MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: A modern keywording guide (from Xpiks)  (Read 4153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ribtoks

  • Founder of Xpiks
« on: February 08, 2023, 02:40 »
+1
Hi folks

Finally managed to write a detailed keywording blogpost which is taking modern reality into account (AI, data analytics, competition): https://xpiksapp.com/blog/keywording-files-for-microstock/

The typical mistake everybody are doing - batch-editing pictures and considering keywording "boring" directly trumps your sales.

Let me know if you learned anything new from the blogpost


« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2023, 11:14 »
+1
So are you saying not to include the keyword "background" for a background image so as to not compete with hundreds of millions of images or not make those images at all or just stick it somewhere down after the first 10 or more keywords?  How about for an image with a white (or other color) background - should "background" not be one of the keywords or should it be included but just know that other keywords are more important?

When I look at what DT says was searched to find images sold it is usually a very simple one word search. Same for back when SS showed that info.

Good reminder to put in the words to find the image, not just describe it.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2023, 12:25 »
0
So are you saying not to include the keyword "background" for a background image so as to not compete with hundreds of millions of images or not make those images at all or just stick it somewhere down after the first 10 or more keywords?  How about for an image with a white (or other color) background - should "background" not be one of the keywords or should it be included but just know that other keywords are more important?

When I look at what DT says was searched to find images sold it is usually a very simple one word search. Same for back when SS showed that info.

Good reminder to put in the words to find the image, not just describe it.

That was my first question as well. If I make a background, shouldn't I have the keyword "Background".

Otherwise, good sense overview. Don't spam words plus the simple easiest rule... use accurate words to describe the image, things that are actually in the image and what the image is expressing. But bottom line, words that buyers use when they are searching.

ribtoks

  • Founder of Xpiks
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2023, 14:01 »
+1
So are you saying not to include the keyword "background" for a background image so as to not compete with hundreds of millions of images or not make those images at all or just stick it somewhere down after the first 10 or more keywords?

First of all, I would be saying not to create a background image to compete with hundreds of millions of other background images. But if you decide to do so, then yes, using just "background" as one of the first ("most important") keywords is probably not the brightest idea. Depends on your portfolio etc., but on average your chances for ranking for that keyword would be increadibly small

« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2023, 17:51 »
0
L e a r n    B y    Y o u r s e l f

« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2023, 18:29 »
+2
So are you saying not to include the keyword "background" for a background image so as to not compete with hundreds of millions of images or not make those images at all or just stick it somewhere down after the first 10 or more keywords?

First of all, I would be saying not to create a background image to compete with hundreds of millions of other background images. But if you decide to do so, then yes, using just "background" as one of the first ("most important") keywords is probably not the brightest idea. Depends on your portfolio etc., but on average your chances for ranking for that keyword would be increadibly small

ok, I was thinking if you had for example a mosaic tile background image, you would still want to put background in - just in case someone searched on "tile background" or "mosaic background". There would be no expectations you would show up on a search on just background - which is the case for almost any single word search these days unless you have great search placement or the single word is pretty obscure.    Looking at my last 20 sales on Adobe I certainly wouldn't want to have not made any background images.

ribtoks

  • Founder of Xpiks
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2023, 05:53 »
0
L e a r n    B y    Y o u r s e l f

This is actually not such a great advice. It's like in life - best to learn from the mistakes of others to ramp up faster yourself.

« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2023, 13:37 »
0
L e a r n    B y    Y o u r s e l f
This is actually not such a great advice. It's like in life - best to learn from the mistakes of others to ramp up faster yourself.

I disagree, since I do my own mistakes.
"ramp up faster"? ... no interest in this. Slowly but surely.

« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2023, 15:03 »
+3
I think the way you're looking at popular keywords is somewhat incorrect. Let's take "background" for instance. I have "background" in most of my shots with copy space. That's because I'm not just competing for the keyword "background". I also have words like "london", "richmond", "kew gardens" "industrial", "brick wall", "hampstead" etc. in my keywords. So when someone does a search for "hampstead background", my image would show up and it would be competing with far fewer images than just the word "background". I highly doubt there are buyers who search just for "background" to find what they want. So that's the idea behind having it in your keywords. It does absolutely no harm and perhaps a lot of good.

ribtoks

  • Founder of Xpiks
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2023, 01:43 »
0
It does absolutely no harm and perhaps a lot of good.

I understand your logic and I had the same logic before I started doing more data-backed analysis (one which is published here https://xpiksapp.com/blog/microstock-keywording-analysis/ and another - for unpopular images - prepared for publishing). A small bottom line: probably you already have the keyword "background" in your description, probably you already are using it in the "category" etc. The only thing you are achieving when you add a keyword "background" is that most likely you are wasting 1 keyword. Microstock agencies are smart enough to understand your image is a background nowadays, without you adding an explicit "background" keyword there. What they are not able to understand - concepts like "sad" etc. Also from the ranking perspective using keyowrd "background" is very questionable, judging from the sheer volume. So I would conclude that with high probability it does some harm (waste) and no good at all.

« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2023, 02:26 »
0
The only thing you are achieving when you add a keyword "background" is that most likely you are wasting 1 keyword. Microstock agencies are smart enough to understand your image is a background nowadays, without you adding an explicit "background" keyword there. What they are not able to understand - concepts like "sad" etc. Also from the ranking perspective using keyowrd "background" is very questionable, judging from the sheer volume. So I would conclude that with high probability it does some harm (waste) and no good at all.

As someone who only typically uses a maximum of 30-35 keywords, I have difficulty wrapping my head around "wasting" keywords. How are you wasting it when it might be relevant? And why is it questionable when it is going to work with all the other keywords you have for your image? It's difficult to understand without some concrete evidence that points to it rather than broad conjectures. Especially when I have images on Alamy and SS where I know people found my images through searches like "mangrove forest background", "indian man talking" (where all 3 in isolation are popular keywords) etc.

ribtoks

  • Founder of Xpiks
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2023, 02:32 »
0
As someone who only typically uses a maximum of 30-35 keywords, I have difficulty wrapping my head around "wasting" keywords. How are you wasting it when it might be relevant?

Yes, I mean if you're trying to use more keywords (closer to 50 allowed). In general search ranking can be quite interesting. e.g. although in agency case we can only observe the results, but we do know from web search that website authority can be dilluted if the website has too many topics (e.g. "keywords") where it does not rank well. I'm speculating here, but don't see any reason why microstock agency would not apply a similar logic.


Especially when I have images on Alamy and SS where I know people found my images through searches like "mangrove forest background", "indian man talking" (where all 3 in isolation are popular keywords) etc.

If customers found your file via "mangrove forest background", it does not mean that happened just because you had a "background", "mangrove" and "forest" keywords. This is simply not exactly how search works.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2023, 02:34 by ribtoks »

« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2023, 04:51 »
0
This is simply not exactly how search works.

Could you please elaborate ?

ribtoks

  • Founder of Xpiks
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2023, 05:06 »
0
Could you please elaborate ?

Indexing for search is quite more complex than just taking taking all the keywords you entered, creating tens of thousands of "lists" (per each keyword) with all the files that have that keyword and then when customer entered "mangrove forest background", checking if the given file in the in the list of "mangrove", in the list of "forest" and in the list of "background" - then showing it. The way it works in reality is that all of the these keywords are essentially replaced to one of the concepts (in the so-called "concept tree") that agencies search engine understands. Amount of concepts is smaller than amount of the keywords (there're just too many different words, just the first 100 pages of search results contained approximately 49 thousand different keywords, that's a lot). It could be that the concept is exactly equal to the keyword (e.g. "background") or might be that it's not (e.g. keyword is "paris", but the concept is "city").

Except that I don't know the exact implementation details of indexing in each of the agencies, computer science behind it is pretty established so I can guess with relatively high probability how approximately it works. Usually companies do some small tweaks here and there, but their effect is not that big. But it's not the most important factor for you!

What some people don't take into account is ranking in the search results. Search is only how your file can be listed _somewhere_ in the search results. Way more important question is what this place is exactly and how many customers use such search terms (or close to them). e.g. you would not benefit much if your file would be listed in the page 234,750 of the search Pages, even though you rank for the keyword with that many results. This is where each agency is applying it's own ideas (there's no "established" way to do it). And this is what exactly matters. Main optimization must be done for ranking.

« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2023, 08:38 »
0
Could you please elaborate ?
Indexing for search is quite more complex than just taking taking all the keywords you entered, creating tens of thousands of "lists" (per each keyword) with all the files that have that keyword and then when customer entered "mangrove forest background", checking if the given file in the in the list of "mangrove", in the list of "forest" and in the list of "background" - then showing it.

Of course the search engine does not check each file individually, whether it fits the search criteria.

What happens is that the engine runs a SQL query (or possibly some other query language) against a database, where the relationships between files and keywords is stored in large tables. It is then task of the database management system to access this information as efficiently as possible.


The way it works in reality is that all of the these keywords are essentially replaced to one of the concepts (in the so-called "concept tree") that agencies search engine understands. Amount of concepts is smaller than amount of the keywords (there're just too many different words, just the first 100 pages of search results contained approximately 49 thousand different keywords, that's a lot). It could be that the concept is exactly equal to the keyword (e.g. "background") or might be that it's not (e.g. keyword is "paris", but the concept is "city").

Do you have any shred of evidence that anything like this happens? When a buyer is entering "paris" in the search, they will expect pictures from Paris (or possibly from Paris Hilton or other people with that name) and not images from Berlin, London or New York, just because those also fulfill the concept "city". And therefor the search will only show pictures from Paris or where there is antoher connection to Paris, unless the contributor spammed a picture from Berlin etc. with the keyword "Paris". Some search engines will also include pictures where Paris is only in the title, but not all do that and it would be stupid to rely on that. Even if an image shows up, when the search term is only in the titles, you would have no guarantee that it stays that and also the image may get a better search placement when the word is in the title and the keywords, instead of only in the title or only the keywords.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2023, 08:49 by Big Toe »

ribtoks

  • Founder of Xpiks
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2023, 11:00 »
0
What happens is that the engine runs a SQL query (or possibly some other query language) against a database, where the relationships between files and keywords is stored in large tables. It is then task of the database management system to access this information as efficiently as possible.

I'm glad you know about SQL or query languages in general, but this is a very generic statement. Of course they have some sort of a database layer and of course they have some sort of query layer on top. But it is exactly untrue to say that when you search in Shutterstock/Adobe search, it just runs a query to a table. Not on this scale and not on this data.

Do you have any shred of evidence that anything like this happens?

Well, as I said, I do not have access to their systems so I cannot say exactly how to they store/index data. However, this part, as I mentioned, is well-researched so I would imagine they use an industry-level solution which I can relatively precisely describe.

If you are interested to read about concepts and search, I'd recomment to start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound-term_processing. Note, this is also a bit of generic hand waving in the article, but at least, if you are interested, it will give you a better direction of the search.

As I mentioned, what is not standardized is how they sort outputs of the search results, while storage and indexing more or less is.

« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2023, 12:53 »
0


The typical mistake everybody are doing - batch-editing pictures and considering keywording "boring" directly trumps your sales.


I can absolutely underline that and thank you for your article.

However, I understand very little of the rest with all the technical terms.

Therefore, a question for normal unmathematical contributors like me:

Have you been able to noticeably increase your downloads through your analyses?


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2023, 13:25 »
0
Some search engines will also include pictures where Paris is only in the title, but not all do that and it would be stupid to rely on that. Even if an image shows up, when the search term is only in the titles, you would have no guarantee that it stays that and also the image may get a better search placement when the word is in the title and the keywords, instead of only in the title or only the keywords.

Only in the title? Where and then why do we worry so much about keywords if they are irrelevant? Maybe I don't understand, but using the Paris example, why would some search ignore the keywords?

True about title and keywords, we know that Alamy and Adobe do that, as their assumption is, we put the most important words in both. Or maybe I should say, we should recognize that only the most important words, should be in both?

Title/Description: Blue sky with clouds Paris France street scene. Might be better found if it just said Paris France, Street Scene as the sky is usually blue and clouds aren't anything remarkable.

But the question is, where do you find a search that only uses Title or Description?

And along with the thread, my main question wouldn't be what keywords do I have in my images, but what keywords do buyers actually search for. I think too much goes into,  creative finding of many words, instead of finding the useful words that buyers actually use. As in the blog post, paraphrased, 50 words may be too many and 18 might be the perfect number.

That all goes back to, if I'm looking at an image, what words would I use to describe it and what's actually in the image? I say those are good keywords.  All the similar, related and different definitions are a waste of time, because almost no one, uses those words to find an image. I'm not buying into the what if someone uses that word, because 98% of the time, no one does and no one will, so why is it worth the time and effort to add something that's ineffective and unnecessary?


« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2023, 13:42 »
0
Some search engines will also include pictures where Paris is only in the title, but not all do that and it would be stupid to rely on that. Even if an image shows up, when the search term is only in the titles, you would have no guarantee that it stays that and also the image may get a better search placement when the word is in the title and the keywords, instead of only in the title or only the keywords.

Only in the title? Where and then why do we worry so much about keywords if they are irrelevant? Maybe I don't understand, but using the Paris example, why would some search ignore the keywords?

True about title and keywords, we know that Alamy and Adobe do that, as their assumption is, we put the most important words in both. Or maybe I should say, we should recognize that only the most important words, should be in both?

Title/Description: Blue sky with clouds Paris France street scene. Might be better found if it just said Paris France, Street Scene as the sky is usually blue and clouds aren't anything remarkable.

But the question is, where do you find a search that only uses Title or Description?

And along with the thread, my main question wouldn't be what keywords do I have in my images, but what keywords do buyers actually search for. I think too much goes into,  creative finding of many words, instead of finding the useful words that buyers actually use. As in the blog post, paraphrased, 50 words may be too many and 18 might be the perfect number.

That all goes back to, if I'm looking at an image, what words would I use to describe it and what's actually in the image? I say those are good keywords.  All the similar, related and different definitions are a waste of time, because almost no one, uses those words to find an image. I'm not buying into the what if someone uses that word, because 98% of the time, no one does and no one will, so why is it worth the time and effort to add something that's ineffective and unnecessary?

Pete, the problem with irrelevant keywords is that you can't tell beforehand for sure if they are irrelevant to the buyer.

My best selling wheat grain field was allways found by keywords "Celiac disease"  ;)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2023, 13:55 »
0
Some search engines will also include pictures where Paris is only in the title, but not all do that and it would be stupid to rely on that. Even if an image shows up, when the search term is only in the titles, you would have no guarantee that it stays that and also the image may get a better search placement when the word is in the title and the keywords, instead of only in the title or only the keywords.

Only in the title? Where and then why do we worry so much about keywords if they are irrelevant? Maybe I don't understand, but using the Paris example, why would some search ignore the keywords?

True about title and keywords, we know that Alamy and Adobe do that, as their assumption is, we put the most important words in both. Or maybe I should say, we should recognize that only the most important words, should be in both?

Title/Description: Blue sky with clouds Paris France street scene. Might be better found if it just said Paris France, Street Scene as the sky is usually blue and clouds aren't anything remarkable.

But the question is, where do you find a search that only uses Title or Description?

And along with the thread, my main question wouldn't be what keywords do I have in my images, but what keywords do buyers actually search for. I think too much goes into,  creative finding of many words, instead of finding the useful words that buyers actually use. As in the blog post, paraphrased, 50 words may be too many and 18 might be the perfect number.

That all goes back to, if I'm looking at an image, what words would I use to describe it and what's actually in the image? I say those are good keywords.  All the similar, related and different definitions are a waste of time, because almost no one, uses those words to find an image. I'm not buying into the what if someone uses that word, because 98% of the time, no one does and no one will, so why is it worth the time and effort to add something that's ineffective and unnecessary?

Pete, the problem with irrelevant keywords is that you can't tell beforehand for sure if they are irrelevant to the buyer.

My best selling wheat grain field was allways found by keywords "Celiac disease"  ;)

Yeah, that's true, there are exceptions. I won't say but I have a list of keywords that are standard for some particular images and some words that I think are "mighty good" but never had one download from someone using some of those words.

You're right we don't know for sure. You have a 2%er LOL  ;D

« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2023, 15:52 »
0

Pete, the problem with irrelevant keywords is that you can't tell beforehand for sure if they are irrelevant to the buyer.

My best selling wheat grain field was allways found by keywords "Celiac disease"  ;)

"Celiac disease" is not an irrelevant keyword in your case as it relates (indirectly) to what is in your photo.

That all goes back to, if I'm looking at an image, what words would I use to describe it and what's actually in the image? I say those are good keywords. All the similar, related and different definitions are a waste of time, because almost no one, uses those words to find an image. I'm not buying into the what if someone uses that word, because 98% of the time, no one does and no one will, so why is it worth the time and effort to add something that's ineffective and unnecessary?

I find that similar, related and different definitions are not a waste of time. Try three related, similar words or different definitions and you will find the search engine of Shutterstock gives you different amount of assets. Missing out on one of those will reduce the visibility of your assets. Time will tell you if it was really an useful addition as Shutterstock shows you 'downloads per keyword' from which you can get an indication. So, making photos of the same topic over a larger period of time makes it easier to get a set of 'useful' keywords for that topic.

Then, even if a similar keyword only get 5 downloads (the 2% you are talking about) it might still be worth it as those 5 downloads give your image a higher ranking among the other keywords. IF image ranking work this way at least (which could be possible). We don't know, so it is very hard to say if 5 downloads for a particular keyword would be worth it already.. Personally I would say it is worth it as taking the picture is often the hardest part. Sadly, with the information we have it comes down to making predictions of what could be happing pretty quick. And often it is better to be safe to sorry and put in the extra time and effort while keywording.

Although Igetty is a pain in the ass with keywording as you have to go over all the keywords once more, the good thing is that they indeed get rid of similar, related and different definitions of the same. Which often reduces my keywords substantially..






« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2023, 16:24 »
0
Some search engines will also include pictures where Paris is only in the title, but not all do that and it would be stupid to rely on that. Even if an image shows up, when the search term is only in the titles, you would have no guarantee that it stays that and also the image may get a better search placement when the word is in the title and the keywords, instead of only in the title or only the keywords.

Only in the title? Where and then why do we worry so much about keywords if they are irrelevant? Maybe I don't understand, but using the Paris example, why would some search ignore the keywords?

...

But the question is, where do you find a search that only uses Title or Description?

This is not what I wrote. what I am saying is that some search engines will include images in the search result where the word entered in the search (the search term) is included in the title/description but not the keywords. That does not mean that the search ignores the keywords.

« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2023, 16:39 »
0
Do you have any shred of evidence that anything like this happens?

Well, as I said, I do not have access to their systems so I cannot say exactly how to they store/index data. However, this part, as I mentioned, is well-researched so I would imagine they use an industry-level solution which I can relatively precisely describe.

If you are interested to read about concepts and search, I'd recomment to start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound-term_processing. Note, this is also a bit of generic hand waving in the article, but at least, if you are interested, it will give you a better direction of the search.

As I mentioned, what is not standardized is how they sort outputs of the search results, while storage and indexing more or less is.

So you are just guessing. I looked into the link you provided and also into wikipedia article on concept search that is linked there, and I do not see any evidence that the search engines at the major microstock sites work that way, except that they may address issues like various forms of the same word (strike vs. striking was given as an example) and sometimes minor misspellings, but the issues with polysemy and synonymy.

That means that a search for "fast" will not show images that only have the keyword "quick", even though the words stand for the same concept.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2023, 12:07 »
0
Some search engines will also include pictures where Paris is only in the title, but not all do that and it would be stupid to rely on that. Even if an image shows up, when the search term is only in the titles, you would have no guarantee that it stays that and also the image may get a better search placement when the word is in the title and the keywords, instead of only in the title or only the keywords.

Only in the title? Where and then why do we worry so much about keywords if they are irrelevant? Maybe I don't understand, but using the Paris example, why would some search ignore the keywords?

...

But the question is, where do you find a search that only uses Title or Description?

This is not what I wrote. what I am saying is that some search engines will include images in the search result where the word entered in the search (the search term) is included in the title/description but not the keywords. That does not mean that the search ignores the keywords.

Oh you mean outside of agency searches? Yes by all means, they read the Alt="Text" and the first words of the description, not keywords. Absolutely.  Here's one of the tips: Typically, screen-reading tools read up to 125 characters of image description, so it's a good idea to keep your alt text short and simple. Instead of starting your alt text with "picture of" or "image of," you can start with the content of the image.

alt="image description words" Which is read from images that have those included and agencies do that. The first 125 characters are most important.

Also use alt text that describes the image and includes a keyword or keyword phrase that is important for making your image be found.

Different part and not directed at you:

For the 2%, and people will dwell on the exceptions, instead of the usual. Fine, what if, or maybe someone will, and then fill your images and spend a bunch of time on words that hardly matter, just in case? Or add spammy words, just in case it adds to the views, when the point is, views that are for the wrong reasons, are wasting your time and buyers time as well. Too many words will lower an image rank. And that's what people keep fighting for, is rank?

Real Life Example -
    

    milwaukee
    57.3%
    skyline
    23.8%
    wisconsin
    14%
    city
    1.2%
    lake
    1.2%
    landscape
    0.6%
    michigan
    0.6%
    park
    0.6%
    scenery
    0.6%

Words used to buy an image that has been selling for years. I could have 9 keywords and still have made 185 sales! No, I'm not going to have only 9, but the point is, for the 185 sales, only 9 words were used to find it, by buyers, who paid for my image. Not other words.

The image has 30 keywords and I think it's fairly well covered. Other people think I should have 20 more words, just in case.

america, blue, city, cityscape, clouds, color, countryside, lakefront, landscape, memorial art center, milwaukee, milwaukee art museum, old, outdoor, panorama, park, peace, scenery, season, sky, skyline, summer, sunny, sunshine, the calatrava, travel, view, water, wide, wisconsin

You can start to see that what people searched for was "Milwaukee Wisconsin Skyline" Plus "city and lake and maybe Lake Michigan"

And great example with ciliac disease, if I had anything with wheat, I'd add "celiac sprue, gluten-sensitive enteropathy, celiac, and gluten" as they are not obscure, spammy or irrelevant. The image can be useful as a reference to where gluten comes from or what causes the disease.

Carrying that out. If I see a word is used to buy an image, I'll go check related images to make sure I have that word included in the keywords for the others.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2023, 12:48 »
0

So you are just guessing. I looked into the link you provided and also into wikipedia article on concept search that is linked there, and I do not see any evidence that the search engines at the major microstock sites work that way, except that they may address issues like various forms of the same word (strike vs. striking was given as an example) and sometimes minor misspellings, but the issues with polysemy and synonymy.

That means that a search for "fast" will not show images that only have the keyword "quick", even though the words stand for the same concept.

Actually yes to truncated words, and it depends. And yes.

Some sites will use partial words and some will only use exact words. Alamy for example, you have to have Dog and Dogs, a search for Dog will not see Dogs. Others if you have Dog and someone searches for Dogs, they will see our image.

Some sites, SS as an example, will search for words that are not entered in the search. They have some sort of table of related words. A search for Flapjack, might also get you images of Pancakes, without the word flapjack in title or keywords of a pancake image. (I picked a bad example, it doesn't seem to related to both, but there are some like that, which one word will find other words) If you need a good example I'll spend some time and find an actual case where it does happen.

I'd agree with you, "and I do not see any evidence that the search engines at the major microstock sites work that way" I don't see evidence of that either. We don't know how things are ranked, or searched, but the example of Paris looks for City makes no sense. Paris searches for "Paris"



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
9466 Views
Last post November 20, 2013, 21:17
by ShadySue
94 Replies
36676 Views
Last post October 19, 2017, 04:41
by Brasilnut
0 Replies
1890 Views
Last post July 19, 2017, 04:47
by HappyBunny
0 Replies
1692 Views
Last post March 26, 2018, 03:02
by Leo
2 Replies
3520 Views
Last post October 06, 2021, 12:33
by ribtoks

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors