MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does DT Treat All Submitters Alike? You Decide...  (Read 19045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 11, 2007, 18:47 »
0
DT claims that they treat all submitters alike, and that everyone must follow the daily upload limits (which are currently set at 40/day).

But don't believe the hype.

1. The current upload limit of 40 images/day started on 03/13/07 (see here http://www.dreamstime.com/archives.php).

2. Before 03/13/07, submitters were allowed to submit 100 images/day.

3. One of their newest members, Iofoto, now has 3,750 images online.  I will show that getting this many images up in such a short time period would be an impossibility for most submitters.

4. Iofoto's first image submitted is # 2037002.  It was uploaded sometime between 03/04 and 03/05/2007.

5. From 03/04 (when Iofoto submitted his 1st image) thru 03/13/07 (when the new upload rules came into effect), there are 10 days.  Submitters were allowed to submit 100 images/day during that time frame.  So someone could have submitted a total of 1,000 images (10 days * 100 images/day) during that time.

6. From 03/14 thru 04/11/07 (today), there are another 29 days.  Submitters were only allowed to submit 40 images/day during this time frame.  So someone could have submitted another 1,160 images (29 days * 40 images/day) during that time.

7. If we add the two time frames together, the most that a normal submitter could have submitted during that time would be 2,160 images (1,000 + 1,160).  Yet Iofoto managed to get 3,750 images approved during that same time frame!

8. Of course, this does not take the following into consideration:

a. The current queue wait is around 10-12 days.  So images that were submitted during the last 10-12 days would still be in the queue waiting for inspection.  So we would need to subtract at least 400 images from the total (10 days * 40 images/day).  This leaves 1,760 images (2,160 - 400).

b. Nobody has a 100% acceptance ratio.  According to another thread on this board (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=1177.0), the highest acceptance ratio from people on this board is around 90%.  Most acceptance ratios are much lower.  So at least 10% of the images would be rejected, or 176 rejected images.  This leaves 1,584 images (1,760 - 176).

But mysteriously, Iofoto seemed to get 3,750 images online.  Over double the amount that most others would be able to do.

So it seems that the rules only apply to some submitters and not to all.


« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2007, 19:58 »
0
Any agency would be CRAZY not to make special allowances for a portfolio like Iofotos.  Such a portfolio could attract new buyers - who will purchase credit packages, and hopefully spread the wealth.

I don't understand everyone's obsession with this topic - but I do understand that everyone must be left in a holding pattern for approvals while the reviewers inspect Iofoto's photos.....  and from the looks of things they still have over 1000 more to come.... 

« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2007, 20:05 »
0
Geez, let it go already.

An internationally-recognized leader in stock photography is permitted to upload his work at a faster rate than you or I. Wow, who'd have seen that one coming? It is a prudent business decision - nothing more, nothing less.

As far as DT claiming to treat everyone equally, I believe that achilles stated yesterday that they give people preferential treatment at their own discretion:

...
We always try to be as transparent as possible. This is not an obligation, it is our decision. We did help Ron Chapple and assist his team in uploading the files.
...
Now, whether we make things easier for a photographer or not, is simply our decision. If the community receives certain benefits, we can agree to help a certain user. If that happens we'll NOT hide this, what would be the reason for that? Uploading on our site is a privilege not a right, no offense. Do any of you have an issue with any feature on the site or have specific questions? Drop us an email and we will be happy to assist you.


If you have issues with DT, why not take it up with them as was suggested? If you can't be bothered to do that, then don't submit there.

The sooner you are able to get over this, the better off you will be.

Good luck!
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 20:12 by sharply_done »

« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2007, 20:08 »
0
...
Such a portfolio could attract new buyers - who will purchase credit packages, and hopefully spread the wealth.
...
but I do understand that everyone must be left in a holding pattern for approvals while the reviewers inspect Iofoto's photos.....  and from the looks of things they still have over 1000 more to come.... 

Very good points, Pixart. This, to me, goes a long way in explaining the longer delays lately. I'll be happy when things get back to normal in that department.

« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2007, 21:00 »
0
Nobody disputes that the site as a "business" has a right to attract stars and give them privileges. What we dispute is:

(a) If this guy is such a star, and his portfolio is valuable enough, why place the photos in the queue with everyone else. If it is such a prudent business decision, wouldn't you expect them to at least go the extra mile and set up a special project, so it did not affect its current business obligations.
(b) DT says it is an agent. They are your agent. Normally an agent goes looking for work for you while you focus on your craft. That is what we are paying them to do. They are not paying us, they are taking commission from us. They work for us. They have an obligation to treat us fairly. I am a business analyst for one of the largest businesses in the world. We would never dream of treating our customer base with indifference just to nab a huge contract from a competitor.
(c) Before I got all heated, I simply made some comments about their performance. EVERYTIME I have done this in the past my submissions have been instantly reviewed ahead of the mob and ALL rejected. The last lot of rejections were for my top sellers on Shutterstock. They are trying to control the forums by treating anyone who dares question them like dirt.
(d) Archilles seems to misunderstand his responsibilities in operating a business in the West. Things might be like that in Romania, but in the West we have a right to question him, and he has an responsibility to respond. We are stakeholders in Dreamstime and as the lead stakeholder it is his responsibility to ensure our concerns are dealt with professionally. AND NO, we do not believe a little spin. AND NO, we will not have the issues sidetracked and our concerns treated with disdain while the agenda is quickly shifted to "short term issue regarding Easter".
(e) StockManiac fairly and openly questioned a few issues which had nothing to do with Easter. A DT executive blasted her way onto a private forum and trivialised his concerns and ridiculed him with ridiculous statements suggesting that he was insisting the reviewers should not be allowed to sleep or have a Christian Holiday off.

« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2007, 21:11 »
0
As far as DT claiming to treat everyone equally, I believe that achilles stated yesterday that they give people preferential treatment at their own discretion

Incorrect.

Achilles stated just the opposite (that Iofoto is abiding by the rules just like everyone else):

"From what I remember they submitted images before the max amount limit was decreased. If not and the average is higher, it could be a glitch somewhere, but I have checked and they can only submit the max. amount at this time, just as any other users."

I find it interesting that when the facts are presented:

First, they are ignored and ridiculted.  Silly statements such as "reviewers have to sleep" are stated.

Second, when they can no longer be ignored, they are vehemently denied.  They try and throw out their version of the "facts" to confuse everyone.

Finally, when all else fails and they are caught with nowhere else to go, they say "what's the big deal?".

Well, the big deal is that they are lying.  And if they lie about this, then they'll lie about anything.


This is just another nail in their coffin as far as I'm concerned.

First, they wanted to lock everyone in to a one-year contract.  When that failed, they required a 6 month lockin.

Second, they created a new kind of "editorial" section, which allows modified images and requires logos be removed and model releases for people.  A slap in the face to journalists everywhere.

Third, they have added subscription sales and they won't let people opt out or get out of their original 6 month contract.  Full-size images and raw images now give a 0.25 royalty.

Finally, they seem to be very sneaky about their implementations of new releases on their site.  You might have noticed that the way they implement things is to first add the new release in a way that makes it seem great to artists.  Once artists have accepted it, they then implement the new version within a year and slam the artists that they say they so love.

For example, take subscriptions.  The first time they implemented subscriptions, the royalty was 0.50/image.  The artists thought that it was much better than SS' royalty.  Now, less than a year later, DT has changing the royalty to 0.25/image.  A 50% pay cut.  Not only that, but they also apply to RAW images.

A second example is their implementation of Extended Licenses.  At first, they had a royalty of between $50 and $150.  Once again, something to appease the artist.  But now, DT has cut that royalty to just $25.  A pay cut of between 50% and 600%!  And it was implemented as a temporary cut at first during the Christmas season.

A third example is their implementation of Free images.  At first, the only had a Free Image of the Day.  Artists lined up to try to offer a free image because it would bring them some free marketing.  But now DT has opened up a whole Free Image Section which now has hundreds if not thousands of images for free that compete against images for sale.  An infinite paycut!

If you can't see the writing on the wall, then you must have drank too much of the DT Kool-Aid and nothing will help you at this point.

« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2007, 21:18 »
0
and another thing that really gets on my neves:

There is this clear message that we are a sponge on their business.

I for one, and I know many others, continue to promote their site to designers all over my town. I even met with all of the Government designers and introduced them to the site and did a power point demo since most of them buy stock photos from CDs at local book shops.

Did I want a commission? NO! Did any of these buyers actually buy my photos? NO!

« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2007, 21:47 »
0
I agree with Pixart and Sharply_done.  I don't mind that a very good contributor receives this type of special treatment.  I wouldn't agree if images were not reviewed, or mediocre images were accepted. If one new member has a solid portfolio and a name in the market, I guess it's normal that he receives this special treatment.

Litifeta, I understand many of your points, though not agree with all of them.  I also dislike many decisions taken in DT (like the 25c subscription), but your "East vs West" comment is so silly, in my opinion.  IS is a Western company and I don't see them having such a better behaviour (forum threads are often locked if critics arise, exclusives' special treatment, "sneaky" implementations...). 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2007, 01:38 »
0
Well first I would like to thank everyone for being civil here.  Even though I don't agree with litifeta and Stockmaniac - you have put your opinions forward in a fair way I think.

Personally i don't have a problem with Dreamstime helping a well known stock artist get his portfolio online.  If I were them I would do the same, and if I were that artist I would ask for the same.

I do agree that it seems like the one artist got their portfolio online quicker than would be regularly possible.  Weather dreamstime lifted the cue for them, or let them send in a CD and just reviewed them as they were able is unknown to me - either way I don't really care.  I don't feel achilles addressed this directly - but somewhat indirectly, so things can be understood a number of ways.  For me, I don't really mind not getting an explaination, it doesn't matter how they got images up so fast.  For those who it does bother however, I would suggest writing directly to achilles and seeing what he says.

« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2007, 01:43 »
0
I agree with Pixart and Sharply_done.  I don't mind that a very good contributor receives this type of special treatment.  I wouldn't agree if images were not reviewed, or mediocre images were accepted. If one new member has a solid portfolio and a name in the market, I guess it's normal that he receives this special treatment.

I think the issue is that they said they didn't give special treatment.  If they said they had, I wouldn't be too concerned but they have said they treat all contributors the same.  They obviously have not which means that they have lied to us.

I would be slightly concerned as we started a while ago and helped buildd the site up. Now that it is successful, some bigwig jumps in and they give him special treatment.  I would also be concerned as they have given special treatment to the detriment of other contributors (ie. the long time loyal!).

My opinion - they have lied.  Does it really matter.  I have come to expect it in this industry.  Everything they have done recently is to increase traffic.

« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2007, 02:52 »
0
Who really gives a Sh*t what DT does.

It is their business after all.

« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2007, 05:17 »
0
Who really gives a care what DT does.

It is their business after all.
"Care" and "do any thing about" are different things.  I try to spend time on things I can do anything about.

 As you say it is thier business and as such, they should have just said "we have brought this great phtographer on board which will do great things for the site" (ie. positive spin).

« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2007, 05:25 »
0
and another thing that really gets on my neves:

There is this clear message that we are a sponge on their business.

I for one, and I know many others, continue to promote their site to designers all over my town. I even met with all of the Government designers and introduced them to the site and did a power point demo since most of them buy stock photos from CDs at local book shops.

Did I want a commission? NO! Did any of these buyers actually buy my photos? NO!

You have so many things that get on your nerves than why bother submitting with them?  I have seen your other thread where you have made clearly racist remarks (something about dishonest Gypsies).  If you feel strongly that DT marginalizes your Western Business values, why do you so desperately want to contrbute to their business?  They are not the best moneymaking site for me; nor do I agree with all their review decisions; however, they do run a good company that makes money for a lot of people (including people on this forum).

« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2007, 06:29 »
0
Many of you realize now that DT lied, but are stating that you don't care.  After all, doesn't someone like this deserve this?

Well, in my opinion, NO.  There are plenty of people who have built up their portfolios by following the rules implemented by the site.  Why should one or two people be treated special?

And if you do think they deserve this, then where do you draw the line?

Would you think it was OK if DT gave them a higher royalty without requiring them to go exclusive?  How about a 75% royalty?  Or higher?

Would you think it was OK if DT modified the Best Match sort order to include their images on the first page?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to have subscription sales?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to lock in their images for 6 months?

So if they deserve something extra, the question becomes how much extra?  Where do you draw the line?

And how is that fair to the other members on the site that don't get these special treatments?

On top of that, my guess is that a number of rules were broken in this case.  Not only was the 40 image/day rule broken, but so were other rules.

First, I'll bet that the images were reviewed faster.  While the rest of us wait 10-12 days or more for our images to get reviewed, their images probably only took a few days.

Second, I'll bet that his images got a higher acceptance ratio than most of us would have gotten with the same images.  While most of us receive silly rejections, their images slid through the queue a little easier.

Third, their images might have been keyworded for free.  Iofoto's images are on both DT and LO, and they seem to have different keywords on both sites.  For example, compare the keywords on this image between the two sites:

http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1227139/spike_the_english_bulldog_wearing_lei_and

http://www.dreamstime.com/bulldogwearingpartyhat.-image2044530

It seems unlikely that someone would re-keyword thousands of images for each site.

Finally, we are all paying DT (via the royalty that they receive) to be our agent.  While it is their website, the sales of our images make it possible for them to have a website and a nice salary.  They care be treating us with disdain.  After all, we helped build up their company.  They care cast aside those that helped them get to the top.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 06:49 by StockManiac »

red_moon_rise

« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2007, 08:51 »
0
After starting April in a really nice groove on DT, DLs have all but come to a grinding halt just as the Ueber-portfolios of these macrostock-proven contributors are force-fed into the system. Coincidence? Paranoia?

« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2007, 09:11 »
0
I've noticed the grinding halt in downloads too.

DT and iS are usually neck in neck for me in sales volume dollars, now iS is a good $30. ahead of DT for the same period.

hhmmmm  :(

« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2007, 09:30 »
0
-31% in download/day in April for me at DT... but I remember there is a clausole in the agreement with DT that gives them the right to close our accounts without any explication... I remember well?

« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2007, 09:45 »
0
I'm on the flip side of the coin: my earnings at DT are up by 32% this month.

« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2007, 09:51 »
0
Many of you realize now that DT lied, but are stating that you don't care.  After all, doesn't someone like this deserve this?

Well, in my opinion, NO.  There are plenty of people who have built up their portfolios by following the rules implemented by the site.  Why should one or two people be treated special?

And if you do think they deserve this, then where do you draw the line?

Would you think it was OK if DT gave them a higher royalty without requiring them to go exclusive?  How about a 75% royalty?  Or higher?

Would you think it was OK if DT modified the Best Match sort order to include their images on the first page?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to have subscription sales?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to lock in their images for 6 months?

So if they deserve something extra, the question becomes how much extra?  Where do you draw the line?

And how is that fair to the other members on the site that don't get these special treatments?

On top of that, my guess is that a number of rules were broken in this case.  Not only was the 40 image/day rule broken, but so were other rules.

First, I'll bet that the images were reviewed faster.  While the rest of us wait 10-12 days or more for our images to get reviewed, their images probably only took a few days.

Second, I'll bet that his images got a higher acceptance ratio than most of us would have gotten with the same images.  While most of us receive silly rejections, their images slid through the queue a little easier.

Third, their images might have been keyworded for free.  Iofoto's images are on both DT and LO, and they seem to have different keywords on both sites.  For example, compare the keywords on this image between the two sites:

http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1227139/spike_the_english_bulldog_wearing_lei_and

http://www.dreamstime.com/bulldogwearingpartyhat.-image2044530

It seems unlikely that someone would re-keyword thousands of images for each site.

Finally, we are all paying DT (via the royalty that they receive) to be our agent.  While it is their website, the sales of our images make it possible for them to have a website and a nice salary.  They care be treating us with disdain.  After all, we helped build up their company.  They care cast aside those that helped them get to the top.



Yeah its ok I would say, its their company.
So if they decide to have favourites its ok, it might be a bad descision, because others might leave the company, but its their company, they are not criminal by having favourites. Iophoto has amazing images, I totally can understand if DT chooses to help him a little bit. I do not mind at all, that is business.
Wether they are lying or not I am not sure, you can read it out of Achilles post if you desperately want to, however, he said "..they only can submit the max amount AT THIS TIME.." He did not say how it was in the beginning.
If you think they broke any agreement which you made by signing up on DT, why then don't you sue them? If they are such a bad company why do you not leave them?
I am happy with them, they try to make bsuiness with my images and I get money I otherwise would not get. If you do not feel that way.. why do you make business with them?

« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2007, 09:57 »
0
After starting April in a really nice groove on DT, DLs have all but come to a grinding halt just as the Ueber-portfolios of these macrostock-proven contributors are force-fed into the system. Coincidence? Paranoia?

That is an interesting observation.  And there might be something to it.

DT also recently changed their Best Match algorithm to take recent images into account.

So the "Ueber-portfolios" (I love that name) are being inserted into the first pages of the Best Match sort order.  So buyers will be finding these new images first.

For example, if you search on "fire truck", you will notice that the first five images are from one of those "Ueber-portfolios".

So these new images are bumping all of our images down into never-never land.

red_moon_rise

« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2007, 09:57 »
0
I'm on the flip side of the coin: my earnings at DT are up by 32% this month.
In the first week of April my DLs were up too ;D, just lately - nothing :'(.
I do believe that in the long run it is probably good for all contributors to attract other high quality contributors - IF they increase overall sales volume and buyers. In the meantime however, I see the buyers flock to the portfolios of the "expert pros" especially since they presumably have a very good variety. Of course if I have a picture that is not covered by the "expert pro": mo traffic=mo happy.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 10:04 by red_moon_rise »

« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2007, 10:09 »
0
DT says it is an agent. They are your agent. Normally an agent goes looking for work for you while you focus on your craft. That is what we are paying them to do. They are not paying us, they are taking commission from us. They work for us. They have an obligation to treat us fairly.

Agents for talent, sports, art, etc... are also negotiators.   I would love to believe that we are all treated equally.  Realistically, however, I do not have a favoured nations clause in my agreement (i.e. if one of my peers gets something, I do too).  

I would also assume that all agents in whatever business look after the "Agency" first.  If the agency fails how does that help us?

Compare it to sports.  A NHL team can sign a multi-million $ superstar while they have several players earning minium league wage (albeit a GOOD one).  The superstar will hopefully take them to The Cup extending the revenue weeks for the season.  They sell more tickets throughout the season.  They sell more t-shirts.  They sell more popcorn.  The other teams in the league sell more tickets when the superstar plays there.  

Is this guy a superstar?  I don't know - I personally respect the portfolio.  It's at Lucky Oliver, I'm not sure where else.  It's a considerable number of photos.  Shouldn't the agency Dreamstime do everything it can to get the superstar in its own stadium?  Bring the ticket buyers who will come looking for a bulldog on a green background and purchase a penguin and a vintage car while they are there?

red_moon_rise

« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2007, 10:25 »
0
... buyers who will come looking for a bulldog on a green background and purchase a penguin and a vintage car while they are there?

Only to a small degree at DT.

At SS collateral downloads are a major part of the strategy as can be seen that most of the time pictures of simmilar topics are DLed at the same time - the benefit of the subscription model.
On DT, a buyer looking for the bulldog either finds it or not. IF NOT they either change their design idea or go elsewhere. I do not think they pick up the penguin on a regular DL if they do not need it.

« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2007, 10:52 »
0
Stockphotomaniac, people have emailed me saying you are a competitor in fact. That's another conspiracy theory indeed :)

I don't think that staying anonymous is really constructive, so I would appreciate if you can give us a link to your portfolio. You have my word that we don't have any blacklist or things like that. Oh, wait, we do have one for frauds and so, but that's not the case here. You have to give me the reason of doubt and agree that it would not be outrageous to think you are in fact upset by something we did. So, if you are, drop me an email and we can discuss about it. We may agree or not agree, but at least let us try to help you.

Are all contributors treated the same on our site? I have to say no, certainly they are not. We TRY to treat them equally as much as possible but we are aware that some things are out of our reach, while for some other we purposefully treat them differently.
One of the very few things, probably the most important we apply purposefuly, is the approval ratio. Some of the readers may know that we were the first to introduce it, I don't know if there are other agencies applying it right now.

So, a contributor may upload more or less, depending on the approval ratio that he/she has. For the first 100 submissions all users enjoy the same amount, maximum. If you know this, sorry for repeating.

In regards to this conspiracy theory, once again, if we would approve all images Ron uploaded we would tell you. Why not? I don't really share all your opinions, sorry.
Think from this perspective: wouldn't it be an advantage to the rest of the community because his images will not take from the waiting time? Unfortunately, is not possible, we have to review them just for as any other users, because yes, he receives refusals too.

I did say in the other thread that we are considering providing certain advantages in exchange to some benefits for the community. The magnitude of these advantages is up to us, but we are keen to provide what's best for the community. I reiterrate that our policy is the following: if our members are happy, we are happy. If they earn, we earn.

I have received LOTS of preferential requests and never accepted a partnership that was good only for the agency and not for the community. This is subject to personal opinion, I am not trying to say we are perfect, but we try to provide what's best for our members AT a database level (not individually).

For example, at one point we noticed that older images were slightly favored by the search engine and immediately changed it. That's older images not members, so it affected your fresh images too, even if you joined 3 years ago.
Older images always earn more so building a gap between them and the new comers is something in our own disadvantage because we limit sustainable growth.

We are updating our search parameters constantly in order to maximize results, take advantage of the latest technology and minimize spam.

Saying that some user gets preferential treatment within the search results is not outrageous. There are LOTS of stock agencies doing that, it is a common technique to stimulate better photographers. Why don't we do it? First, we are a community-based site (whoever invented the term microstock had no idea what a community-based site is). Second, our policy enhances the image, not the portfolio. We believe that any photographer can provide a GREAT image, competing with old pros, that's part of the essence of microstock.

In regards to the math you provided, I have checked and the things I have assumed yesterday are correct, Ron uploaded more than the maximum amount due to a technical glitch. Before you accuse us that was intentional, let me tell you that our records show that ALL contributors uploaded without any restrictions for a few weeks at least and MANY users enjoyed it. The glitch date has no connection with Ron's registration date. They joined a lot earlier and they had many images waiting, just as they do now.

I have to apologize for this glitch as although it was good for many users, who took advantage of it, many of the others were affected. Even if one doesn't want to upload 100 images, this glitch allowed a user with a low approval ratio upload more. Saying it was not that bad, would mean that this upload rule is useless.
This was not such a disaster, as you can see the editors decreased the pending line significantly in the last days.

Because facts without proofs mean nothing, I have tried to select two contributors that can confirm this. In order not to be accused that I have hidden deals with them, there is one before the max. limit was changed to 40/day and one after that, who was also a featured photographer. I selected the first photographer based on the fact that he heard about us from this very forum. I asked for his agreement and he can also confirm these figures:

So, out of many contributors:
User Tritooth (
http://www.dreamstime.com/Tritooth_info) submitted 113 images on 2007-03-05 (max. amount suppposed = 100 images)
User Janpietruszka (http://www.dreamstime.com/Janpietruszka_info) submitted 111 images on 2007-03-25. (max. amount supposed = 40 images).

The subscription accusation can be easily verified. Create an account, buy a subscription, download one of his photo than wrote us and we will refund your subscription.

In regards to your other accusations, I cannot prove some of them: as the royalties percentage Ron receives. I can tell you that he receives the same 50% but of course, you will not believe me. I said  that I've checked their account and they can submit 40 images AT THIS TIME, not to cover my back, but because this is when I checked it. I also mentioned there may be a glitch, once again, I was convinced all users were under that limit and it turned out none was!

Does Dreamstime treat all submitters alike? In this case, yes.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 10:54 by Achilles »

« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2007, 11:21 »
0
I did'nt even know there was an upload limt until this thread, at least it is good for something.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4202 Views
Last post January 23, 2008, 04:06
by sharpshot
7 Replies
3648 Views
Last post July 19, 2009, 23:23
by microstockinsider
3 Replies
3814 Views
Last post February 19, 2011, 17:58
by elvinstar
0 Replies
1256 Views
Last post September 21, 2011, 03:41
by rubyroo
23 Replies
5263 Views
Last post January 05, 2021, 08:13
by ravens

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle