pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Level 6 Congrats, you climbed to a higher level as an image contrib  (Read 5952 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2020, 13:29 »
+2
Ok, I give up.

I figured that was the answer, because there's no point in trying to explain or defend your false claim and misinformation if you have to use real numbers and real math?

Shutterstock is not paying 15%.

What are they paying?


« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2020, 13:44 »
+7
Congrats!  I have been level 6 for sometime but I removed around 6K files as soon as they started their cretinous behaviour! had enough. Whats left is the garbage they deserve!

« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2020, 03:57 »
+5
"WhAt PerCenTage aRe ThEy  PaYiNg!!!  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:("

I know you want a simple answer but sometimes things are little more complicated.

I have just explained and broken down how they calculate the percentages for sub downloads (after you said sub calculations had nothing to do with percentage tier levels).

Plug in whatever numbers you like and you can see that the answer is far less than they claim in real terms, because they calculate using the assumption that a buyer downloads their full allowance. For anyone outside the lowest tiers, i.e. anyone whos income is really going to be effected by this, this results in getting a much lower REAL percentage than Shutterstock claim (because they would be earning more than 10c in every REAL scenario). 

You may be able to come up with scenarios like well if I am tier 1 and the buyer uses 100% of their mega sub package downloads I get more than 15% on those first 100 dls for the year but honestly, why would you work so hard to jam another guys foot up your own a**.

Another example, if I am level 3 and buyer has 750 monthly pack, Shutterstock payment for the sub:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 25%= 6.6c/dl so they raise it to the 10c floor (wOw I aM gEtTiNg 38%!!!!)

If the buyer actually uses 50% of their downloads (again, they dont but lets be generous) what 25% would actually be:

$199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl

Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.

You may want someone to spoon feed you an exact percentage, but without access to Shutterstock's accounts no one can. I doubt thats an accident on their part. If they were being honest/ transparent I wouldnt have to. It would all be on the table and we could take it or leave it. Theres several ways they could do this, even if it meant basing payouts on a previous months percentages used and correcting the following month, but here we are.


« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2020, 07:27 »
+5
Justanotherphotographer has a point. Being paid 15% for the images you create, keyword and upload is already absurd. In reality the actual number is even lower.

But I guess SS have figured out that there are enough people taking pictures just for fun, and not looking at photography as a source of income.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2020, 08:45 »
+1
Justanotherphotographer has a point. Being paid 15% for the images you create, keyword and upload is already absurd. In reality the actual number is even lower.

But I guess SS have figured out that there are enough people taking pictures just for fun, and not looking at photography as a source of income.

Yes he does, based on the assumption, that people don't use their full allotment. He's right. (so are you) How many people don't use their full amount? Does anyone here know.

He's also right that when they use their full pack or over some tipping point number, we get higher than the promised percentage. But as long as they are below that, we get less. Relatively speaking for those large sub packs, everything in the pink zone, we never get, exactly the promised percentage. Either above or below.

I understand the math and his math, I just don't understand the claim that SS doesn't pay us the promised percentages. They do for OD, S&O and EL. Everyone will agree to that. Then on subs, if the buyers full value price, x our percentage is over 10c then they pay us the percentage. If the price x our percentage is under 10c they pay us a high percentage. In some cases, much higher percentage.

The argument that we aren't getting paid the real percentage is based on, what if a buyer doesn't use all their download allotment.

So someone here needs to show how many buyers, with subs are using their full pack every month, where we are getting up to 300%, how many are right around the number where we are getting the promised percentage and how many are well under, in which case we don't get the promised percentage.

It's not as simple as attacking SS for not paying us the promised percentage? For the big sales they are, for subs that is truth or fiction based on a variable that we don't know. We'd need to know, in each case, how many images did the buyer download?

33 days 03 h 20 m 46 s until 2021 Reset Day EDT NY

ps hopefully not many people are actually getting 15% on SS like they are locked in at, forever on IS? If someone is only getting 100DLs a year, they should consider finding some other hobby.


« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2020, 14:01 »
+2
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2020, 15:25 »
+2
Looking at the Earnings Breakdown above, with its Levels... I realize that SS is not a company that considers Photography to be an art form, but some kind of a game, a twisted version of Minecraft. And every year on January 1st (!!!) you die, lose all your progress, and have to start from scratch.

What are these guys smoking?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2020, 16:08 »
0
Looking at the Earnings Breakdown above, with its Levels... I realize that SS is not a company that considers Photography to be an art form, but some kind of a game, a twisted version of Minecraft. And every year on January 1st (!!!) you die, lose all your progress, and have to start from scratch.

What are these guys smoking?

LOL there's another interesting analysis.

Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Really, now there's negative bias against Ukraine and Philippine people and SS is somehow, sending sales to them, instead of us? Talk about false claims and generalizations. Of course my usual question would be... how do you know this, do you have any proof or evidence? Or do you just want to blame SS and attack people from those two countries. 90% wow, those places must be rich with Microstock tycoons.

You managed to miss the point of the facts, we do get the promised commission for any sales that aren't subs, which non-sub sales are always larger amounts.  The subs are the question and debate here, and percentages based on the full sale price, not the potential unused downloads, which SS banks and we get no credit. Which somehow turned into SS Doesn't Pay us the Promised Commission. They do. It's just not a favorable way of calculating what we get from subs... because it's based on what the buyer pays for the full package, whether they use them or not.

By the way, some people seem to miss my goal of being objective and fair in discussions of SS and the new commission system. Nowhere do I defend it or claim to be happy with making less. I'm level 4 and my subs RPD for Nov. is right now at 12 cents. Which is easily 66% less than what I got before the new system.

I get 30%, which is higher than I used to make, on all sales that are not subs. No I don't look forward to January 1st at all.

« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2020, 17:18 »
0
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

not all that scarce-- ymmv, but for last yr my rpd has been about $.70  due to those sales

« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2020, 17:22 »
+6
Looking at the Earnings Breakdown above, with its Levels... I realize that SS is not a company that considers Photography to be an art form, but some kind of a game, a twisted version of Minecraft. ...


of course it's not an art form - same for all other agencies.  if you thinks it is you're in the wrong business. as several of us noted, it's a commodity and priced accordingly

« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2020, 03:02 »
+1
Looking at the Earnings Breakdown above, with its Levels... I realize that SS is not a company that considers Photography to be an art form, but some kind of a game, a twisted version of Minecraft. ...


of course it's not an art form - same for all other agencies.  if you thinks it is you're in the wrong business. as several of us noted, it's a commodity and priced accordingly

A good picture, microstock or not, tells a story. This is Photography, this is Art. What you're talking about are textures. Useful, high quality textures.

I support every Photographer who is deleting their SS port.

« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2020, 08:48 »
+3
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)

« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2020, 12:56 »
+1
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)
I live in Venezuela a third world country  and i swear you with $ 35 usd, you can't fill a shopping cart market with food and others essentials for home, maybe in another third world countries, but in Venezuela not! I think sometimes, it's more profitable begging money on the street than microstock incomes. In the past ( 3 years ago, 2017) with $ 100 you could make a lot in Venezuela, but now you can't.  :( :( :( :( :(
« Last Edit: November 29, 2020, 13:07 by alexandersr »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2020, 16:41 »
0
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)

Interesting views and I learned something new today:

Cost of living in Ukraine
 Single person estimated monthly costs: $820 (23,381₴)
 Ukraine is the cheapest country in Eastern Europe (13 out of 13)
Ukraine is the 4th cheapest country in the World

Cost of living in Venezuela
Single person estimated monthly costs: $183 (49,656,775 Bs.S.)
(came with a warning that the numbers are estimated)

Cost of living in Iceland
Single person estimated monthly costs: $3,040 (404,164 kr)
(also estimated)

USA
Single person estimated monthly costs: $2,611
Cost of living in United States is more expensive than in 77% of countries in the World (18 out of 74)

No judgements, just some numbers. Well maybe one observation. Iceland isn't a cheap place to live! But I hear it's nice and beautiful as well.  ;D

« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2020, 18:56 »
+1
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!


Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)


Interesting views and I learned something new today:

Cost of living in Ukraine
 Single person estimated monthly costs: $820 (23,381₴)
 Ukraine is the cheapest country in Eastern Europe (13 out of 13)
Ukraine is the 4th cheapest country in the World

Cost of living in Venezuela
Single person estimated monthly costs: $183 (49,656,775 Bs.S.)
(came with a warning that the numbers are estimated)

Cost of living in Iceland
Single person estimated monthly costs: $3,040 (404,164 kr)
(also estimated)

USA
Single person estimated monthly costs: $2,611
Cost of living in United States is more expensive than in 77% of countries in the World (18 out of 74)

No judgements, just some numbers. Well maybe one observation. Iceland isn't a cheap place to live! But I hear it's nice and beautiful as well.  ;D


Cost of living in Venezuela
Single person estimated monthly costs: $183 (49,656,775 Bs.S.)
(came with a warning that the numbers are estimated)  Could you show me where did you find that information? it is very few!  Not rent cost included , no leisure, no medicines . Maybe that person only eat and live with his/her parents ! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Look at this!
https://inmueble.mercadolibre.com.ve/MLV-569612537-alquiler-de-habitacion-en-el-paraiso-para-dama-_JM#position=11&type=item&tracking_id=b1d48ff2-ef93-409b-b85e-05b57f17a979 $ 80 room rent for a month, not an apartment.

In my country Venezuela exist two kinds of dollars, the black market , https://twitter.com/DolarToday, and the official dollar, Banco Central de Venezuela  http://www.bcv.org.ve/
« Last Edit: November 29, 2020, 19:10 by alexandersr »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2020, 03:09 »
+1
I prefer Numbeo when looking for a rough idea of prices in various countries. Usually filled in by expats/immigrants, so prices can be a bit off compared to that of a local, but usually seems to be about right... you can compare different cities within the countries as well.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Venezuela

« Reply #41 on: November 30, 2020, 04:53 »
0
Uncle Pete!!  " They do pay us for OD, S&O and EL ".........these are extremely scarce! and 90% goes to Ukraine and Philippine contributors!

Every now and then statements like this pop up: microstock agencies are giving contributors from developing countries, or countries with lower cost of living a ranking boost.
Now, I might have missed it, but until now, I never seen anyone really proving this. Neither have I seen anyone giving a valid reason why agencies would do something like that.
They want to sell licenses, as much as possible, and the only way to optimize that is designing an algorithm that matches relevant content with keywords entered in the search engine.
Physical location of the contributor is completely irrelevant to that.

Maybe we are just seeing a lot more content from contributors from countries with a lower cost of living because ... well it is more profitable for them to engage in microstock?
A 35 dollar payout buys me a pizza in Iceland... or a loaded supermarket shopping cart in let's say Phillipines. (not sure that's completely true, but you get the point)


I know a few photographers in these eastern countries and Ukraine, Russia etc etc and according to themselves they earn very good money and keep uploading like crazy hundreds of shots per week and no problem almost everything pass the QC!.........this is old news actually its been going on for a few years!


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #42 on: November 30, 2020, 10:41 »
+1

Cost of living in Venezuela
Single person estimated monthly costs: $183 (49,656,775 Bs.S.)
(came with a warning that the numbers are estimated)  Could you show me where did you find that information? it is very few!  Not rent cost included , no leisure, no medicines . Maybe that person only eat and live with his/her parents ! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Look at this!
https://inmueble.mercadolibre.com.ve/MLV-569612537-alquiler-de-habitacion-en-el-paraiso-para-dama-_JM#position=11&type=item&tracking_id=b1d48ff2-ef93-409b-b85e-05b57f17a979 $ 80 room rent for a month, not an apartment.

In my country Venezuela exist two kinds of dollars, the black market , https://twitter.com/DolarToday, and the official dollar, Banco Central de Venezuela  http://www.bcv.org.ve/


I will never doubt anything you say about this, over what an uninformed website has for their guess. They admit it's estimated guess, and I suspect that's because of what you added.  :)  You live there, I trust you know better than they do.

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/venezuela?currency=USD because you asked. I don't believe them.

I prefer Numbeo when looking for a rough idea of prices in various countries. Usually filled in by expats/immigrants, so prices can be a bit off compared to that of a local, but usually seems to be about right... you can compare different cities within the countries as well.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Venezuela


Thanks for additional. I don't know and I don't make any claims. The giant disinformation network has some flaws when it comes to accurate data, sometimes.

Example: FPL USA - federal poverty level for a household of 2 members would be $16,460. I believe them in general. Can someone live reasonably on $1,333 a month in the US? Single person estimated monthly costs: $2,611 2 people would be at least $3,000

Between rent, and food, basic necessities for life at home, I think there would be nothing left for transportation, for example. So how could someone work, if they wanted, with no way to get there? Mass transit in the US is only good in some large cities. Elsewhere it just doesn't work.

Hey wait, Microstock, some people could actually increase their income. A couple hundred a month could make a big difference. I'm not saying anyone should live off stock photo/video/illustrations, just that as extra income, Microstock could make a difference.

So I dare to say, someone, who can use that money, making $100 a month on ShutterStock, is not going to disable and drop that money.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2020, 10:48 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #43 on: November 30, 2020, 17:19 »
0
"WhAt PerCenTage aRe ThEy  PaYiNg!!!  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:("

I know you want a simple answer but sometimes things are little more complicated.

I have just explained and broken down how they calculate the percentages for sub downloads (after you said sub calculations had nothing to do with percentage tier levels).

Plug in whatever numbers you like and you can see that the answer is far less than they claim in real terms, because they calculate using the assumption that a buyer downloads their full allowance. For anyone outside the lowest tiers, i.e. anyone whos income is really going to be effected by this, this results in getting a much lower REAL percentage than Shutterstock claim (because they would be earning more than 10c in every REAL scenario). 

You may be able to come up with scenarios like well if I am tier 1 and the buyer uses 100% of their mega sub package downloads I get more than 15% on those first 100 dls for the year but honestly, why would you work so hard to jam another guys foot up your own a**.

Another example, if I am level 3 and buyer has 750 monthly pack, Shutterstock payment for the sub:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 25%= 6.6c/dl so they raise it to the 10c floor (wOw I aM gEtTiNg 38%!!!!)

If the buyer actually uses 50% of their downloads (again, they dont but lets be generous) what 25% would actually be:

$199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl

Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.

You may want someone to spoon feed you an exact percentage, but without access to Shutterstock's accounts no one can. I doubt thats an accident on their part. If they were being honest/ transparent I wouldnt have to. It would all be on the table and we could take it or leave it. Theres several ways they could do this, even if it meant basing payouts on a previous months percentages used and correcting the following month, but here we are.

You assume nobody downloads their full allowance, $199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl you want them to pay us .36c a download 68% on every sale.

iStock does base on previous month and corrects for used on the following month. We get 15% / .02c minimum. $199/750 images= .26c per image we would get .039c per download. You are a cheerleader for that .04c plan that pays the promised % a month later, 60% less.

« Reply #44 on: November 30, 2020, 20:26 »
+1
"WhAt PerCenTage aRe ThEy  PaYiNg!!!  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:("

I know you want a simple answer but sometimes things are little more complicated.

I have just explained and broken down how they calculate the percentages for sub downloads (after you said sub calculations had nothing to do with percentage tier levels).

Plug in whatever numbers you like and you can see that the answer is far less than they claim in real terms, because they calculate using the assumption that a buyer downloads their full allowance. For anyone outside the lowest tiers, i.e. anyone whos income is really going to be effected by this, this results in getting a much lower REAL percentage than Shutterstock claim (because they would be earning more than 10c in every REAL scenario). 

You may be able to come up with scenarios like well if I am tier 1 and the buyer uses 100% of their mega sub package downloads I get more than 15% on those first 100 dls for the year but honestly, why would you work so hard to jam another guys foot up your own a**.

Another example, if I am level 3 and buyer has 750 monthly pack, Shutterstock payment for the sub:

$199/750 images= .26c per image 25%= 6.6c/dl so they raise it to the 10c floor (wOw I aM gEtTiNg 38%!!!!)

If the buyer actually uses 50% of their downloads (again, they dont but lets be generous) what 25% would actually be:

$199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl

Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.

You may want someone to spoon feed you an exact percentage, but without access to Shutterstock's accounts no one can. I doubt thats an accident on their part. If they were being honest/ transparent I wouldnt have to. It would all be on the table and we could take it or leave it. Theres several ways they could do this, even if it meant basing payouts on a previous months percentages used and correcting the following month, but here we are.

You assume nobody downloads their full allowance, $199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl you want them to pay us .36c a download 68% on every sale.

iStock does base on previous month and corrects for used on the following month. We get 15% / .02c minimum. $199/750 images= .26c per image we would get .039c per download. You are a cheerleader for that .04c plan that pays the promised % a month later, 60% less.

I want 4c instead of 10c because they pay me what they say they will. I want 15% instead of 30% because SS is scum and Getty is my dream date. Justanother Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.

« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2020, 04:42 »
0
Did I even mention Getty here? Go take a look at what I had to say about Getty on one of the many times they f***** us too. Or Depositphotos or Freepik or whoever the **** else.
Can't we discuss anything without all the whataboutism. God **** internet broke people's brains.

« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2020, 05:35 »
+1
...
iStock does base on previous month and corrects for used on the following month. We get 15% / .02c minimum. $199/750 images= .26c per image we would get .039c per download. You are a cheerleader for that .04c plan that pays the promised % a month later, 60% less.

What are you talking about? Who said I was okay with IStock's compensation levels? When have I been a cheerleader for IStock (quite the opposite actually).

What I would argue for as a MINIMUM is the levels on Shutterstock's table as a real percentage of amount paid by the customer calculated on a rolling 12 month basis (no January reset) and with the 10c minimum still in place. So what Shutterstock was selling the scheme as pretty much, just with a fairer rolling schedule.

That means no one doing this as a professional would be on 15%. In fact no one doing this regularly would be on less than 30% (500dls/rolling 12 month year).

Shutterstock has come up with a scheme where they can force as many subs downloads as they like to 10c by just changing the number of dls in a subs package because they are based on a fantasy percentage.

Saying I like what IStock is doing is like saying "clearly you love getting 5% because you are arguing for 95% and they are both calculate the same way" or you are cheerleading for getting $3 per hour because you have taken a job for $50 and they are both paid hourly. 

« Reply #47 on: December 03, 2020, 02:27 »
0
anyone else got the survey page for contributors in ss recently ?
Shutterstock_survey" border="0

« Reply #48 on: December 03, 2020, 03:02 »
0
I got a contributor's survey a few months ago after stopping uploads. Filled it in explaining why I wasn't contributing any more.

Have also had a couple of emails asking me to start upoloading again, looked pretty automated. Of course hell no, not until they change their comission structure.

BME across the other agencies.


« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2020, 03:27 »
+2
I got a contributor's survey a few months ago after stopping uploads. Filled it in explaining why I wasn't contributing any more.

Have also had a couple of emails asking me to start upoloading again, looked pretty automated. Of course hell no, not until they change their comission structure.

BME across the other agencies.
;D Possible ss missing some of great fresh contents uploaded regularly by those who have stopped uploading / removed their port.. If its so then its good


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4563 Views
Last post May 12, 2008, 13:03
by Whiz
15 Replies
7602 Views
Last post November 28, 2009, 11:30
by PeterChigmaroff
4 Replies
3407 Views
Last post January 03, 2010, 20:18
by icefront
10 Replies
3712 Views
Last post June 23, 2016, 05:08
by Justanotherphotographer
3 Replies
2233 Views
Last post October 03, 2016, 22:15
by Microstock Posts

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle