know about image quality and optimization. I'm doing the same steps and procedures I've always done to optimize images and I've never had this problem except when I publish to .mac.
There is a very weird and serious issue going on and I hope someone can resolve this or has an answer.
Why would an image look crisp and sharp when I view it in my image editing program or in Apple preview, but when publish to .mac it gets re-compressed?
This may sound silly but do you think Apple is doing this randomly and automatically to users to save server space on .mac? Maybe they think people wont notice or care?
I am very upset and frustrated and I can't think of any other reason why this is happening.
Any advice is helpful. Thanks!

James,
Thank you very much for your help.
Here is what I did. I used Apple grab and took a screen shot of my iWeb page where the low res graphic was in position.
I used this as a "template" for cropping my original image in my image editing program to the exact size I needed.
I cropped my original image to the size of my "grab" template, deleted the template layer and saved the sharp image as a maximum file size .jpg and placed it into my iWeb page, with "use original size". It fit perfectly in my layout and looked sharp and crisp.
Now, I published my site and checked the image.
You were correct! The image came out crisp and sharp, no more quality loss.
To test your theory, I went back to iWeb and placed an iWeb mask around the same image and re-published it.
Sure enough! The same image that was once sharp had terrible image loss.
So I guess you're right, adding any effects to an image creates the image loss.
Well, this is a terrible shame because I really like some of the border effects. For example, in a photo gallery, you can use an effect such as a slight page curl with drop shadow that appears only for the thumbnail image but the when you click on the image full size, there is no page curl, just the pure image.
If I create this slight page curl effect and drop shadow in my image editing program, then both my thumbnail and full size image will have this effect.
Not only that, but in order to get the thumbnail image to lay over my background color, I would have to re-create the page curl effect and place it on a border of the same background color as my page layout. When someone clicks on my thumbnail they will now get the full size image with the page curl effect and a slight border of the page color.
Also creating this effect in my image editing program will make it more time consuming when I want to change layout styles, because when I create the page curl / drop shadow in my image editing program, I have to change the background color around each image to match the new background color I'm using for my page. Doing this for 20 images every time I want to change my design is allot of work.
If this is what I have to do, then I have no choice. But at least I would like my thumbnail to have the effect but NOT my full size image.
How do I do this so only my iWeb thumbnail image has this effect without iWeb forcing it to a PNG and loosing quality?
Thanks I appreciate you help!

How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6. (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
(1) (1) Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage. Then dragging the first one into the base document. It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image. Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
(2) (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
(3) (3) I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it. No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
(4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715 Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means. (Or even in a different program!). Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes. Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help. [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
Why this happens has to do with simple math.
inches x ppi = pixels
Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

Why is export quality HORRIBLE? FCP 7.3

Why can't I export a .mov quicktime movie from FCP 7.3 that looks EXACTLY like the image I get when playing the footage in the timeline?
These are my 2 biggest quality issues that I can't find a way to surmount:
1. Interlacing. Yes, I shot interlaced - bad idea, never will do it again. But in FCP, viewed at full screen, the footage is beautiful - no interlacing artifact at all. Once exported, it looks horrible. Please no comments about "just choose 'deinterlace' when exporting." This seems to horribly degrade the quality (see below) and it doesn't deinterlace it anyway at the same resolution as I'm viewing it in FCP - you have to scale the quality down from 1080i to 720p before the interlace artifact in the exported file is gone. And even then, the quality is much worse than 720p should be (see below).
2. Saturation/bit depth/color quality: Once exported - no matter what quality I choose and no matter whether I check 'deinterlace' or not - the color goes down the drain once exported. It looks pathetic. Oversaturating the image before exporting in hopes of a correct saturation by the time it's exported does not work. The image is simply very, very washed out once exported.
Bottom line: If the footage looks beautiful IN final cut, viewed at full screen, we KNOW it can look beautiful OUT of final cut, viewed on the same screen. How is this accomplished?
A few technical details:
Footage specs:
Shot in 59.94i, 1080
AVCHD
.MTS
Imported RAW into FCP using Log and Transfer.
Once ingested into FCP (using default ingest settings):
29.97i
1920x1080
Upper (odd) field dominance
Square pixel aspect ratio
Apple prores 422
Export specs:
Compressor: H.264
Frame rate: Current
Keyframes: Automatic
Data Rate: Automatic
Frame recording: Unchecked
Quality: Best (multipass)
Encoding: Best quality
Export size settings:
I have tried all of the following settings, each with 'deinterlace' checked AND unchecked, respectively. And each with bad results:
1920x1080
1600x900
1280x720
and other sizes of 16:9
Any ideas on this is HUGELY appreciated.

Thanks for all the great input everyone.
To your questions:
Jason: I'm using QT 7.7.
Michael: Very helpful thoughts. I did export using quicktime instead of QT conversion and it looks identical - no problem....when viewing the exported file with FCP. When viewing it with QT 7.7, with the settings suggested by David, it's the same old crap I've been gettng all along. I"m new to Compressor and I'm using version 3.5. Can you advise a specific workflow for using Compressor here? As far as customizing QT for FCP color, I assume you mean the option in the Preferences 'Enable final cut studio color compatibility'. This is the only setting I see of relevance...
Russ - Final cut pro DOES accurately show image quality. At full screen view, my footage looks great in FCP. If it can look greatin FCP, it should be able to look great OUT of FCP. The question is just how to use the best compression setting to get the export file size down without sacrificing all that quality.... I'm judging by the monitor because I'm shooting for monitor end-viewership, not TV.
Bottom line - sounds like Compressor is the way to go. If someone could give me some pointers on Compressor workflow with this situation, that would bed awesome. I've never used the program before - 'export using QT conversion' in FCP has always been sufficient up until now.
Many, many thanks!

Image quality bad in Web Gallery

I used the .Mac web gallery feature for the first time yesterday with images that I had edited in Lightroom and then exported to iPhoto for upload, I chose the jpeg compression at highest quality (they were RAW files taken with my Canon 40D) and saved as sRGB optimized for the web. The thumbnails look fine, but the images look absolutely horrible full screen...focus looks blurry and artifacts in some of the shots. Granted, I'm viewing on my 24" screen and it does look better on my other half's 13" MacBook, but still...the image quality should not suffer like this. I can't believe Apple would release a product the renders such poor quality photos.
Is there something that I'm missing here? Is anyone else noticing this with their web galleries?

Dave:
You can replace the 800 x 600 files with your full sized image files. But it would be a manual operation. Each photo in an web gallery has it's own folder with several versions of the file in it. They are located in the iDisk/Sites/Web/_gallery folder. The file titled web.jpg is used for the slideshow. If you replace it with the original file that's been renamed web.jpg, it will be the one used to display in the slideshow.
HOWEVER, the full sized image file takes a very long time to load when playing the slideshow. If you do that you should use an image resizing application like Resize! to reduce the file size by selecting a higher jpeg compression ( lower quality level) while keeping the pixel dimensions the same. With a 60% quality level and keeping the pixel dimensions the same I reduced a 2816 x 2112 pixel, 2.11 MB image file to 695 KB. The 2.1 MB file took 6 seconds to load, the 695 took 2 seconds and the iPhoto produced file were nearly instantaneous. Resizing down wot 1200 x 900 at 60% reduced the size down to 132 KB, much more manageable for loading and rendering online.
So you would have to test to see what pixel dimension and quality level would work best for you. But keep in mind that you'd have to manually change each file, rename it to web.jpg and copy up to the iDisk.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Poor Image quality in iDVD from iMovie

After creating a video in iMovie using photos, video clips, transitions, music, and Ken Burns, things look great. Everything looks fine in iMovie ('09). I then export it to iDVD to create the menus, etc. So far so good. After burning the disc, the picture quality is really horrible, especially the photos using Ken Burns. I do not know how to describe it....wavy, pixilated, something. The video used, taken using a digital camcorder is tolerable if I remember to deinterlace. What do I have to do to get these pics to look right? IF I export in iMovie using Quicktime, the resulting .MOV is fine....looks great. After exporting to iDVD, it looks awful.....Any help would be appreciated....thank you.
jrsorte

Chris,
not using any de-interlacing
Both iMovie 08 and iMovie 09 only use one field of a DV video frame. iMovie 5 and earlier used both frames. I'm not sure that using just one field makes a lot of difference when the content goes through mpg-2's heavy compression to make a DVD in iDVD.
As far a still images are concerned, the best sizes for NTSC DVDs are 720x540 pixels for standard video and 854x480 pixels for widescreen. Going to larger image sizes can actually reduce the image quality on a DVD.

Poor image quality? Why do Jpeg's look so bad?

If anyone has tips on how to improve the image quality of jpeg's in acrobat.com I'd really like to hear them. I've edited the images in Photoshop (CS4), exported them as jpeg's, and inserted them into my acrobat.com presentation. They look horrible, and there are many artifacts. If I insert the same image into Powerpoint, they look considerably better, but I'd prefer not to have to use it. Is there an image quality setting that I'm missing?
Thanks for any help,
Rob

Hi Rob,
Thanks for posting - and sorry you're having trouble. It sounds as though the image's quality is suffering because it's being down-sized upon insertion. In Presentations, any images larger than 1024 on a side are resized to fit within a 1024 bounds (we do this to optimize performance - important for a web application).
Here are some tips from one of our fine engineers:
For the best looking images, pre-scale your images to fit the size of the presentation before you upload them; for reference, the slide canvas is 720 pixels wide and 540 pixels tall. Any image larger than those dimensions is larger than it needs to be on the client so you and your audience are downloading more data than they will ever see. If you resize your images to fit the size it will appear on the screen, you will have a better looking image.
The choice of image format makes a difference at this scale as well. For image with smooth transitions like photographs of landscapes, jpeg is a good format. For computer generated diagrams like charts, or images with lots of details like text, PNG is a better format.
It is important that the image be scaled to the appropriate size before uploading because the server will recompress any image it needs to scale using JPEG compression. So if you are uploading a PNG image with transparency, you will loose any transparency effect if the image is large enough to require scaling on the server.
I hope this is helpful, Rob. Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Best regards,
Rebecca

Poor image quality on exported version

I am trying to export versions of my photos to a folder on my external drive. Every time I do this the resulting jpg is washed out and has poor resolution + a ton of noise. The resulting image is substantially lighter than the images in my aperture window, yet the histogram does not indicate that the images should be that light or washed out.
The images are all starting as RAW images. The export settings are for image quality 12, 300 dpi, sRGB, original jpg. I have onscreen proofing turned on and set to sRGB. My print lab said that the image quality could be 10, but when they looked so horrible I bumped them up.
I had Aperture for a long time before upgrading to Aperture 2 in March. From March to August I did not have any problems, so this is a more recent problem. I have not yet upgraded to Snow Leopard. Please help!!! Thanks!!!

Hi
a. make a DiskImage first and test this with Apple DVD-player.
(File menu and down "Make a DiskImage")
b. I only use streamingDV - no .m4v or like (may be it works - I don't know)
else
*Not knowing the origin to Your problem - General approach when in trouble is as follows.*
• Free space on internal (start-up) hard disk if it is less than 10Gb should rather have 25Gb
• Hard disk is untidy. Repair Permissions, Repair Hard disk (Apple Disc Util tool)
• Delete iDVD pref file - *or rather start a new user/account* - log into this and re-try
iDVD pref file resides. Mac Hard Disk (start-up HD)/Users/"Your account"/Library/Preferences and is named.
com.apple.iDVD.plist
While iDVD is NOT RUNNING - move this file out to desk-top.
Now restart iDVD.
• Program miss-match. iDVD 5.0.2, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK - DON’T work under Leopard
• Program miss-match. iDVD 6.0.4, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK (might work under Leopard)
• Program miss-match. iDVD’08 v. 7.0.1, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK (might work under Leopard)
• iDVD (08) v7 Locate theme folder. Move out iDVD1, iDVD 2 and eventually iDVD4 folders to desktop - re-try
• Try a Cleaning CD/DVD that cleans the laser lens on the DVD burner/player
iDVD 6.0.4 and iDVD 7.0.1 are compatible with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
Last resort. from Craig. Solved the problem!! Finally!!
I deleted every iDVD application and folder from my boot drive,
emptied the trash and then installed iDVD 08 using the customize option
and I am up and running.
If You do a re-install be sure to get rid of all iDVD old parts AND then EMPTY the Trash-basket !
Yours Bengt W

Image quality in Viewer vs Full Screen

I've seen lots of discussions about this in earlier version (pre 1.5x), but they seem to be backward from what I'm seeing. I have an extremely noticable difference in image quality in the viewer vs full screen. At first, I just thought my images weren't any good. Then, I brought the same raw files up in Photoshop and they were pretty good. I looked in Aperture in Full Screen mode, and it was close or equivalent to Photoshop.
Is anybody else seeing the image be downright bad (looks horribly out of focus) in the viewer but good in full screen? I'm not talking about the thumbnails.
I'm using an iMac G5 20". I know that my video card is probably underpowered for this, but that should only affect speed (which is mostly tolerable).
iMac G5 20 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

I think I read in the manual that Aperture uses a different type of on-screen sharpening for windowed, full screen, and show master. Probably trying to speed it up in windowed by using a cheaper method.
They all should look the same when viewed at 100%.
And for what it's worth, I think Aperture does a lot better job than most programs when viewed at odd sizes. I don't have much to compare it to, but iPhoto and Adobe Elements look awful in comparison.

Image quality in slideshows

Hi,
Is there anyway to get iWeb to use a higher quality image when displaying a slideshow.
Compared to Google Web Albums the quality of the 800 x 600 image used is heavily reduced in quality.
Any ideas?
All the best

I'm not sure about image quality but I found these differences:
1. The iPhoto slideshow transitions were smoother.
2. The iPhoto slideshow was not restricted by the "tv safe zone" (edges were cut off on my TV).
For TV viewing, I cannot tell a image quality difference.
Brian

Image Quality in iTunes

I noticed that there is a huge difference in image quality when my podcast is viewed from my .Mac site in Quicktime and when it is viewed in iTunes. iTunes looks really, really bad. Can anyone account for this? And is there any way to make the podcast look better in iTunes?
If you want to compare for yourself go to:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214604232
and
http://rss.mac.com/igot2n0/iWeb/Fauxtography/Podcast/rss.xml
TC

I always do a two step export method:
First, I export as a "self-contained" Quicktime Movie (same codec as the sequence), and then
Second, I open that file in Quicktime (Pro) and do the final export there. Using this method may help you because the QT export box is easier to use, in my opinion.

Poor webcam image quality (HP Touchsmart Notebook

I recieved a HP touchsmart Notebook as a Christmas gift and the image quality is horrible! Even in a well lit environment, the image is still not clear. I have adjusted the settings to try to improve the image quality, but there is still not much of a difference in the way the images appear. I have also tried to reinstall the Cyberlink YouCam application but the image quality is still the same (poor). I like some features on my laptop, yet I'm still getting aquainted with it. However, the image quality along with a few other technical issues such as (freezes), has negatively impacted how I view this product. I hope that there is something that could be done! Please help!

Hi @mzdymond01
Thank You for the inquiry, I will do my best to assist you!
I understand you received this notebook at Christmas and image quality of the WebCam is poor.
Have you done all your Windows updates?
Have you tried Using automated troubleshooting (Windows 8)?
Have you ran the HP Support Assistant to assist with HP updates?
Here is a link to Webcam Troubleshooting (Windows 8) that will guide you through some steps.
If the issue should remain I suggest contacting HP support for further assistance. As this is a new product you want to ensure everything is performing as it should.
Please call our technical support at 800 474 6836. If you live outside the US/Canada Region, please click the link below to get a support number for your region.
World Wide Phone Support
Best of Luck!
Sparkles1
I work on behalf of HP
Please click “Accept as Solution ” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos, Thumbs Up" on the bottom right to say “Thanks” for helping!

Is iWeb 08's image quality horrible?...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for