MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 3rd Rejection from IStock, here's the group I'm thinking I'll use this time.  (Read 9205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 25, 2011, 13:45 »
0
Photo 1
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Extreme Skateboarding.jpg

Photo 2
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girl drinking water.jpg

Photo 3
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Multicolored frog.jpg

I have model releases on the first 2.


« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2011, 13:47 »
0
Try redoing the links.

« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2011, 13:49 »
0
Sorry forgot about the spaces.


  on: Today at 13:45    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photo 1
http://www.ltsw.com/public/ExtremeSkateboarding.jpg

Photo 2
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girldrinkingwater.jpg

Photo 3
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Multicoloredfrog.jpg

I have model releases on the first 2.

« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2011, 14:01 »
0
I don't think these will fly - sorry.

The skateboarding image has focus on the knees & jeans instead of the eyes - lighting's not ideal either.

Lighting on the girl drinking is a problem - you needed a reflector for fill

The frog isolation is terrible - all sorts of edges are eaten away because you didn't do your selection carefully.

The first two are great subjects - i.e. try to do those again; the frog's not a good idea as it'd be a copyright problem and if you can't isolate objects well, don't include an isolation in your set :)

« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2011, 14:04 »
0
Is the frog one supposed to be a joke?

« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2011, 14:06 »
0
I'm trying to take emotion out of this, but what do you mean is it a joke?

« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2011, 14:11 »
0
Skateboarder has noise all over dark areas. The girl has noise too. Lighten up the face a bit. I can't believe you submitted the frog so terribly isolated. And it is noisy too.
All your images are taken at ISO 200, which is unacceptable in most cases. Lower ISO to 100.
First two images are very good regarding subject and the compostition. Find online video tutorials about isolating objects.

« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2011, 14:13 »
0
I haven't submitted any of these yet, these are the ones I thought I would try but apparantly not.

« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2011, 14:14 »
0
I'm trying to take emotion out of this, but what do you mean is it a joke?

I'm sure Sean thinks the isolation is a joke. Look at your edges. Maybe you posted the wrong version of the image

« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2011, 14:15 »
0
And always reduce the image size to a minimum for the application. It can help a lot.

« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2011, 14:18 »
0
I don't understand that last comment about reducing the size?  Can you please explain?

« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2011, 14:20 »
0
I don't understand that last comment about reducing the size?  Can you please explain?

reduce the size/dimensions of the image to the smallest acceptable.  this will help out in making noise and other imperfections less noticeable.  i didn't think about this either for submissions, so i think i'll take it, too.

good luck!  keep your chin up and keep shooting and editing.

« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2011, 14:23 »
0
so what are "size/dimensions of the image to the smallest acceptable" and how do I know what that is?

« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2011, 14:26 »
0
I really don't mean to sound dense here, but these kind of things are not spelled out (at least not that I can find).

BTW thanks to all of you for helping, I'm really getting tired of the rejection (and yes, getting a little discouraged)  That's why I'm hear to try to avoid it this time around.

« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2011, 14:32 »
0
Don't get discouraged. Just find some tutorials. You can't go on like this, not knowing basic stuff as "image size". If you use Photoshop, go to:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu5adJfxuhw[/youtube]

« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2011, 14:33 »
0
I'm trying to take emotion out of this, but what do you mean is it a joke?

I'm sure Sean thinks the isolation is a joke. Look at your edges. Maybe you posted the wrong version of the image

See this is where part of my frustration comes in, Sean said is this a joke, well I don't know when I read that if he means subject, composition, quality or what.  I'm not picking on Sean, but this is kind of what the reviewers give me and I don't know what to work on.

« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2011, 14:34 »
0
Don't get discouraged. Just find some tutorials. You can't go on like this, not knowing basic stuff as "image size". If you use Photoshop, go to:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu5adJfxuhw[/youtube]


No, I know what image size is, what I don't know is what is minimum image size to submit or how to find that out.

« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2011, 14:34 »
0
I really don't mean to sound dense here, but these kind of things are not spelled out (at least not that I can find).

BTW thanks to all of you for helping, I'm really getting tired of the rejection (and yes, getting a little discouraged)  That's why I'm hear to try to avoid it this time around.


They are spelled out - in the photographer training manual. See this section.

« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2011, 14:39 »
0
I really don't mean to sound dense here, but these kind of things are not spelled out (at least not that I can find).

BTW thanks to all of you for helping, I'm really getting tired of the rejection (and yes, getting a little discouraged)  That's why I'm hear to try to avoid it this time around.


They are spelled out - in the photographer training manual. See this section.


Ok, so maybe I am dense, I've read that a ton of times and truely never made the connection.  I'll fix that going forward.  See that's why you folks are great.  You think a reviewer could have told me that?

« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2011, 14:57 »
0
Your isolation of the frog looks like you selected it using the magic wand tool and are missing large pieces of the frog(look at the edges at 100% and you will understand). If the frog was perfectly isolated and properly lit, it would likely still not get accepted (what commercial value is in that object - what would a buyer use it for (I've been wrong before about commercial value mind you)? Also, it is artwork and probably would need a property release.

The lighting on the other two is not very good. You didn't use flash and the lighting is harsh for the skateboarder and too dark for the girl. You can shoot both of these with a single off-shoe flash and a deflector (or use two deflectors and bounce the flash off of one of them). You need to soften the light from the flash - you can use a second deflector to bounce the flash off of if you don't have an umbrella.

Is you're monitor calibrated? When I first started in microstock I couldn't understand why my isolations were being rejected. Turned out my monitor was way too dark and when I eventually had a look at the images on a computer at work I realized what the problem was (my first isolations were worse than your frog). There are a lot of tutorials on isolations - they are not difficult to do. That frog isolation would only take a few minutes using the pen tool.

Regards,

« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2011, 15:12 »
0
Thanks Jon, very helpful.

Yes, I used the magic wand as the tutorial at the time I did it told me too.  I've discovered there are good ones and bad ones.  There are tons of frogs on IStock right now, I just figured it would be one more, not really sure what the value would be.

I really appreciate the light insight, now if I only spoke Greek, I might understand...  LOL  I'm kidding at least a little bit, some of it's Greek to me still but I'm learing.  The only lights I have right now are on my "new" table top tent and the on camera flash.  Need to work on that, limited budget though.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2011, 16:13 »
0
They are not great but I do like the kid with the skateboard, that and the girl drinking should be good enough... Istock has a lot-lot crappier stuff up & selling. The focus on the kid is not perfect, it would fly if you were exclusive or an inspector, but I suggest resizing it a bit smaller +adding some selective sharpening to the eye +crop out the roadsign. If you want to reshoot these, have the girl drink from a transparent bottle, the mineral water kind, it's  a lot more attractive visually.

« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2011, 16:24 »
0
I asked if the frog was a joke, as it so obviously a poor job, even to the untrained eye, that I thought maybe you were trying to be funny.  Looking at it, you can see the jagged edges and missing pieces, yes?   That you thought that even close to acceptable says you should hold off on any more applications until you take a class or something.  Sorry.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2011, 17:16 »
0
to be honest, I thought maybe the frog was a joke too. sorry to the OP but even beyond the incredibly poor isolation is the subject itself. what is it supposed to be? a toy? a balloon?

I think the first two shots are nice family photos but not good stock. the second is nicely in focus, but lots of noise, dark and flat and just not interesting. the first is a cute shot and the same subject done on a better background, with better composition and better lighting/processing...it could be a good stock photo of a child skateboarding.

good luck :-)
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 17:32 by SNP »

« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2011, 18:38 »
0
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.

« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2011, 20:56 »
0
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.

Ok, so now my confusion has returned.  I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking.  Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.

traveler1116

« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2011, 21:23 »
0
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.

Ok, so now my confusion has returned.  I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking.  Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.

I disagree, little athletes are probably big sellers it just has to be done right.  I thought that one had the best potential if redone.

« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2011, 21:34 »
0
thats a lot of information to process.. the start aint easy for sure.. so seriously my advice is to stay away from portraits etc if you dont even the right lighting (reflector, flash, strobe, whatever..)

if I remember well (looking at them now) I have entered on the 1st time and with 3 landmarks in my second hometown (Lisbon, capital of Portugal).. so I would visit all your local landmarks and go there early or late hour to get some nice lighting, perhaps take the tripod too, be sure you go on ISO 100.. and take a lot of pics and get home and see what you had, do minor adjusts (because IS wont allow much..) like some contrast, correct wb and exposure too..

you can do a lot of other things like food if you have a nice window and let the light get in and use some white cards to fill in the subject.. but again thats not an easy subject because you need to have a look for composition, etc etc... composition is a most in every pic same as lighting..

regarding your pics I am not going to talk about the frog.. you just did a fast job and some parts were removed during your "isolation".. use the pen tool and feather the "selection" too until it goes nice along the picture (and that part in question too)

the first skateboard is a very nice pic, I love it but like all have said it has tons of noise.. regarding composition and lighting I think it is nice too, watch out on your "exposure", your ISO

the second pic it does look nice too but again a lot of noise and under exposed.. I use always the blinking setting on camera, use it too, it will show you the "blow out highlights" (areas that went white) then go a little under and your "good".. use RAW too because you can change a lot of setting, like WB, exposure, etc..

regarding monitor stuff etc look here: http://displaycalibration.com/

traveler1116

« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2011, 22:14 »
0
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore.  They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1.  the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque.   All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc.  The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example.  Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.

« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2011, 22:18 »
0
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore.  They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1.  the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque.   All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc.  The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example.  Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.

you forgot to mention the 85% they want too ;D

traveler1116

« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2011, 22:29 »
0
Yeah it's a pretty bad deal for nonexclusives isn't it.

Slovenian

« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2011, 03:11 »
0
Perhaps you should give it some time, take some photography courses/read/practice and try submitting to smaller sites and then return to IS. With shots like that you'll never be accepted, that's the hard truth ;)

« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2011, 03:50 »
0
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.

Ok, so now my confusion has returned.  I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking.  Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.

Sorry, I just meant that is the kind of shot that could be photoshopped in something disgusting, propably just personal paranoia. Never mind.

« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2011, 07:55 »
0
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.

Ok, so now my confusion has returned.  I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking.  Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.

Sorry, I just meant that is the kind of shot that could be photoshopped in something disgusting, propably just personal paranoia. Never mind.

Ahh, now it makes sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2011, 09:21 »
0
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.

Go figure.

« Reply #35 on: May 26, 2011, 09:29 »
0
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.

Go figure.
Really??? Wow...

« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2011, 09:30 »
0
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.

Go figure.

thats incredible!
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 09:35 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2011, 09:31 »
0
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.

Go figure.

I'd be happy to try whatever it is they are on!

« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2011, 09:32 »
0
Yep, and based on you guys, I'm deleting it.  I don't want people seeing that piece of crap.  LOL  I just hate what I don't know.

« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2011, 09:35 »
0
yeah, all 3 of those files were accepted by all of those sites.  That's why I was gonna use them.  But the frog is really super bad so I'm getting it off all the sites.

« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2011, 09:42 »
0
yeah, all 3 of those files were accepted by all of those sites.  That's why I was gonna use them.  But the frog is really super bad so I'm getting it off all the sites.

That is probably a wise idea. You want to be certain to upload only your best. But don't feel bad, everyone here has/had some "not so good" images in their port...the acceptance policy from 6 years ago was way different than it is today.

« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2011, 09:50 »
0
Well I got the frog off all the sites except Bigstock.  Can't figure out how to remove it from there.

BTW, thanks everyone for all the great advice.  I just have to figure out what I'm going to try to submit now.  I haven't been accepted at IStockphoto or Shutterstock (need 10 for that one, yuck).

« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2011, 10:13 »
0
On a seperate but connected issue, do you folks think https://www.lynda.com/ is worth while for training?

Slovenian

« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2011, 10:30 »
0
Well I got the frog off all the sites except Bigstock.  Can't figure out how to remove it from there.

BTW, thanks everyone for all the great advice.  I just have to figure out what I'm going to try to submit now.  I haven't been accepted at IStockphoto or Shutterstock (need 10 for that one, yuck).

I hope you get there, because those are the only 2 sites worth uploding to.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2011, 10:50 »
0
Quote
I haven't been accepted at IStockphoto or Shutterstock

Without wanting to negative, unless you're a fairly high standard ( and judging by comments on your work that may not be the case) you may be wasting your time with sites that are more and more aimed at selling work of the highest professional quality. The days of the hobby stock contributor are either gone or numbered.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #45 on: May 26, 2011, 11:32 »
0
Yep, and based on you guys, I'm deleting it.  I don't want people seeing that piece of crap.  LOL  I just hate what I don't know.

You really shouldn't worry about it like that. Walking around the mall, I just saw a mural sized print of a quite popular istock pic (girl in red chritmasy costume pointing finger). It's nice model an ok shot, but it pretty low res, and techincally almost in the poor category, but they made huge print of it anyway. It looks like sheit I you move a bit closer than a few meters, and nobody cares beleive me : )

« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2011, 13:21 »
0
On a seperate but connected issue, do you folks think https://www.lynda.com/ is worth while for training?

In general, yes. Lots of great tools to build skills in Photoshop and Illustrator. I'm not sure that right now that'd be the best use of your time though. They don't do general photography courses (there are a few special subject items they've added).  For a while Adobe was giving away a month of lynda.com as a registration thank-you, so I had a good way to get up to speed with new features.

I think you should work on improving your photography skills first and then delve more into post-production skills.

« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2011, 15:32 »
0
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore.  They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1.  the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque.   All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc.  The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example.  Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.

you forgot to mention the 85% they want too ;D

I don't know what you meant by the 85%?

« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2011, 15:40 »
0
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore.  They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1.  the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque.   All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc.  The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example.  Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.

you forgot to mention the 85% they want too ;D

I don't know what you meant by the 85%?

IS cut :)

« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2011, 15:56 »
0
On a seperate but connected issue, do you folks think https://www.lynda.com/ is worth while for training?


I am a big fan of https://www.lynda.com/.

Here is a link to their photography-related courses:

http://www.lynda.com/Photography-training-tutorials/70-0.html

You can subscribe by the month for $25.00 or $37.50 which allows the downloading of exercise files.

« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2011, 20:45 »
0
So are we saying that this.
http://www.ltsw.com/public/_MG_1517_Small.jpg

Would be better than
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girldrinkingwater.jpg

Or maybe I shoiuld ask is it better or even close to acceptable?

« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2011, 20:47 »
0
On a seperate but connected issue, do you folks think https://www.lynda.com/ is worth while for training?


I am a big fan of https://www.lynda.com/.

Here is a link to their photography-related courses:

http://www.lynda.com/Photography-training-tutorials/70-0.html

You can subscribe by the month for $25.00 or $37.50 which allows the downloading of exercise files.


I did subscribe, thanks

« Reply #52 on: May 27, 2011, 03:04 »
0
So are we saying that this.
http://www.ltsw.com/public/_MG_1517_Small.jpg

Would be better than
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girldrinkingwater.jpg

Or maybe I shoiuld ask is it better or even close to acceptable?


it has a lot of noise.. seriously I would shoot more and be more ready to join IS, SS, whatever..

if you fail at IS you will have the 5th time when?

« Reply #53 on: May 27, 2011, 05:09 »
0
So are we saying that this.
http://www.ltsw.com/public/_MG_1517_Small.jpg

Would be better than
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girldrinkingwater.jpg

Or maybe I shoiuld ask is it better or even close to acceptable?

i just see alot of noise all over ,i check up your exif and it shows iso 200,how come it could get such noise at iso200??I guess maybe you should clean up your camera sensor or what? ??? plus they dont like the lighting like that from my experience! :P

« Reply #54 on: May 27, 2011, 09:16 »
0
So are we saying that this.
http://www.ltsw.com/public/_MG_1517_Small.jpg

Would be better than
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girldrinkingwater.jpg

Or maybe I shoiuld ask is it better or even close to acceptable?


it has a lot of noise.. seriously I would shoot more and be more ready to join IS, Shutterstock, whatever..

if you fail at IS you will have the 5th time when?


I was only putting it up here because someone said to try to reduce the sze and see if that helped.

« Reply #55 on: May 27, 2011, 09:25 »
0
So are we saying that this.
http://www.ltsw.com/public/_MG_1517_Small.jpg

Would be better than
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girldrinkingwater.jpg

Or maybe I shoiuld ask is it better or even close to acceptable?


it has a lot of noise.. seriously I would shoot more and be more ready to join IS, Shutterstock, whatever..

if you fail at IS you will have the 5th time when?


I was only putting it up here because someone said to try to reduce the sze and see if that helped.


it does help and it does look better too.. dont know if it is enough to get approve these days..

« Reply #56 on: May 27, 2011, 16:28 »
0
Also I would recommend Lightroom - as an image library with great processing section (for RAW files).
If you have clean pictures (no dust on the sensor, relatively clean lenses) in RAW format, of course - you can collect, process and keyword them in one location, which is very, very handy.
tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/ <- this is link to the selection of videos 'by Adobe' and this shoud give you idea what is this software for.

Good luck W.

Pav

« Reply #57 on: May 27, 2011, 16:44 »
0
All your images are taken at ISO 200, which is unacceptable in most cases. Lower ISO to 100.

You've gotta be kidding me. ISO 200 is the native ISO used by one of the two major camera makers in the world (on most of its cameras). And that setting works just fine if you've correctly exposed your shot.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #58 on: May 27, 2011, 17:49 »
0
All your images are taken at ISO 200, which is unacceptable in most cases. Lower ISO to 100.

You've gotta be kidding me. ISO 200 is the native ISO used by one of the two major camera makers in the world (on most of its cameras). And that setting works just fine if you've correctly exposed your shot.

I do shoot at ISO 100 most of the time, but most DSLRs used by iSock contributors have native ISO 200. ISO 200 is fine in most cases. I have images accepted on iStock that were shot at ISO 800. this statement about ISO 200 being unacceptable is simply untrue.

ShadySue

« Reply #59 on: May 27, 2011, 17:59 »
0
All your images are taken at ISO 200, which is unacceptable in most cases. Lower ISO to 100.

You've gotta be kidding me. ISO 200 is the native ISO used by one of the two major camera makers in the world (on most of its cameras). And that setting works just fine if you've correctly exposed your shot.

I do shoot at ISO 100 most of the time, but most DSLRs used by iSock contributors have native ISO 200. ISO 200 is fine in most cases. I have images accepted on iStock that were shot at ISO 800. this statement about ISO 200 being unacceptable is simply untrue.
Yup, I've got a few @ 1600 and at least three @ 3200. Sized down, admittedly!

« Reply #60 on: May 27, 2011, 19:31 »
0
I have lots of photos accepted at ISO 400 and more. I usually use that in good light conditions, just to shot with a faster speed and freeze movement.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #61 on: May 27, 2011, 21:39 »
0
I have lots of photos accepted at ISO 400 and more. I usually use that in good light conditions, just to shot with a faster speed and freeze movement.

exactly....this is why I shot at higher ISO in good light. but something tells me this might be beyond the scope of this particular discussion ;-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
iStock & the Pipex Group

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1067 Views
Last post November 29, 2006, 17:45
by Istock News
iStock & the Pipex Group

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1056 Views
Last post November 30, 2006, 11:10
by Istock News
4 Replies
1496 Views
Last post April 03, 2013, 00:07
by MichaelJayFoto
17 Replies
6342 Views
Last post April 14, 2017, 10:33
by Anna.kupelian
3 Replies
1047 Views
Last post December 05, 2016, 12:52
by StanRohrer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors