pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement  (Read 144735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #375 on: July 27, 2013, 17:02 »
+2
Nope.  Microstock would not have evolved but for the two.


« Reply #376 on: July 27, 2013, 18:28 »
+2
Have you guys thought about that there might be something much more scary underway:
The whole advertising sector is moving from printed media to online.

And its not in form of online pictures, it is in form of links.

So if our images are not going to be printed anymore. What will happen?  How does that influence size and quality?

We see the newspapers dying, photographers being fired, and we see a whole generation not ever reading letters on paper and certainly not commercials on printed paper.

Its all on blogs and apps.
Its going to be peer to peer news and peer to peer commercials.
... and no there is not a living for a photographer to be found in that. The net is totally overflooded with images, and scoopshot is bringing order to chaos, and strip copyright to be able to moneyterize.

No photographer will make a living on that, but the distributor might.
its crowdsourcing. Having enough of those .25 c to get rich like we did 5 years ago. Now it takes collections of pictures to do that, single ports are meaningless.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 18:39 by JPSDK »

« Reply #377 on: July 27, 2013, 18:56 »
+2
i know very few who jumped into microstock, i sure didn't. it made no sense, and still doesn't make sense to sell your photos for a buck or two. my royalty now returns just shy of $10, and prices have gone up dramatically on IS over the years, when i started IS my average return was closer to $2.50, my royalty before the micros was closer to $100+, the volume of sales was roughly the same for the amount of images i had.

i always find it interesting to see the way the new micro crowd think about the industry versus the trad crowd version of it. the trads think the micros ruined the industry and the micros think they invented it. go figure?


"..The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks...."

cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."

In contrast I know many "who jumped into microstock", some of whom have done very well, but far more who found it way more difficult than they expected. Once they were exposed to the full marketplace (and without the protection of macro's restrictive practices) a lot of them came up short.

You seem obsessed with RPD as a valuation of your work's 'worth'. I get the impression that you would much rather sell one license per month for $1000 than 3k licenses per month, at say SS, for $2400. All that really matters to me is how much my portfolio earns.

Cobalt is far from being 'misguided'. I wish I could say the same for you.

jbarber873

« Reply #378 on: July 27, 2013, 20:00 »
+2
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment,
That's a misreading or misunderstanding of cobalt's link. She was saying that micro started based on many people buying basic dSLRs. I don't think many established stock photographers rushed into micro, though possibly a few did.

i know very few who jumped into microstock, i sure didn't. it made no sense, and still doesn't make sense to sell your photos for a buck or two. my royalty now returns just shy of $10, and prices have gone up dramatically on IS over the years, when i started IS my average return was closer to $2.50, my royalty before the micros was closer to $100+, the volume of sales was roughly the same for the amount of images i had.

i always find it interesting to see the way the new micro crowd think about the industry versus the trad crowd version of it. the trads think the micros ruined the industry and the micros think they invented it. go figure?


"..The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks...."

cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."

  Cobalt's analysis is correct. The advanced technology of the internet leveled the playing field. You can't turn back the clock. I was selling on Corbis and Getty for years when I happened to see Yuri Arcurs at a panel at the NYC photo show. I submitted my first shots to Istock the next day. Do i wish that micro stock didn't exist? Sure, I made more money before. But my costs were so much higher that it is actually a more profitable business now. I would only add one more part to Cobalt's list- photoshop. It makes photography so much easier.

shudderstok

« Reply #379 on: July 27, 2013, 21:07 »
+2
I get the impression that you would much rather sell one license per month for $1000 than 3k licenses per month, at say SS, for $2400

no way, one license per month for $1000 over 3K licenses per month for $2400. or do you mean 3K licenses per month for a total of $2400.  ;) it's volume as such that is killing this industry.

i am not obsessed with RPD at all, but i would not sell my work for SS rates. get over it.

the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.

when i refer to "jumped in", i mean most pros did not do so for the first few years for the very reasons i mentioned earlier, and most pros did not jump in to this day on principle. after a lot of debate, i jumped in at the halfway point cause i could see the writing on the wall.

what is your background gostwyck? did you start shooting stock at the entry level of micros? or are you and have you been with multiple traditional agencies before this whole microstock craze?








« Reply #380 on: July 27, 2013, 21:55 »
+4
the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.

That's for the buyers to judge. If you're really a pro with the best stuff, then you don't have to worry about inferior content outselling yours. Buyers are smart enough to know which image they want. It's survival of the fittest.

And Yuri thinking his decision had anything to do with the price of Shutterstock's stock is beyond arrogance. There's tens of millions of images on that site, and many equal or surpass his in content and quality; 50,000 images or even 300,000 moved off the site wouldn't even be a speed bump.

shudderstok

« Reply #381 on: July 27, 2013, 22:23 »
+2
the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.

That's for the buyers to judge. If you're really a pro with the best stuff, then you don't have to worry about inferior content outselling yours. Buyers are smart enough to know which image they want. It's survival of the fittest.

you are correct and i agree, if your work really is the best stuff, you don't have to worry, good to great images always sell.
my point being that buyers have a restriction called time, and if a buyer has to wade through thousands upon thousands of sub par images to find the gems, then yes it affects the shooters who are shooting the best stuff.
for example, i just searched for a certain temple in bangkok and IS for example has 2500+ images, SS has 3900+ and Getty has 1100+ images in both RF and RM.
all three sites have some great images, all three sites have more or less the same images with the exception of Getty not having lots of mediocre to really bad images, hence they have been edited. now due to the fact that editing is not happening per se at either SS or IS, this means there are too many similar images which totally dilutes things, now take into consideration that their is not any shred of editing most of those images were shot on cloudy days, most are shot at the wrong time of day etc.
now lets back up the truck, if i was a buyer with time restrictions, i would go to the site that offers me the best edit of the subject i am after without wading through tons of sh!t.
this form of taking every image that comes in the front door is doomed, it also makes fining the great stuff that is what buyers want. there is lots of quality on microstock sites, but it is diluted with lots of crap. and buyers are starting to figure this out.
the current model of microstocks and lack of editing is what is slowly diminishing returns for contributors.




« Reply #382 on: July 28, 2013, 00:44 »
+7
Tell me if I understood right, the new Nokia 41 mpx phone will automatically assign 30-50 keywords for every shot I take with it?

Donvanstaden

« Reply #383 on: July 28, 2013, 01:19 »
0
the disruption to microstock is lack of editing, and a free flow of acceptance of everything that comes in the door at all skill levels of which a vast amount is not stock worthy at all, albeit some of it is very good work.

That's for the buyers to judge. If you're really a pro with the best stuff, then you don't have to worry about inferior content outselling yours. Buyers are smart enough to know which image they want. It's survival of the fittest.

you are correct and i agree, if your work really is the best stuff, you don't have to worry, good to great images always sell.
my point being that buyers have a restriction called time, and if a buyer has to wade through thousands upon thousands of sub par images to find the gems, then yes it affects the shooters who are shooting the best stuff.
for example, i just searched for a certain temple in bangkok and IS for example has 2500+ images, SS has 3900+ and Getty has 1100+ images in both RF and RM.
all three sites have some great images, all three sites have more or less the same images with the exception of Getty not having lots of mediocre to really bad images, hence they have been edited. now due to the fact that editing is not happening per se at either SS or IS, this means there are too many similar images which totally dilutes things, now take into consideration that their is not any shred of editing most of those images were shot on cloudy days, most are shot at the wrong time of day etc.
now lets back up the truck, if i was a buyer with time restrictions, i would go to the site that offers me the best edit of the subject i am after without wading through tons of sh!t.
this form of taking every image that comes in the front door is doomed, it also makes fining the great stuff that is what buyers want. there is lots of quality on microstock sites, but it is diluted with lots of crap. and buyers are starting to figure this out.
the current model of microstocks and lack of editing is what is slowly diminishing returns for contributors.

This does make a lot of sense but why is SS doing so well then? istock used to have a very high acceptance rate which would work in the favour of the buyer.... as per your above theory but they have thrown that aproach out the window and now accept anything and everything!? diluting all the good images and making it harder for buyers to find the good ones? I don't get it?

stocked

« Reply #384 on: July 28, 2013, 01:22 »
+1
The phone/dslr discussion is pointless.
Phones are already good enough for most internet uses and that is the future anyway.
If you rely on your superior camera equipment you have already lost, it's the person behind the camera/phone. His/Her effort,business sense, talent, knowledge and access makes the difference not the tool.
How big are screens going to get and what resolution will people be satisfied with?  Screens might end up the size of the biggest wall in the living room.  I do laugh at people in a small room with a 50 inch TV but there doesn't seem to be any slow down in how big TV's are getting.  HD is enough for most people now but you can get 4k and 8k screens, if you want to waste thousands on them.  Will they start to show the flaws in the very small cell phone sensors?  The best way to future proof is to stick with a high resolution large sensor.  Might be why Yuri uses a hasselblad :)  I also think that people like the shallow focus effect you can get with a large sensor and wide aperture lens.  It can be replicated with a cell phone and an app but its not the same.  So the DSLR isn't going to get killed off just yet.
My Nokia 808 has already more resolution than my DSLR. But it's just a matter of taste I'm hardly using my Nokia or my DSLR most of the time I'm using my MFT which has even lower resolution than my DSLR.
I'm sharing rooms with designers and writers no one looks at pictures as we photographers do all they care is emotion and usefulness, technical perfection is just for us the rest of the world doesn't care but we don't buy our pictures it's the rest who brings us some money.

« Reply #385 on: July 28, 2013, 01:44 »
+2
The phone/dslr discussion is pointless.
Phones are already good enough for most internet uses and that is the future anyway.
If you rely on your superior camera equipment you have already lost, it's the person behind the camera/phone. His/Her effort,business sense, talent, knowledge and access makes the difference not the tool.


Maybe there is room for both.  I'm not understanding how food photography, for instance, would work with a phone?

ed:  lights setup and triggering the lights for example.  Will phones come with interchangeable lenses?  Can you set them for manual controls? 
Since I'm not a cell phone user my question may be a little out-dated.   ???


I watched a recent CreativeLIVE series on Food photography by Andrew Scrivani, http://www.andrewscrivani.com, and he uses natural light most of the time, unless he has to work out of his own studio in a place with poor or no natural light. One of his segments was to be about shooting with a phonecam, but I didn't see that one.


Natural light seems to be a bit of a cult with food photographers. You'll see claims that food never looks right with flash and I've even seen it said by a well respectedl old pro in the genre that flash will always make food look greasy.
I'm pretty sure that what this really means is that they have failed to learn how to control flash lighting. Light is just light and properly controlled flash mimics that natural light we are used to seeing things in. If you don't know what you are doing with flash, it is awfully easy to mess up with food, in fact, if you don't know what you are doing it is almost impossible to avoid. Daylight makes things easy.
With camera phones, it is possible to get some sort of job done, but a lot of your options go out of the window and creativity is stifled.
On the TV news you see what I presume is mobile phone footage all the time. It started off coming from places where proper TV equipment, or even consumer video cams would not be usable and something was better than nothing. Recently, I seem to have seen it spreading into situations where I would have thought it was perfectly simple to position a TV camera crew, but I'm sure a reporter and his mobile phone are cheaper options and the TV companies have probably hit on the realisation that if that is all the public get, that is what they will have to put up with.
BTW, I got some samples of the stuff Yuri was talking about sent to me, downsized to 5MP. They were all shot in undemanding conditions. The resolution seemed really good and I'm sure the average snapper would think it was fabulous. Of the three, one showed very obvious wide-angle distortion (the thing has an 8mm lens), one had visible if minor CA, the other had obvious vignetting. In each case, the images seemed to have almost infinite DoF, even though the aperture was recorded as f2.4 or thereabouts - something to do with having such a short focal length, perhaps. They looked a bit flat to me and didn't seem to handle fairly ordinary contrast very well, maybe the dynamic range is poor (I'm not expert at analysing the technical stuff). Keystoning seemed to be a big issue, probably the field of view of the lens makes it natural to tip the phone to avoid having masses of foreground in the picture. They were certainly remarkable for something out titchy phone but no way did they compare with the image richness of a top dslr and the apparent lack of control over DoF, shutter speed etc. means the system is severely crippled. I also wondered if they had been fitted to some sort of support to avoid blurring - as far as I know phones don't come with a tripod socket and when I tried to shoot hand-held in an office environment with my own mobile (not a nokia and no flash) yesterday it was just a blur.

« Reply #386 on: July 28, 2013, 01:51 »
+6


cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."

Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #387 on: July 28, 2013, 02:14 »
0
[] Of the three, one showed very obvious wide-angle distortion (the thing has an 8mm lens), one had visible if minor CA, the other had obvious vignetting.

If you consider the success of "things" like instagram you can easily imagine that these kinds of "defects" can very quickly become fashion, and so become very fast a must for some customers
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 06:52 by Beppe Grillo »

shudderstok

« Reply #388 on: July 28, 2013, 03:36 »
-1


cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."

Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!

your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic?  ;)
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 03:38 by shudderstok »

« Reply #389 on: July 28, 2013, 03:38 »
0
...The disruption of microstock came from the combination of internet + cheap DSLR, i.e. the entrance barrier in equipment cost became low and the customers can be reached worldwide directly with a few mouseklicks....
That's a complete misunderstanding, the bigger names that actually made micro a serious competitor aren't using cheap dlsr's, they use high end equipment,
That's a misreading or misunderstanding of cobalt's link. She was saying that micro started based on many people buying basic dSLRs. I don't think many established stock photographers rushed into micro, though possibly a few did.

Nope, that's the start not the disruption / big business. If it got stuck there most of you wouldn't even know about it. The business that reached disruptive leve wasn't building on cheap equip. I came to micro from hobby leve a bit late, and I had to buy new everything.

« Reply #390 on: July 28, 2013, 06:09 »
+1


cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."

Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!

your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic?  ;)

I knew it didn't work perfectly but I liked it so I wrote it anyway.  But the whole thing was triggered by the emergence of the digital era, with cheap computers, cheap dSLRs and the explosion in popularity of the Internet after Windows 95 came out.

The thing that pulled all the potential together was the Digital Rebel, which came out in 03 and was a massive hit. I bought one for hobby purposes as my last camera, the Pentax ME Super that I bought in about 1982, was getting a bit battered. I messed around with the Rebel for about six months before stumbling on the existence of iStock and signing up. The rebel, or EOS300D as mine was, was the leading microstock camera of 2004, which is the year that saw iS really start to take off and the effective launch of SS, DT and Canstock.

« Reply #391 on: July 28, 2013, 08:02 »
+9

Many microstock contributors have more talent than Yuri, they take the same subject and same quality of photos and their subjects are more diversified ( like real world, fashion, food, landscape or artistic commercial value ...etc ).

FORGOT YURI,Yuri is not important in the microstock market now.
He's dead in the Microstock, when he is against microstock. Yuri Arcus loses his leader place in stock History.

Think deeper.



« Reply #392 on: July 28, 2013, 08:07 »
+1


cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."

Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!

your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic?  ;)

I knew it didn't work perfectly but I liked it so I wrote it anyway.  But the whole thing was triggered by the emergence of the digital era, with cheap computers, cheap dSLRs and the explosion in popularity of the Internet after Windows 95 came out.

The thing that pulled all the potential together was the Digital Rebel, which came out in 03 and was a massive hit. I bought one for hobby purposes as my last camera, the Pentax ME Super that I bought in about 1982, was getting a bit battered. I messed around with the Rebel for about six months before stumbling on the existence of iStock and signing up. The rebel, or EOS300D as mine was, was the leading microstock camera of 2004, which is the year that saw iS really start to take off and the effective launch of SS, DT and Canstock.

Frictionless digital ecnomy made it, virtual copies with almost expense. No cheap dslr needed for that, it distributes copies from a hassy just a as well :) If there were no cheap dslrs the only consequence to micro sites would be having less junk files of pigeons, backyard dogs, and awfully lit "portrait professional" portraits. The main core that makes up the sales would be the same.

« Reply #393 on: July 28, 2013, 12:03 »
+1
"Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now www.peopleimages.com is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?"

And the PP is for everyone, generally speaking.  The PP is not marketing-speak for 'you can run your own site with only your content and undercut our prices'.  I'm not sure he understands what the PP is.


 I think IS/GI bought peopleimages if Yuri is saying what I think he is saying.  If this is understood already sorry.  But I bet in the exclusive deal with lS Yuri probably had a Brinks truck back up to his door and drop of a lot of cash as he sold the site.  It's the only way he can call it a partner site. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #394 on: July 28, 2013, 12:27 »
+1
I think IS/GI bought peopleimages if Yuri is saying what I think he is saying.  If this is understood already sorry.  But I bet in the exclusive deal with lS Yuri probably had a Brinks truck back up to his door and drop of a lot of cash as he sold the site.  It's the only way he can call it a partner site.
I'm sure you're right, but shouldn't it say 'part of Getty Images' or something on the About page of PeopleImages, if that's the case?

« Reply #395 on: July 28, 2013, 12:29 »
0


cobalt is a fine example, very misguided. i would think it would make more sense to say "the disruption of the stock industry came from the combination of microstock + internet + acceptance of cheap DSLR cameras."

Very true. It was almost as bad as the disruption of the transport industry that was caused by the introduction of the infernal combustion engine. Now a bunch of so-called "drivers" are transporting people in motorised carriages and they scarcely know how to harness a pony to a trap!

your analogy is very cute. but what does comparing a 4X5 bellows camera have to do with shooting with an DSLR? or are you one of those chaps who can only drive an automatic?  ;)

I knew it didn't work perfectly but I liked it so I wrote it anyway.  But the whole thing was triggered by the emergence of the digital era, with cheap computers, cheap dSLRs and the explosion in popularity of the Internet after Windows 95 came out.

The thing that pulled all the potential together was the Digital Rebel, which came out in 03 and was a massive hit. I bought one for hobby purposes as my last camera, the Pentax ME Super that I bought in about 1982, was getting a bit battered. I messed around with the Rebel for about six months before stumbling on the existence of iStock and signing up. The rebel, or EOS300D as mine was, was the leading microstock camera of 2004, which is the year that saw iS really start to take off and the effective launch of SS, DT and Canstock.

Frictionless digital ecnomy made it, virtual copies with almost expense. No cheap dslr needed for that, it distributes copies from a hassy just a as well :) If there were no cheap dslrs the only consequence to micro sites would be having less junk files of pigeons, backyard dogs, and awfully lit "portrait professional" portraits. The main core that makes up the sales would be the same.

Without cheap dslrs the content would have to come from cheap P&S or cheap camera phones or cheap SLRs and scanned film. People with Blads would never has supported the creation of microstock, so where would Bruce have been able to source his material from? Camera phones weren't common a decade ago, and the quality would never have caught on with buyers that were anything less than desperate. Not many people were scanning their negs then, so that would have been a feeble source, but maybe some of the better P&S cameras could have done the job. Probably the explosion in microstock would have been delayed for a few years. The sub-$1,000 DSLR package was crucial. At the very least, a large minority of microstockers were using them by mid-2004, if not a majority. At one point, a single contributor with a Digital Rebel (me) had 1.24% of the entire Dreamstime library. You wouldn't need more than a few hundred leading contributers with that kit back then to dominate the industry, and I really think we did dominate it - and 18 months later, half of us had a 5D and a handful had a 1Ds Mk2.

« Reply #396 on: July 28, 2013, 12:49 »
+5
It's Sean who can be the next Yuri for us ! He has contacts, resources and sense of social responsibility.
Sean, do start a new agency, hundreds will join ! ;)

« Reply #397 on: July 28, 2013, 13:03 »
+14
...all yuri wanted to do... is ... to push as in to  discussion about phone vs dslr - because it is his business interest in this moment - please - ignore this - business should include minimum of moral...

« Reply #398 on: July 28, 2013, 13:16 »
+1
"Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now www.peopleimages.com is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?"

And the PP is for everyone, generally speaking.  The PP is not marketing-speak for 'you can run your own site with only your content and undercut our prices'.  I'm not sure he understands what the PP is.


 I think IS/GI bought peopleimages if Yuri is saying what I think he is saying.  If this is understood already sorry.  But I bet in the exclusive deal with lS Yuri probably had a Brinks truck back up to his door and drop of a lot of cash as he sold the site.  It's the only way he can call it a partner site.


Well, he told me, when he rang me up to say that I was painting an unfair picture of him, that he had managed to keep it.  So I suppose it is some novel kind of "getty partner site" definition.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #399 on: July 28, 2013, 13:17 »
+1
For some reason, iStock have just announced that Yuri is a new contributor:
ICYMI, we added a new contributor. Get creating with @yuriarcurs' collection of work http://istockpho.to/18lquTt  #forcreativesbycreatives
What do they mean 'in case we missed it'? He's been around longer than I have.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6437 Views
Last post December 20, 2018, 13:06
by Pauws99
3 Replies
4087 Views
Last post December 18, 2019, 08:02
by MxR
0 Replies
4126 Views
Last post December 10, 2020, 03:35
by Camgough
18 Replies
5850 Views
Last post December 26, 2021, 04:41
by SpaceStockFootage
22 Replies
3196 Views
Last post January 30, 2024, 09:58
by SuperPhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors