MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Are things going well in microstock?  (Read 117534 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fotomy

  • i'm not second class i'm non exclusive!
« Reply #150 on: January 08, 2008, 15:37 »
0
my first post here,
hi all and wishing you all a successful  and prosperous 2008,
 have opted out of subscription on StockXpert, not sure it does my StockXpert portfolio any favours, all images i upload are 3000 x2000px to all the microsites personally i think this is a big enough image size for microstock at present.
think the micro industry is maturing and i am sure has shown handsome profits and growth  for all the premier microstock companies, a large part of that success is due to the goodwill dedication, talent and hard work of their image contributors , for the industry to grow and mature further these companies are going to have to recognize this indispensable contribution with higher payments for contributors and better pricing models for customers,
we should not be forgetting that this is a global industry and when the dollar falls so does our profits maybe its time that images are sold in euros, every one will be better off.
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy


« Reply #151 on: January 08, 2008, 15:48 »
0
" The free ride is over. The micros are developing an ever-growing new group of professional stock photographers who will eventually leave micro and move on to mid and finally macro stock. The quality on those sites (mid and macro) will increase as will prices once again.


I think nativelight brought up a good point. In fact, its true in a sense that the micro world is a good starting to point in stock photography. Its like slowly climbing the ladder towards mid & macro.

I think the question is...
Should we abandoned microstock all together?
Is it worth all the effort for a few cents?

Microstock is a gamble. A game of downloads. Its how you play the game...and yes it does matter whether "you win or loose".
I keep asking myself the same question over and over.

But i love doing micro...for now anyways.
 
P.S I wonder how many of you has successfully moved to macro?
Anyone? If so, please feel free to share your story :)


« Reply #152 on: January 08, 2008, 16:17 »
0
I wouldn't mind subs sales if they are scarce, like in DT.  In CS they are the rule, so I stopped uploading there.  I never joined SS for this, no matter how people make money there (and therefore I may be losing money by not being there). 

In StockXpert I still don't see a clear trend (it takes time, I guess), so I'm still opted-in. 

As some said here, StockXpert has been very photographer-friendly, Steve-Oh has been a great link to the site management and StockXpert has been a very good earner, so I'm giving them a credit before opting-out. 

There are many things sites could do to make subs sales more "edible", and some have been cited here:  restricting them to smaller sizes, having subs prices according to image level (DT) or image size (in general - 1 XL download would cost, let's say, 4 subs credits or count as 4 dlds), restricting subs sales to older images, allow opt-in/out in each image.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #153 on: January 08, 2008, 17:57 »
0
Well , its nice to see for the first time that a serious topic with only one point , that we are not treated fair.

In think that something got to change , but I not convinced that this is going in write direction.

I agree on those who say that SX will be punished cause they gave us a possibility to opt out , ( others sites that didnt gave us that choice are protected from that).

Also I dont think resizing will solve the problem , and  many of people that are producing lot of images will find that a pain in the ass , bacause it takes time to resize for some sites , etc.

As I see it ,there is a need of some sort of photographers union in the future , that has to include most of the big dogs.

« Reply #154 on: January 08, 2008, 18:36 »
0
I agree that this movement likely won't do much without a large troop of heavy-hitters jumping on board, which seems pretty unlikely.  Quite frankly, sites just don't have any real motivation to change their subscription model or to raise commission percentages.  They are making lots of money, which is their only real bottom line.  A handful of people removing their portfolios isn't going to even register on their radar.  A batch of newbies will quickly take up where they left off, content with the thrill of making some money and seeing their images in use somewhere. (I admit, this was me at one time.)  I sure wish I had the solution, be it a photographers union or something else.  Let's face it, there are very few companies out there that will change a policy just because it's the "right thing to do".

My apologies for the grumpy post...  :(

« Reply #155 on: January 08, 2008, 18:52 »
0
Let's face it, there are very few companies out there that will change a policy just because it's the "right thing to do".

Yes, but the agencies depends of our work, not the inverse. They are only distribuitors. Contributors must get clever and defends their own interest.

« Reply #156 on: January 08, 2008, 19:11 »
0
I see that almost nobody talks about Diversification, except Andres and a couple more.

About three months ago I hit a wall in my earnings, despite uploading moderate numbers of photos my income did not grow accordingly.  It happened at the same time Alamy started to allow web uploads and a bit later PhotoShelter Collection was introduced. 

Just since September my earnings have doubled thanks to Alamy (and there I have less than 1000 images, about half of what I have in the micros) and things are improving as more and more images are added.  When Photoshelter starts selling it should be better and that is just for a start, as there are many more agencies, macro and midstock all around.

We should do all that has been stated before (i.e. bye bye StockXpert subs) but we should start looking outside of the box and start submiting work to midstock and macros and consider to adopt more and more the RM licence scheme for a more unique kind of images.  It is rather stupid (to say it lightly) to sell editorial images as microstock, the couple of downloads an image will have along its useful life wont compensate the effort put in even opening it in your computer.  It is a bad move that SS and DT introduced and that many fell into.

And the comment about the "buzz" of seeing ones image is just... well, that.  I feel no buzz unless it comes with a check.  I once sold an image that I was about to post as micro to Samsung Electronics for more than three months earnings of all my micros combined... It was an eye opener... Not that micros should be dropped, but we have to be more selective what we send and where we send it.

And my name goes into the list!

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000


cphoto

  • CreativeShot.com
« Reply #157 on: January 08, 2008, 21:05 »
0
Also I dont think resizing will solve the problem , and  many of people that are producing lot of images will find that a pain in the ass , bacause it takes time to resize for some sites , etc.

Hmmm hmmmm.... it takes me about 1 minute to resize 100 pictures!

Have you heard about photoshop actions?  There are also many free tools that resize a batch of image to any size you'd like.

Telling you what, sizing down has a lot of advantages, at least to me!
 
#1 No more silly rejection for noise, artifacts, etc etc.  I have 99% acceptance with SS
#2 You encourage buyers to go buy a high resolution at non subscription agencies, where they will pay depending on the image size
#3 Faster upload, saves a lot of time when submitting a large batch!

Just seems common sense to me ;-)  But again that's just my opinion.

« Reply #158 on: January 08, 2008, 22:15 »
0
FWIW, we just sold a photo on a trad for GBP824, of which we got half. We have only 4 photos on this particular site, and they have been there for three years, but none of them would ever have been accepted on the micros, and they sure would not have sold.

We also made about $US1000 on Alamy. Not much from around 300 images, but they also have been there for a while, and the great thing is, they don't seem to age anything like so fast as they do on the micros.

We have decided to add more to the trads.  Anything that you think will sell only a few times isn't worth putting on the micros.

Hmmm, when I think about it, that means most of ours should never have gone to the micros:-)

Linda

« Reply #159 on: January 08, 2008, 22:41 »
0
we just sold a photo on a trad ...We have only 4 photos on this particular site, and they have been there for three years, but none of them would ever have been accepted on the micros, and they sure would not have sold.

Would you mind sharing the site... ;)

« Reply #160 on: January 08, 2008, 23:40 »
0



#2 You encourage buyers to go buy a high resolution at non subscription agencies, where they will pay depending on the image size

[/quote]

That gives me an idea.
We are forever hearing that designers DL more than they need and use only a small proportion, and it's used as a reason (excuse?) for the payout on subscription sites being so low.

So why not become a comping service? For the price of a subscription, designers are only able to DL very small or watermarked images. Once they have got their design finalised, they can go back and buy the ones they really want, at the size they want, and we can get a sensible payment.

Or maybe a subscription could be for 740 web size and 10 full size. We get our 30 cents or whatever, and more for the full size.

Is that a silly idea? Tell me if it is, I can take it:-)

Linda

« Reply #161 on: January 09, 2008, 00:24 »
0
So why not become a comping service? For the price of a subscription, designers are only able to DL very small or watermarked images. Once they have got their design finalised, they can go back and buy the ones they really want, at the size they want, and we can get a sensible payment.

Or maybe a subscription could be for 740 web size and 10 full size. We get our 30 cents or whatever, and more for the full size.

Is that a silly idea? Tell me if it is, I can take it:-)

Linda
It is silly but only because designers can already get comps for free at most of the sites.

nruboc

« Reply #162 on: January 09, 2008, 01:20 »
0
I'm opting in, flame on, but StockXpert has been one of the best agencies to deal with for me, they actually listen to their contributors and have the easiest upload process. If you opt out then you should not contibute to Dreamstime, 123, SV, Crestock (Who pays a measley 25 cents I may add) as a matter of principle if you're so against the subscription model. Opting out will do nothing but drive the subscription customers to a different site, ones that I might add don't give you a choice, and may even pay you LESS (Crestock).

Now if you start a movement against low commission paying sites (ie IStockPhoto, UnLucky Oliver, Crestock) let me know, I'm in.



I totally agree Nruboc. If you read my older posts you will notice that i was the leading force to convince StockXpert to make it optional!
I hate subscription and i want fair commissions!
It's great that contributors finally take some action BUT THIS IS GOING NOW IN THE WRONG DIRECTION its the wrong target StockXpert is one of the most photographerfriendly agencies.
This thread started at DOWNSIZE FOR SS and option out now it's only option out at StockXpert.
I personally don't submit to any subscription or 20% sites. I deleted my portfolio at 123RF and did delete about 150pics at DT at the Moment they introduced subscription and don't contribute to them anymore.
I can understand that this is too radical for many contributors BUT NONETHELESS MORE AND OTHER ACTION is needed.
If all Agencies would treat their contributors like StockXpert (fair commissions, easy upload etc.) the Microstock - world would be perfect.
But the real enemies are iStock and Shutterstock. And then Dreamstime for not listening to their contributors to make it optional.

more and other action is needed! Don't fight the good agencies fight the bad ones


grp_photo - I totally agree with you, and have complete respect for you in your decision. If you disagree with the subscription model you should take exactly the action you did.

I just emailed my contact at StockXpert pointing them to this thread and recommended they take the choice away. Force these people who are "so against the subscription model" to make a choice, either both or nothing. They choose to leave their images at Dreamstime so I suspect they will leave them at StockXpert, given no choice. After this, just try getting any agency to listen to their contributors, yeah they're showing StockXpert real good, and the other agencies reading this thread to listen to your contributors at your own peril.

I'm not going to get mad at those who opt out, because in a sense everyone is correct, there is a problem with the subscription model, the prices are too cheap for the high resolution images, I think we can all agree on that.

The problem is, where do we go from here? The acknowleged leader in this space is ShutterStock. ShutterStock is not IStockPhoto, they do not have any exclusive content, and thus cannot get away with raising prices substantially like IStock without losing ALOT of customers to the likes of Dreamstime, Crestock, 123, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, customers are much more price conscious at higher price points and will have no hesitation jummping to the competition, where, the images are virtually the same, just at a lower price, if ShutterStock were to increase prices dramatically.

Do I wish ShutterStock was the only subscription site out there? YES, then they would be able to dictate the prices, and I have confidence they would raise them in line with IStock. But let's face reality, that's not going to happen, there are now like 6 sites offering subscriptions.  Do I know what the solution is? NO. Is it going to get better just opting out at StockXpert? NO. In the meantime, I will be happy to take the increased subscription sales at Stock Xpert while all you opt out.

Can we at least get a commitment from the thread starter to at least drop Crestock or pressure them to raise their LOWEST subscription commission?? If he is so against subscriptions, how does he stand for this? It's the reason I don't submit to Crestock, the least they can do is match the others. C'mon thread starter, start a movement on that one.






nruboc

« Reply #163 on: January 09, 2008, 01:30 »
0
In a way - I'm for subs, it seems like a good business model for the agency.  BUT - I'm against giving anything away.  And if I had the expenses that the big players have it would be outright criminal. 

Is there anyway we can do more than say "I'm not playing this game" and suggest ways to make subs more fair for both of us?

What do designers want?  Do they want 100 high rez photos - I really think not.  I bet they want smaller files to use in brochures, websites, newspaper ads.

Why not sell subscriptions for 4 or 5 mp and less?  Bait and Switch, they find the perfect photo but if they need a 10 or 15 mp this time.  Let them pay for it!    I can't believe a site like Shutterstock does not sell individual photos!  Are they afraid of losing their subscription clients?  Is it too much programming?   They have to lose thousands $ from those customers who are between subscriptions and go to Istock for a month.  What if they stay at Istock and never come back?

OR... instead of having a 15 photo per day download limit - make it a 15 credits downlimit per day.  1 credit for small  - 2 for medium - 3 for large... etc.   At StockXpert we would still only get $.90 for a largish file, but that's better than .30...  It's a compromise for both of us (unless in the end the agency is depending on leftover credits to turn a profit).

LO may not pay the best percentages, but they ONLY sell the largest/original size photo as an EL.  That's $25 to me - and it seems to work for them, they seem to sell a high percentage of large files.




Great post Pixart, you're right, subscription plans do have a place, it's just broken right now. I've purchased subscriptions at ShutterStock and I never downloaded the highest res. Not to mention I never used 90% of the ones I downloaded. This is the GOOD side of subscription plans that people fail to mention when bashing subscriptions. If I was paying credits I would have downloaded about 10% of what I did when I was in a subscription plan.


I love your idea of charing more for high res downloads in a subscription plan, make the standard subscription only good for a medium res. version. However, that still leaves us at the problem of there has to be someone to implement this first. And the one who does will risk losing alot of customers to the other sites with no restriction on resolution. Man do I wish ShutterStock was the only sub game in town now, I think we would see a lot of changes.





« Reply #164 on: January 09, 2008, 02:04 »
0
Hmmm... You basically say that because SS successfully introduced subscriptions and was copied from other agencies now it can't modify its commercial strategy because otherway it would lose customers to the copied subscription planes elsewhere.

The perfect lose-lose situation where all the commercial costs are pushed down to whom produce the goods they sell, basically us, till the limit when the game is too much stretched out and it breaks up.

When the revenues don't cover the production costs talking about how much StockXpert is nice or SS is fair while others are the really evil ones becomes pretty futile, don't you agree?

The choices are limited to both of us and the agencies.

If they want quality images they have to pay more because producing those images cost money.

Microstock is coming out of its infancy when it was solely based on old portfolios kept unused in hard disks (the infamous  "better 20 cents than your images just collecting dust in your hd!") or hobbyist that can be pleased by the "buzz".

Now I can sustain to work without a real gain because at the moment I'm trying to learn to be a commercial photographer-illustrator and the microstock market is a good school.

Other people who already are at that level and well over simply can't, they'd better go out shooting weddings, it's far more profitable.

Can agencies survive just with people like me? I doubt it.

nruboc

« Reply #165 on: January 09, 2008, 02:19 »
0
Hmmm... You basically say that because SS successfully introduced subscriptions and was copied from other agencies now it can't modify its commercial strategy because otherway it would lose customers to the copied subscription planes elsewhere.

The perfect lose-lose situation where all the commercial costs are pushed down to whom produce the goods they sell, basically us, till the limit when the game is too much stretched out and it breaks up.

When the revenues don't cover the production costs talking about how much StockXpert is nice or SS is fair while others are the really evil ones becomes pretty futile, don't you agree?

The choices are limited to both of us and the agencies.

If they want quality images they have to pay more because producing those images cost money.

Microstock is coming out of its infancy when it was solely based on old portfolios kept unused in hard disks (the infamous  "better 20 cents than your images just collecting dust in your hd!") or hobbyist that can be pleased by the "buzz".

Now I can sustain to work without a real gain because at the moment I'm trying to learn to be a commercial photographer-illustrator and the microstock market is a good school.

Other people who already are at that level and well over simply can't, they'd better go out shooting weddings, it's far more profitable.

Can agencies survive just with people like me? I doubt it.


Well, you didn't offer any solution to the problem now did you? Do you submit to Dreamstime still? Did you opt out at StockXpert? That's the problem we're talking about here. If you're like grp_photo and don't submit to any of the subscription sites, then I respect that, if you  are ONLY opting out at StockXpert, then you are not contributing to a solution.

I am submitting to most of the subscription site so I'm not helping matters either, but it's because I don't know a way out of this subscription mess. Right now it's making me money, and if I hear a good plan of how to increase our commissions at ALL the subscripion sites, then I am in. Opting out at StockXpert alone, is not the answer.

And yes, agencies will survive without you, and without everyone who opted out above, and me for that matter.

« Reply #166 on: January 09, 2008, 02:31 »
0
Well, you didn't offer any solution to the problem now did you?


The solution is there. Agencies have to pay more for images if they want to keep quality contributors. At the cost to reject more and more images from not-so-high quality contributors like me.

Paying more could mean raise the image price to the customers or not, it depends on their revenues. But I think they can't afford to lose quality contributors.


« Reply #167 on: January 09, 2008, 03:05 »
0
Hmmm... You basically say that because SS successfully introduced subscriptions and was copied from other agencies now it can't modify its commercial strategy because otherway it would lose customers to the copied subscription planes elsewhere.

The perfect lose-lose situation where all the commercial costs are pushed down to whom produce the goods they sell, basically us, till the limit when the game is too much stretched out and it breaks up.

When the revenues don't cover the production costs talking about how much StockXpert is nice or SS is fair while others are the really evil ones becomes pretty futile, don't you agree?

The choices are limited to both of us and the agencies.

If they want quality images they have to pay more because producing those images cost money.

Microstock is coming out of its infancy when it was solely based on old portfolios kept unused in hard disks (the infamous  "better 20 cents than your images just collecting dust in your hd!") or hobbyist that can be pleased by the "buzz".

Now I can sustain to work without a real gain because at the moment I'm trying to learn to be a commercial photographer-illustrator and the microstock market is a good school.

Other people who already are at that level and well over simply can't, they'd better go out shooting weddings, it's far more profitable.

Can agencies survive just with people like me? I doubt it.


Well, you didn't offer any solution to the problem now did you? Do you submit to Dreamstime still? Did you opt out at StockXpert? That's the problem we're talking about here. If you're like grp_photo and don't submit to any of the subscription sites, then I respect that, if you  are ONLY opting out at StockXpert, then you are not contributing to a solution.

I am submitting to most of the subscription site so I'm not helping matters either, but it's because I don't know a way out of this subscription mess. Right now it's making me money, and if I hear a good plan of how to increase our commissions at ALL the subscripion sites, then I am in. Opting out at StockXpert alone, is not the answer.

And yes, agencies will survive without you, and without everyone who opted out above, and me for that matter.




When StockXpert first said they were introducing subscription, there was a big fuss, everyone said they didn't want it.
The solution was there for the taking, StockXpert said if not enough people joined, they would abandon it. What happened? Just about everyone opted in.
I said from the beginning that if subscription was introduced with no opt out, I would delete our portfolio. I'm still prepared to do that. I understand perfectly that my decision is of no importance to StockXpert, but it is to me.
When it comes to DT, I haven't uploaded there for a while. I'm still hopeful that they will abandon the idea. If they don't, I'm prepared to give them up too. Again, I realise that my decision is irrelevant.
But Steven, your decision is not irrelevant.  Yuri and Andres have had the guts to take some action. You, and a few others, could make a difference, but you aren't prepared to do that. I don't really understand why.
As for punishing the good guys, I don't see what you see. I see a company trying to grab a slice of a pie baked by someone else. When this first came up, Steve-oh talked about new customers. I asked if they were new to StockXpert, or new to Microstock. No answer was given.
Now we see people claiming that SS sales are down. Is it a coincidence?
Please don't say that you don't see a way out of this mess. You were partially to blame and you know it. You also know what the answer is.
Linda

DanP68

« Reply #168 on: January 09, 2008, 04:07 »
0
This was never an issue of "Subscriptions are bad for contributors" for me. It has always been a "Subscriptions are bad for the business" idea that includes both contributors and the companies we contribute to. Think about how being subscription-only has crippled Shutterstock. They can't adjust anything in their pricing model because they only have one price. Neither the contributors nor the company will see a raise any time soon, because it would mean puhing pst that $199 price point and pricing themselves out of the bargain subscription business.


I agree with everything you say here Helix, except for the point about contributors not expecting a raise anytime soon.  A quick history check shows Shutterstock has announced raises for contributors every year for the last 3, between the end of January and early April. Those raises have been in the 10%-25% range on average.  In other words, we should expect to hear something soon.

If no raise is given, you might see a lot of artists start to move away from Shutterstock.  But I cannot imagine them not giving a raise.  Even 123RF pays 36c per sub dl.

« Reply #169 on: January 09, 2008, 05:26 »
0
Actually Shutterstock raised their photographer cut from 25 to 30c last year, which was a 20% raise.

Of course any company/individual who is prepared to shell out what is usually a three figure sum for a subscription package is unlikely to go elsewhere to buy your particular image if it's unavailable. They'll just download something similar by somebody else.

Disabling subscription downloads may be fine if everybody does it, but that's unlikely and it would be a long haul before the subscribers actually noticed the difference.

Even then although you might win the war with some agencies, those subscribers will probably just sign up with Shutterstock. And I doubt you'll make much of a dent in their sales to be honest. In fact I suspect that although many might close the door on StockXpert subscription downloads, they'd be unlikely to remove all their images from Shutterstock. Which would make it a pyrrhic victory surely?

« Reply #170 on: January 09, 2008, 06:10 »
0
Shutterstock has so far increased their photographers comissions every april. From 0.20 to 0.23 in April 2005, then to 0.25 in April 2006, then to 0.30 in April 2007 and I am pretty sure will see an increase this april to 0.35

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #171 on: January 09, 2008, 06:19 »
0
Shutterstock has so far increased their photographers comissions every april. From 0.20 to 0.23 in April 2005, then to 0.25 in April 2006, then to 0.30 in April 2007 and I am pretty sure will see an increase this april to 0.35

Yes. But they put up prices withwas it 70%.
I hope they will not put up prices again with another 70% this year and only give us about 20% in extra income. Doing so last year is probably why SS is at a still-stand in income today.

« Reply #172 on: January 09, 2008, 07:12 »
0
We can opt out at SS too ! Some contributors opted our for footage files after prices change (slashing commition about 70%). So the files are still there but customers dont see them.

« Reply #173 on: January 09, 2008, 07:19 »
0
Another thing we can do: in sites which we can define the price (snapvillage and featurepics), valuate our pictures in order to obtain the same money for us. In this way, the images in friendly sites become cheaper for customer.

« Reply #174 on: January 09, 2008, 10:18 »
0
updated opt out list

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5465 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 14:00
by sharpshot
19 Replies
6169 Views
Last post February 17, 2012, 10:51
by luissantos84
15 Replies
6475 Views
Last post August 14, 2012, 00:30
by Microbius
40 Replies
17234 Views
Last post June 19, 2019, 01:32
by georgep7
17 Replies
21560 Views
Last post June 28, 2019, 00:17
by Clair Voyant

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors