pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen  (Read 197232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #750 on: March 11, 2014, 10:40 »
+5
Well, he didn't post his Getty earnings, it might help balance his overall income, but obviously if you are producing 5000 great images in a year and see falling sales, you are heading towards a problem.

I agree that it is necessary to position yourself for what you believe will be the place in the future.

But if someone with this kind of port is struggling, I think it is logical that many single artists, who simply cannot produce the volume, even if they have the same quality are looking into what they can do to stop falling sales.

And those with simpler portfolios, just look at skyneshers results and wonder what chance they have if even he cannot manage to increase his income.

The current situation is very complicated. I really didn't leave istock just because I am angry at the unpaid 1.3 million downloads from Microsoft.

I simply didn't understand what they were doing and saw falling sales in my future. But the Getty Google deal then prompted a drastic reaction because the way Getty handled  the situation was from a business perspective extremely unprofessional IMO.

 At that point it became clear (for me) that I must move now, before everyone else moves out.

The best and biggest portfolios will be the last ones to leave, because it is the most difficult for them.

But since it takes two years to establish good search positions on agencies with millions of good quality files, I want to be ahead of the game, not the last one there.

like I said before, I genuinly hope istock recovers. I'd love to see them be successful.

But what I keep seeing that they do, doesn't give me much hope.

Anyway, i wish you good luck with your port. Might be worth uploading to Getty as well, but if your income is growing in the overall combination, perhaps your content is really best positioned with them.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 10:43 by cobalt »


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #751 on: March 11, 2014, 10:42 »
0
Well, then what is going wrong with the people that are working hard and seeing their income fall? One contributor reported recently adding 5000 new files and falling sales.

because in the long term individual stockers can not compete with the image factories, our only chance is to specialize in a few niches.

« Reply #752 on: March 11, 2014, 10:47 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:15 by tickstock »

« Reply #753 on: March 11, 2014, 10:57 »
0
The more I think about it, the more I think this is about reducing Getty's advertising costs and possibly monetizing its embed platform, a shrewd move by them.

They appear to be in the process of consolidating and trimming waste, iS and Thinkstock merger is probably on the cards next and I'd be surprised to see the exclusivity program still in operation in the next couple of years, too much average work at too high a price.

Getty won't wait around to react thats for sure.

That's pretty much what I said three years ago:
Once that is accomplished, Istock will be completely redundant. 

Or is istock becoming the triage station, sorting incoming material into accepted/unaccepted and then routing it into different channels?

Photos.com and TS don't want to invest on the infrastructure for assessing image submissions, but iStock has a trained pool of cheap (I presume) labour doing that job. The IS inspectors are now working for IS, TS,P.com and Getty but only getting paid the rate for working for Istock.

It's quite clever, really.

I haven't seen any reason to abandon that theory yet.

« Reply #754 on: March 11, 2014, 11:00 »
+2
Well, then what is going wrong with the people that are working hard and seeing their income fall? One contributor reported recently adding 5000 new files and falling sales.

because in the long term individual stockers can not compete with the image factories, our only chance is to specialize in a few niches.

Aren't the image factories eating themselves? I don't bother checking what they are doing but I am under the impression they have a formula and list of subjects that they keep doing over and over again in the hope of hogging the market - eventually, all that does is protect existing sales from rivals without generating new ones.

« Reply #755 on: March 11, 2014, 11:12 »
+3
I see myself doing stock for a very, very long time. So yes, I fully agree that first I need to regain my income level and then it will take several years to recoup the loss from the missing income from istock.

But how big would that loss be?

I was already seeing unexpected income swings. I cannot go and take for instance the average income from the last two exclusive years and presume i would keep earning that from istock if I just stay exclusive. I cannot even assume, oh I will maybe just earn 15% less a year.

 I cannot model the future earnings, especially when I do not understand the business strategy of the partner I am working with.

This is what happens when you lose confidence in a partner. I've had very bad experiences from my old life before istock Things can go south very, very fast.

So when the red lights go on, I move much faster then others. It has worked for me in the past and I am still here.

My original plan was just to test the video market. When this was going well, I thought I would just be video indie and build a second stream and stay photo exclusive.

Maybe learn about illustrations once the video workflow is set (including the niche I want to target etc...again something that needs at least two years of market experience) and then turn my photos into illustrations...if possible, I have no idea if that is a good use of my time. Yet.

Everyone has to make their own decisions for their business. Some just do more assignment work, others take up part time jobs, some people change careers completly and drop photography down as a hobby.

And photographers like you feel confident in their income potential from getty and stay.

Nothing wrong with that. If it works for you, being exclusive is a good thing.

Perhaps my decision is wrong. Maybe if I had stayed exclusive, ignored anything I read and see and focussed all my energy just into shooting and uploading, maybe it would have been the best way for financial success.

Going indie is not for everyone, but I am very satisfied with my decision, especially with all the news coming from Getty these days.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 11:15 by cobalt »

« Reply #756 on: March 11, 2014, 11:28 »
+7
The answer seems to me to be a class action lawsuit. You can't just keep changing the terms of service. They are allowing news sites, which make money and are very much commercial, to use the (your) content for free. I don't think any of us signed up for that. I stopped contributing to iStock a long time ago, it just stopped being worth the hassle. The several hundred images that are there are old but still make a little bit of money, so I am not complaining. But I am certainly not going to give them any more images that they can give away.

« Reply #757 on: March 11, 2014, 11:39 »
+2
"Terms of Service" might as well be in  a weekly email.  The lawyers have assured the agencies they can do anything they want with "their" images, as long as they cover their behinds by amending the TOS at the same time.

This latest Getty thing is just the beginning. One by one, agencies will try to monetize that supposedly huge group of people who "will never pay for an image" by using free images to generate ad revenue.    They've realized that if nothing is paid for the image, nothing has to be paid to the photographer.   They've also realized that while contributors may not like these deals, they won't leave, because traditional sales continue.  How much the free images cut into actual sales is impossible to predict.

IMHO, people who think SS won't get into this game are whistling in the dark.   



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #758 on: March 11, 2014, 11:49 »
+3
I am glad to hear it is working well for you. You obviously know how to work with Getty's system.
It's the same everywhere, work hard, that's it.

Well, then what is going wrong with the people that are working hard and seeing their income fall? One contributor reported recently adding 5000 new files and falling sales.

It was a good portfolio too.

What would you recommend?

I mean, that is the main reason people are giving up their exclusivity. No sales inspite of new uploads. Not even views on their new work.

How are you combating the lack of views? Do you promote you work heavily yourself, your own blog or something?
I can't comment on some anonymous person's work that I can't see and have no data on their sales.  As far as I know this a purely hypothetical case.

I don't promote my work on a blog or social media, I don't think it's worth time, money, or effort.

Mammamaart is a Black Diamond with  >230000 dls. >260 uploads this year (over 10% of her port).
In the February sales thread, she says:
"It is all a big fat mess, uploads going up and up, downloads and money going down and down."
"Seriously, I have no idea WHAT is going on. But something is utterly wrong. I have never ever seen it THIS bad."

and
"...But my head still can not get around what they are doing.
How come things change overnight, THIS badly. again and again. It is the lifes of people they are playing with. 3 days: ONE download.
Seriously? This is not a hobby people. But yeah, I have not complained out in the open a lot or at all recently. And I am not planning on doing a lot of it in the future either. It is not like I still have hope anybody is listening or caring."

Granted, the 'three days, one download' scenario probably includes a Sat and Sun; but still, is that what anyone would expect for a contributor of her experience and port?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #759 on: March 11, 2014, 11:56 »
0
Well, he didn't post his Getty earnings, it might help balance his overall income, but obviously if you are producing 5000 great images in a year and see falling sales, you are heading towards a problem.
Indeed, especially with this stupid Getty free giveaway cr*p; and no way of knowing whether the recent slew of GI refunds is linked to that. Lobo has said that no email is going to be sent about it, and if you ask CR, they'll just confirm a GI refund and offer no further explanation.
Coincidence?
AFAICR, the refunds used to take place at the beginning of the GI payments coming in.

« Reply #760 on: March 11, 2014, 12:10 »
+1
"Terms of Service" might as well be in  a weekly email.  The lawyers have assured the agencies they can do anything they want with "their" images, as long as they cover their behinds by amending the TOS at the same time.

This latest Getty thing is just the beginning. One by one, agencies will try to monetize that supposedly huge group of people who "will never pay for an image" by using free images to generate ad revenue.    They've realized that if nothing is paid for the image, nothing has to be paid to the photographer.   They've also realized that while contributors may not like these deals, they won't leave, because traditional sales continue.  How much the free images cut into actual sales is impossible to predict.

IMHO, people who think SS won't get into this game are whistling in the dark.

You reckon Getty is destroying the entire market, then?

« Reply #761 on: March 11, 2014, 12:14 »
+1
"Terms of Service" might as well be in  a weekly email.  The lawyers have assured the agencies they can do anything they want with "their" images, as long as they cover their behinds by amending the TOS at the same time.

This latest Getty thing is just the beginning. One by one, agencies will try to monetize that supposedly huge group of people who "will never pay for an image" by using free images to generate ad revenue.    They've realized that if nothing is paid for the image, nothing has to be paid to the photographer.   They've also realized that while contributors may not like these deals, they won't leave, because traditional sales continue.  How much the free images cut into actual sales is impossible to predict.

IMHO, people who think SS won't get into this game are whistling in the dark.

You reckon Getty is destroying the entire market, then?

No, I don't think it's that simple.  They'll certainly damage it, by devaluing the entire concept.  And I suspect the actual ad revenue won't begin to live up to the predictions.  I think it's a bad move, in time it may be seen as a dumb one as well.  But the effects are unpredictable.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #762 on: March 11, 2014, 12:23 »
+1
Has anyone run across any embedding anywhere other than the original stories about embedding? I've checked a bunch of blogs, even ones that ran the story and said they were planning to use embedding, and I haven't seen one instance of it so far.

EmberMike

« Reply #763 on: March 11, 2014, 15:49 »
+3
Well, he didn't post his Getty earnings, it might help balance his overall income, but obviously if you are producing 5000 great images in a year and see falling sales, you are heading towards a problem.

I agree that it is necessary to position yourself for what you believe will be the place in the future.

But if someone with this kind of port is struggling, I think it is logical that many single artists, who simply cannot produce the volume, even if they have the same quality are looking into what they can do to stop falling sales...

I'm not a photographer, but in looking at that portfolio I'm not entirely surprised there is no growth. The new images look just like the old ones. Same subjects, same shots. Smiling families in brightly colored shirts, generic business people, guy holding blank business card, etc. With that kind of stuff, does anyone really expect to make more money?

Sure they're beautifully shot images. Better done than a lot of folks could do. But it's just more generic stock.

I feel like I'm seeing a trend lately, with people complaining about dropping earnings while they're only producing work that competes with their old work.

We talk about quality and quantity and which is better to focus on. Or what sort of balance between the two is best. But we often forget that both are worthless if you ignore the need for diversity.

« Reply #764 on: March 11, 2014, 16:47 »
+4
I'm not a photographer, but in looking at that portfolio I'm not entirely surprised there is no growth. The new images look just like the old ones. Same subjects, same shots. Smiling families in brightly colored shirts, generic business people, guy holding blank business card, etc. With that kind of stuff, does anyone really expect to make more money?

Sure they're beautifully shot images. Better done than a lot of folks could do. But it's just more generic stock.

That is the stuff that sells the best.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #765 on: March 11, 2014, 16:52 »
+1
This latest Getty thing is just the beginning. One by one, agencies will try to monetize that supposedly huge group of people who "will never pay for an image" by using free images to generate ad revenue.    They've realized that if nothing is paid for the image, nothing has to be paid to the photographer.   They've also realized that while contributors may not like these deals, they won't leave, because traditional sales continue.  How much the free images cut into actual sales is impossible to predict.

IMHO, people who think SS won't get into this game are whistling in the dark.

at the moment is very hard to predict what will happen in the next 2-3 years.

if we look at music, streaming sites like Pandora and similars where expected to be the "next big thing" but it turned out to be just the usual smoke and mirrors and lots of artists are quite vocal against them as they pay a pittance.

if we look at printed newspapers and magazine there's no doubt they suffered a lot from the tons of free news available on the web.

TV is also losing a lot of viewers as people is now hooked into Youtube etc

so, what's going to happen with Free images supplied by Getty ? i don't think it's a big deal, i'm more worried about what could come next actually ... and by the way monetizing images with ads and links is not new, there are dozens of companies who tried years ago and mostly unsuccessfully or they barely break even.

after all if we talk about piracy the money has always been about pirate FTPs and now about the so called "cyberlockers", no one ever made big bucks selling pirated photos alone.


lisafx

« Reply #766 on: March 11, 2014, 18:15 »
+10
Well, he didn't post his Getty earnings, it might help balance his overall income, but obviously if you are producing 5000 great images in a year and see falling sales, you are heading towards a problem.

I agree that it is necessary to position yourself for what you believe will be the place in the future.

But if someone with this kind of port is struggling, I think it is logical that many single artists, who simply cannot produce the volume, even if they have the same quality are looking into what they can do to stop falling sales...

I'm not a photographer, but in looking at that portfolio I'm not entirely surprised there is no growth. The new images look just like the old ones. Same subjects, same shots. Smiling families in brightly colored shirts, generic business people, guy holding blank business card, etc. With that kind of stuff, does anyone really expect to make more money?

Sure they're beautifully shot images. Better done than a lot of folks could do. But it's just more generic stock.

I feel like I'm seeing a trend lately, with people complaining about dropping earnings while they're only producing work that competes with their old work.

We talk about quality and quantity and which is better to focus on. Or what sort of balance between the two is best. But we often forget that both are worthless if you ignore the need for diversity.

I haven't seen the portfolio in question, but in general, how much more diversity can be brought to the market?  Nearly every subject on the planet has been covered to death.  The only remaining option seems to be small niche areas, which may get some sales but won't likely provide a living wage, or keep treading the same over covered ground of popular subjects.  Even balancing between the two is not enough to keep earnings up forever.

For the past two years my annual stats have reflected gains in overall downloads and 20% drops in earnings.  With all the royalty decreases, migrations of sales from od  to subs, free image giveaway schemes, search order shenanigans, etc that have been thrown at contributors, it is mind blowing that anyone would seriously suggest that falling incomes are the result of contributors failing to update their concepts.


« Reply #767 on: March 11, 2014, 18:20 »
+9
I think someone like skynesher, who shoots on this kind of level, he or his team are fully aware of market trends. You dont reach black diamond level if you are not aware of them.

Of course you can draw the conclusion that the content he is uploading is simply not trendy enough.

But with 5000 images, which is more than my whole portfolio, I draw a different conclusion: istock has simply lost a huge amount of buyers.

Either they were sent to Thinkstock or Getty, or the unstable site, constantly changing prices (even done abruptly mid season) has chased them away.

And if you are supplying an agency with a shrinking customer pool, you simply cannot win. The oversupply of images can be handled by being very good in your chosen niche, but if the agency sends the customers elsewhere within their own network of webshops and isnt very good at attracting new ones...you have a very serious problem.

So, obviously if your sales are falling you analyse your own portfolio and first you blame yourself. But it is also important to look at the big picture - is my partner the best I can find, is the company totally committed to building a bigger customer base for all the webshops they represent?

Imagine ebay or amazon sending customers to a second auction house or webshops  they own, while at the same time they keep raising their fees in an unpredictable manner. Having site outages unannounced and the communication with business partners is very unsatisfactory. Also their accounting is full of errors and every month you get unpredictable refunds for sales that happened months earlier. And sometimes they claw back money totally out of the blue, like it happened to many exclusives today.

Would you keep your webshop exclusively with them?

At what point will you draw the conclusion to spread your risk by having several shops on different sites?

Obviously webshop success, and this is what our portfolios are, is a mix of factors that I can control and others which the partner controls.

But please dont only blame yourself, if the customer base grows, so will everyones income.

istock was the market leader in micro, how on earth can you lose such a position?

And coming back to the recent viewer and Getty announcements including subs - does the business vision they offer to us sound like we will be making more money?

Free and promotional use, dont pay our studios.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 18:30 by cobalt »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #768 on: March 11, 2014, 18:22 »
+2
Well, then what is going wrong with the people that are working hard and seeing their income fall? One contributor reported recently adding 5000 new files and falling sales.

because in the long term individual stockers can not compete with the image factories, our only chance is to specialize in a few niches.
iStock has knocked even that on its head with the subs scheme.
Subs only work if your images have potential to sell many times at sub prices, so unless you can find an unmined niche that the buyers have been secretly clamouring for, don't think of micro for niche work.
It worked to some extent on iS for a while, especially when people could 'promote' their own images, but the first blow was demoting low-selling files to Main prices (no more sales but for much less) and now subs makes it as pointless to submit low-supply, low-demand images there as to any other sub site.
Less choice for the buyer, but of course they care for the buyers only marginally more than than they care about the suppliers.

« Reply #769 on: March 11, 2014, 19:02 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:14 by tickstock »

EmberMike

« Reply #770 on: March 11, 2014, 19:39 »
0
...it is mind blowing that anyone would seriously suggest that falling incomes are the result of contributors failing to update their concepts.

Come on, Lisa. Do you really think that "smiling business guy holding blank business card" is still a concept worth shooting? There aren't enough of those images out there already? At iStock I get 2,500 search results for a person holding a blank business card.

I stand by my previous statement. If that's the kind of stuff someone is shooting today, they can't seriously be scratching their head wondering where the sales are.

I'm not saying that's the issue for everyone. But in the specific portfolio that was mentioned, I think the theory has a leg or two to stand on.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 19:43 by EmberMike »

« Reply #771 on: March 11, 2014, 19:44 »
+1
to get off topic. I think it is pretty clear that SS changed the search order last year. If your images were previously in a good search position it hurt you, potentially a lot. I don't think that SS has sold less images since that search change, so presumably someone else is getting those sales. We can speculate on what exactly changed in the search and why that was done. Those drastic changes should be put over the overall trend of image numbers going up faster than sales numbers.

I think that the search change dropped images that had been at the top of the search order for years. It certainly hurt my best selling image sales. Since my sales there are mostly of older images still, I presume that this search change would hurt people who started before I did and had even more older long running best selling images. I also saw a jump up in my $ from SS near the end of 2011 (mostly due to more higher $ sales I think).

One other change that potentially will have hit individual contributors differently is where you are located. I recently changed my address on file from the east to the west in the US and I have noticed that I tend to get a larger percent of my sales later in the day now. If they are pushing "local" images in the search that could really hurt you if you aren't local enough to places that buy lots of images of the type in your port. I don't know when they started doing this, but that could also account for some ports suddenly performing a lot worse than they had in the past.

I think it might be a bit of a stretch to say that SS did this purposefully to move lower paying images to the front (although they might have seen that as an added bonus of more recent images selling). I certainly don't think they have a method where they push images from the top tier down lower in search (although if they do, I'd love to see proof of it). As for the new contributor boost - I'd like to see some concrete info on that too, but I certainly don't expect to get any.

I would hate to have SS start to do the abrupt and massive switches to search that IS is famous for. It seemed like each time they did that my sales plummeted and only recovered after I uploaded large numbers of new images.

-edited because of a typo that changed the meaning of a sentence.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 19:47 by pancaketom »

EmberMike

« Reply #772 on: March 11, 2014, 19:45 »
+2
I'm not a photographer, but in looking at that portfolio I'm not entirely surprised there is no growth. The new images look just like the old ones. Same subjects, same shots. Smiling families in brightly colored shirts, generic business people, guy holding blank business card, etc. With that kind of stuff, does anyone really expect to make more money?

Sure they're beautifully shot images. Better done than a lot of folks could do. But it's just more generic stock.

That is the stuff that sells the best.

I'm sure it sells, but from portfolios that already have the image, have the search placement, have the popularity. A new image among the 2,500 existing similar images will have a really hard time selling, no matter how good the image is.

I really don't see how doing that kind of stuff can be expected to generate sales.

« Reply #773 on: March 11, 2014, 20:06 »
+2
I think someone like skynesher, who shoots on this kind of level, he or his team are fully aware of market trends. You dont reach black diamond level if you are not aware of them.

Of course you can draw the conclusion that the content he is uploading is simply not trendy enough.

But with 5000 images, which is more than my whole portfolio, I draw a different conclusion: istock has simply lost a huge amount of buyers.
Don't ignore that Skynesher never included GI earnings which for me would more than make up the shortfall but I'm curious what you think when lisafx says:
"Sorry to say, Gbalex's suggestion matches my numbers pretty well.  My monthly take on SS the past several months has been less than half what it was a couple of years ago.  For a number of years I did not earn less than three digits on a (nonholiday) weekday.  Now I am typically getting in the mid double digits. "

Do you draw the same conclusions?

I need to make my own experiences. I have numbers from other contributors who have been steadily increasing their earnings on SS. YOY growth since over 5 years. Over 1200 uploads a year on average, depending on portfolio.

Maybe it is a local effect? German contributors are being shown more in Germany or Europe and for SS this is still a growth market? While Lisa is in the US and maybe the growth there is slowing and her portfolio is maybe not shown as strongly over here?


In any case I am not shifting from istock to Shutterstock, I am shifting from istock to over 7 different agencies and I supply different types of content - high value, high volume, video, smartphone images...

I sincerely hope that no single agency will ever dominate my income again. Ill do all I can to avoid that.

So if I should be getting maybe 50 dollars on average a day from SS like Lisa, one or two video downloads a day, a few macro sales a month, income from other sites. Looks good to me.


« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 21:02 by cobalt »

« Reply #774 on: March 11, 2014, 20:40 »
+2
to get off topic. I think it is pretty clear that SS changed the search order last year. If your images were previously in a good search position it hurt you, potentially a lot. I don't think that SS has sold less images since that search change, so presumably someone else is getting those sales. We can speculate on what exactly changed in the search and why that was done.

Those drastic changes should be put over the overall trend of image numbers going up faster than sales numbers.

I think that the search change dropped images that had been at the top of the search order for years. It certainly hurt my best selling image sales. Since my sales there are mostly of older images still, I presume that this search change would hurt people who started before I did and had even more older long running best selling images. I also saw a jump up in my $ from SS near the end of 2011 (mostly due to more higher $ sales I think).

One other change that potentially will have hit individual contributors differently is where you are located. I recently changed my address on file from the east to the west in the US and I have noticed that I tend to get a larger percent of my sales later in the day now. If they are pushing "local" images in the search that could really hurt you if you aren't local enough to places that buy lots of images of the type in your port. I don't know when they started doing this, but that could also account for some ports suddenly performing a lot worse than they had in the past.

I think it might be a bit of a stretch to say that SS did this purposefully to move lower paying images to the front (although they might have seen that as an added bonus of more recent images selling). I certainly don't think they have a method where they push images from the top tier down lower in search (although if they do, I'd love to see proof of it). As for the new contributor boost - I'd like to see some concrete info on that too, but I certainly don't expect to get any.

I would hate to have SS start to do the abrupt and massive switches to search that IS is famous for. It seemed like each time they did that my sales plummeted and only recovered after I uploaded large numbers of new images.

-edited because of a typo that changed the meaning of a sentence.

I agree with many of your points, I do see the changes in regional sales patterns you mentioned, thou nothing is set in stone and patterns seems to be changing over time.

Shutterstock has given new contributors a boost since the very beginning. I used to have bookmarks to Jon and other shutterstock admin discussing this in the shutterstock forums. I lost those links and can not find them today, maybe someone else can dig them up as I have a project to do this morning.  In the beginning it was a few months (2004 - 2006). Anecdotally it seems to be longer now.

I joined shutterstock in 2004 and based on my sales, it does seem that my port (new images and old) has been downgraded in the searches as sales dropped drastically and overnight.  Up until March of last year my downloads were like clock work and very consistent. Now they are as erratic as gust in a squall.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
13164 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 14:10
by Jonathan Ross
7 Replies
5329 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
2 Replies
3808 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
107 Replies
49322 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
1799 Views
Last post May 19, 2022, 21:25
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors