pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 330150 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wut

« Reply #1650 on: May 15, 2012, 15:06 »
0
Some of us were perfectly happy to sell at microstock prices.  It was always a VOLUME business. It's the market dilution and the royalty cuts that have made this business unsustainable, not the low prices.  As I mentioned further up the thread, I actually made MORE money, through volume, when prices started at $1.  

That said, let me reply preemptively to the inevitable "then lower your prices at FT and remove your P+ images":  Since the market is so diluted, apparently with people who resent being in it ( ??? ), and since the sites have seen fit to slash royalties, I need to sell at the higher prices to try and make up some of that shortfall.  It's a vicious cycle.  

That is, perhaps, the most illogical statement you've ever made. Especially after saying prices should remain low and not only that, it was better and would be better if they started at 1$. And they start at 1$ at almost every agency anyway. Someone could say you're having double standards ;) . Standing your ground for super low prices and that bumping them up every single chance you get.

I also don't think you're in any better position to call it unsustainable than IS was. After all, you make more than 99.99999% of the contributors and make well above the US average. It's kind of laughing down on us peons, just like IS was. And we called them * for that...


lisafx

« Reply #1651 on: May 15, 2012, 15:15 »
0

That is, perhaps, the most illogical statement you've ever made. Especially after saying prices should remain low and not only that, it was better and would be better if they started at 1$. And they start at 1$ at almost every agency anyway. Someone could say you're having double standards ;) . Standing your ground for super low prices and that bumping them up every single chance you get.

I also don't think you're in any better position to call it unsustainable than IS was. After all, you make more than 99.99999% of the contributors and make well above the US average. It's kind of laughing down on us peons, just like IS was. And we called them * for that...

Oh boo hoo.   I am not all that concerned with what you find logical or not.  Your continuous postings of self-contradicting opinions and inflammatory rants is all I need to know about your familiarity with the concept of logic  ::)

As for your other obscene insults, well, I can only assume you've resorted to them because you are aware that you are losing the argument on its merits. 
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 15:22 by lisafx »

wut

« Reply #1652 on: May 15, 2012, 15:28 »
0

That is, perhaps, the most illogical statement you've ever made. Especially after saying prices should remain low and not only that, it was better and would be better if they started at 1$. And they start at 1$ at almost every agency anyway. Someone could say you're having double standards ;) . Standing your ground for super low prices and that bumping them up every single chance you get.

I also don't think you're in any better position to call it unsustainable than IS was. After all, you make more than 99.99999% of the contributors and make well above the US average. It's kind of laughing down on us peons, just like IS was. And we called them * for that...

Oh boo hoo.   I am not all that concerned with what you find logical or not.  Your continuous postings of self-contradicting opinions and inflammatory rants is all I need to know about your familiarity with the concept of logic  ::)

As for your other obscene insults, well, I just consider the source...

I really don't understand you. You ask me to not talk about price rises in this thread, I stop it, you start provoking and laughing at us that want prices to go up and still contribute to MS. And after that I get a personal attack instead of a reply. Attack is the best defense, right? So much about inflammatory posts ;) . If you're saying my posts are self-contradicting put out some arguments. I did. I don't talk out of my ass, just calling someone names without saying exactly why I'm I doing it. Or I do (for some ppl), but at least I explain it, not just blindly accuse someone of something.

I'm sorry you got that, you're not used to get honest opinions obviously, since everyone thinks, dammn this is Lisa, she's huge, I can't ever question her, disagree with her or even tell her I find one of her statements illogical and self-contradicting (saying something, doing the exact opposite) .

« Reply #1653 on: May 15, 2012, 16:07 »
0
can we call a truce here or is this thread destined to be locked?  :-[

wut

« Reply #1654 on: May 15, 2012, 16:12 »
0
Fine by me, it would be a shame to lock it, since it's a great and interesting thread, a ton of good info is to be found in it

« Reply #1655 on: May 15, 2012, 16:25 »
0
Well, Wut has a point. Those who have been calling for bailing on IS continuously should be happy, shouldn't they? Obviously if IS is selling less of their images, perhaps their wish were answered, perhaps their loyal buyers have followed them to SS, DT, FT and so on. I don't understand the complaints on IS raising the prices. IS should have become not that relevant to them, due to bailing, no?  ;D 

I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1656 on: May 15, 2012, 16:39 »
0
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
Well, you're all right, Jack.
In my case, although my money is up from last year, it's not nearly as much as it would have been had they kept their promise to grandfather us in to our next cannister level.
And many people who had, at their request, started supplying various media were right royally shafted and some narrowly missed their suddenly imposed targets by a small margin in more than one medium, and have every reason not to forget where they buried the hatchet.

Noodles

« Reply #1657 on: May 15, 2012, 17:11 »
0
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
Well, you're all right, Jack.
In my case, although my money is up from last year, it's not nearly as much as it would have been had they kept their promise to grandfather us in to our next cannister level.
And many people who had, at their request, started supplying various media were right royally shafted and some narrowly missed their suddenly imposed targets by a small margin in more than one medium, and have every reason not to forget where they buried the hatchet.

Well let's not forget an idiot was running the show for the last few years! Rebecca seem to have stabilised IS a lot since then.

RacePhoto

« Reply #1658 on: May 15, 2012, 17:26 »
0
Just to verify it is as real as it gets:
Castel Bran, where Vlad Tepes Dracula lived (among other places).
He was not the only Dracula. his grandfather was also named Dracul, which probably compares to "Lionheart". He fought the Turks, and was quite gruesome.
BUT he had nothing to do with vampires, that comes from the novel of Stoker.
And since the novel, things have been mixed up in half fantasy and half truth as it often is with legends.

The castle.


The word for dragon in Romanian is "drac" and "ul" is the definitive article. Vlad IIIs father thus came to be known as "Vlad Dracul," or "Vlad the dragon." In Romanian the ending "ulea" means "the son of". Under this interpretation, Vlad III thus became Vlad Dracula, or "the son of the dragon."  By the way Vlad III's Father was named Vlad II and acquired the name Dracul It Isn't The Family Last Name!

OK if you accept the sign as tourist trade, and recognize that it's half truth and half fantasy, I have to agree. Various sources say there is no evidence or proof that Vlad Tepes ever lived at Bran Castle.

He was kind of nasty. "Vlad usually had a horse attached to each of the victims legs and a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp, else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the buttocks and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth."


Microstock at microstock prices, that's what I say. It is what it is, by definition. And I agree with the general consensus here that people know what they are getting into, at least the general market and pricing, when they start. No reason to complain later about how it works.

Quote
lisafx  It was always a VOLUME business. It's the market dilution and the royalty cuts that have made this business unsustainable, not the low prices.
Precisely the correct answer.

« Reply #1659 on: May 15, 2012, 19:08 »
0
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
Well, you're all right, Jack.
In my case, although my money is up from last year, it's not nearly as much as it would have been had they kept their promise to grandfather us in to our next cannister level.
And many people who had, at their request, started supplying various media were right royally shafted and some narrowly missed their suddenly imposed targets by a small margin in more than one medium, and have every reason not to forget where they buried the hatchet.

But my dear Sue, you are still an exclusive, ain't you? What will you gain if the buyers bail on IS? Will you make more or less? Like you, I was also partly hurt by the RC thing, But it was done. It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient. As I said before, and you probably don't believe in old Jack, that I am making a lot more this year, solely because of E+ and price increases, and not because of more DLs. Yep, like many others, I have stopped counting DLs, I simply count money. I expect even more money when my E+ images are mirrored in Getty.

« Reply #1660 on: May 15, 2012, 19:18 »
0
But my dear Sue, you are still an exclusive, ain't you? What will you gain if the buyers bail on IS? Will you make more or less? Like you, I was also partly hurt by the RC thing, But it was done. It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient. As I said before, and you probably don't believe in old Jack, that I am making a lot more this year, solely because of E+ and price increases, and not because of more DLs. Yep, like many others, I have stopped counting DLs, I simply count money. I expect even more money when my E+ images are mirrored in Getty.

Sorry but continuingly raising prices in order to counteract ever-dwindling sales would not give me much hope for the future. You might even say, as a business model, it is 'unsustainable'.

« Reply #1661 on: May 15, 2012, 19:37 »
0
Joe, I am sorry, but the doom's day forecast has not been sustainable either, at least for me. I have no interest to woo-yay if my efforts are not compensated. I also have the option to become non-excluisve again.

If you'd rather sell your images at low price but in big volumn in other agencies, good for you! If you think it's in your best interest to stop buyers from buying from IS, you should be glad that IS raises the prices to make its competitors more competitive. You get your wish, so what's the matter? 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1662 on: May 15, 2012, 20:09 »
0
I also feel that some people are too dominated by their emotions over the past unjust from IS. It was fair then, but, maybe I don't see the whole picture since I am exclusive, in my experience, IS has become quite stable this year. They raise the price, but I am also making more money, a lot more.
Well, you're all right, Jack.
In my case, although my money is up from last year, it's not nearly as much as it would have been had they kept their promise to grandfather us in to our next cannister level.
And many people who had, at their request, started supplying various media were right royally shafted and some narrowly missed their suddenly imposed targets by a small margin in more than one medium, and have every reason not to forget where they buried the hatchet.

But my dear Sue, you are still an exclusive, ain't you? What will you gain if the buyers bail on IS? Will you make more or less? Like you, I was also partly hurt by the RC thing, But it was done. It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient. As I said before, and you probably don't believe in old Jack, that I am making a lot more this year, solely because of E+ and price increases, and not because of more DLs. Yep, like many others, I have stopped counting DLs, I simply count money. I expect even more money when my E+ images are mirrored in Getty.
Freedom, Sweetie, I didn't say I didn't believe in Jack. I'm just saying that your experience isn't universal among exclusives: even some top exclusives are doing badly, much worse - proporitionately obviously - than I am, despite (or perhaps because of?) E+ and price increases.

« Reply #1663 on: May 15, 2012, 20:23 »
0
Fair enough, Sue, obviously some exclusives are not getting what they think they deserve.

Back to topic, will these exclusives (including you) get more money if the buyers are bailing on IS? That is why I don't understand why you are in this chorus while continuing on being exclusive.

« Reply #1664 on: May 16, 2012, 00:58 »
0
"a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp, else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the buttocks and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth."

Now that sounds suspiciously like being shafted by a microstock agency, so I suppose we are back on topic :)

lagereek

« Reply #1665 on: May 16, 2012, 00:59 »
0
Rebecca this and that,  whats the matter?  she cant even sneeze, without permission to sneeze, nothing!  which is what she has been doing since her start: nothing.

Getty want to move IS towards midstock, even higher. Nothing we can do about that, its not our company.

This issue is burnt to death by just about everyone of us here. Best just left alone, isnt it.

« Reply #1666 on: May 16, 2012, 07:28 »
0
I have a gut feeling that prices had reached a happy medium at iStock in around 2007-08. They were higher than $1, but yet still manageable for most casual buyers. I have nothing to support this, other than a gut feeling from being at the party then. Does anyone have records that show pricing at that time on iStock? I'm pretty sure it was the same across for independents and exclusives at that time.

« Reply #1667 on: May 16, 2012, 07:50 »
0
Maybe its time to throw in a vampire or 2.
or maybe not.

« Reply #1668 on: May 16, 2012, 19:32 »
0
so. I cannot help it.

Compares to "Woman with headset".

Reviewer from a microstock agency standing ready for reviewing the photographers picture:
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 20:21 by JPSDK »

lagereek

« Reply #1669 on: May 17, 2012, 00:10 »
0
Ha1 ha, I like your idea, about the reviewer that is. Good shot!

« Reply #1670 on: May 17, 2012, 03:08 »
0
It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient.

Low profile, definitely. Efficient?? This is an efficiency report posted by iStock's own staff:

MAY BUG REPORTS:

Contributors reporting that files uploaded on 3rd / 4th May - while site was experiencing issues with displaying thumbnails - that some images uploaded during that period seem to have been skipped by inspectors. 08May12 KJ.

Update:

We are going to manually re-process as many files as we can in the short term. We have the folks in Dev running through things to see if they can see what happened.

For those of you wanting a swift resolution please open a Support Ticket with your list of affected files. We will get them unstuck as quickly as possible. Support Tickets will be the quickest route.

Site indexing and also stats not updating as per usual schedules. This is being addressed. The Dev Team are looking into the issue. We will post updates as and when we can. 04May12 KJ

The front page lightbox "Parents" link is incorrect and leads to a 404 page. 03May12 KJ


OLDER BUGS:

Contributors using Win XP and Firefox unable to upload. Upload times out. First reported here and later here 24Apr12 KJ

Contributor preference to show member name as opposed to real name is being reset for some contributors, along with adult filter preference. See here for example. 31Mar12

Some open support tickets disappearing from the Contact Us page e.g. here. 31Mar12

Keywords entered in other languages appearing to be getting wrongly mapped to English CV terms, possibly when editing other keywords e.g. the German word for red "rot" getting mapped to rotting (decay) etc. KJ

Royalties & stats not adding up on the E+ page. E+ royalty numbers listed on the E+ page are incorrect. For example, sjlocke has an image with 500+ E+ downloads, supposedly, for an E+ total royalty of $26.00 . Also, there are no dates for last exclusive+ download. Clicking on sales number does not link to anything also. KJ

Contributors cannot see RCs earned in 2010 - only the current and previous year is visible in the stats drop down box e.g. here KJ

Incorrect and lower royalty rates paid to some from 1st to 3rd of Jan. KJ
NOTE: Issue is in Dev. Bulk royalties will be deposited and email breakdowns will be provided. This should be completed by Jan 20/2012. *The fix for this is still ongoing. We'll post more news when we have it.

The downloads numbers, royalties and other stats displayed may vary according to which page you check them e.g. the my_uploads page may differ from the portfolio page, which may differ from the file's close up page etc. Example here

Using IE8 - narrowing results doesn't work. Upgrading to IE9 seems to solve the issue. Those using Win XP however cannot upgrade to this latest version of IE. KJ

Subscription Royalties & delayed royalties showing errors in download figures e.g. this one showing 65535 delayed royalties. KJ

Preferred sort order switches to Best Match when you view a contributor's portfolio. KJ

RSS feed links missing .php - leading to hanging pages - details here KJ

RC stats - along with other stats - may not be updating on their usual daily schedules. KJ

Contributors reporting a drop in their RC totals e.g.here. KJ

A number of exclusive contributors are reporting that some of their files are missing from their iStock portfolios and they have been opted into the PP without their consent. Examples here Others report that images are not available on Partner sites or iStock - see here. Others report that they have opted out of the PP and yet they are being repeatedly opted in, against their wishes, and their images remain available on PP sites. KJ

Several contributors reporting that many of their images have vanished from the Partner Program sites and subsequently have seen large drops in earnings details here and please also see here KJ

The zoom function appears broken for older Illustrations - which appear like this KJ

Some contributors unable to add images to E+ collections examples here , here and here. Further details of E+ page issues here

Several users reporting they are having to sign in many times each day. KJ

Site mails and forum posts being truncated - possibly a WYSIWYG issue - e.g. this post KJ

Resubmitted images are losing their Model Releases - long running issue. KJ

Partner Program stats showing sales with zero royalties - reported here. Further discussion of this issue & info can be found in the PP forum here KJ

Non Latin alphabet characters causing problems in caption and image description boxes, so any punctuation marks such as apostrophes, ampersands & umlauts etc can cause rest of text to be truncated. e.g. here and a little more info here. Referral mail personal message field also can't handle thesel characters and on the received mail it shows a "?" instead. Ref# KJ-35

Forum subscribe/unsubscribe - These two options are backwards.Ref# PH-9

Moo cards - not able to upload files to order cards. Ref #JG-16


WE ARE ALREADY AWARE OF ALL OF THE ISSUES ABOVE.

PLEASE DO NOT RE-REPORT THEM HERE.

lagereek

« Reply #1671 on: May 17, 2012, 03:32 »
0
It's Rebecca Period now. She seems to be low key and efficient.

Low profile, definitely. Efficient?? This is an efficiency report posted by iStock's own staff:

MAY BUG REPORTS:

Contributors reporting that files uploaded on 3rd / 4th May - while site was experiencing issues with displaying thumbnails - that some images uploaded during that period seem to have been skipped by inspectors. 08May12 KJ.

Update:

We are going to manually re-process as many files as we can in the short term. We have the folks in Dev running through things to see if they can see what happened.

For those of you wanting a swift resolution please open a Support Ticket with your list of affected files. We will get them unstuck as quickly as possible. Support Tickets will be the quickest route.

Site indexing and also stats not updating as per usual schedules. This is being addressed. The Dev Team are looking into the issue. We will post updates as and when we can. 04May12 KJ

The front page lightbox "Parents" link is incorrect and leads to a 404 page. 03May12 KJ


OLDER BUGS:

Contributors using Win XP and Firefox unable to upload. Upload times out. First reported here and later here 24Apr12 KJ

Contributor preference to show member name as opposed to real name is being reset for some contributors, along with adult filter preference. See here for example. 31Mar12

Some open support tickets disappearing from the Contact Us page e.g. here. 31Mar12

Keywords entered in other languages appearing to be getting wrongly mapped to English CV terms, possibly when editing other keywords e.g. the German word for red "rot" getting mapped to rotting (decay) etc. KJ

Royalties & stats not adding up on the E+ page. E+ royalty numbers listed on the E+ page are incorrect. For example, sjlocke has an image with 500+ E+ downloads, supposedly, for an E+ total royalty of $26.00 . Also, there are no dates for last exclusive+ download. Clicking on sales number does not link to anything also. KJ

Contributors cannot see RCs earned in 2010 - only the current and previous year is visible in the stats drop down box e.g. here KJ

Incorrect and lower royalty rates paid to some from 1st to 3rd of Jan. KJ
NOTE: Issue is in Dev. Bulk royalties will be deposited and email breakdowns will be provided. This should be completed by Jan 20/2012. *The fix for this is still ongoing. We'll post more news when we have it.

The downloads numbers, royalties and other stats displayed may vary according to which page you check them e.g. the my_uploads page may differ from the portfolio page, which may differ from the file's close up page etc. Example here

Using IE8 - narrowing results doesn't work. Upgrading to IE9 seems to solve the issue. Those using Win XP however cannot upgrade to this latest version of IE. KJ

Subscription Royalties & delayed royalties showing errors in download figures e.g. this one showing 65535 delayed royalties. KJ

Preferred sort order switches to Best Match when you view a contributor's portfolio. KJ

RSS feed links missing .php - leading to hanging pages - details here KJ

RC stats - along with other stats - may not be updating on their usual daily schedules. KJ

Contributors reporting a drop in their RC totals e.g.here. KJ

A number of exclusive contributors are reporting that some of their files are missing from their iStock portfolios and they have been opted into the PP without their consent. Examples here Others report that images are not available on Partner sites or iStock - see here. Others report that they have opted out of the PP and yet they are being repeatedly opted in, against their wishes, and their images remain available on PP sites. KJ

Several contributors reporting that many of their images have vanished from the Partner Program sites and subsequently have seen large drops in earnings details here and please also see here KJ

The zoom function appears broken for older Illustrations - which appear like this KJ

Some contributors unable to add images to E+ collections examples here , here and here. Further details of E+ page issues here

Several users reporting they are having to sign in many times each day. KJ

Site mails and forum posts being truncated - possibly a WYSIWYG issue - e.g. this post KJ

Resubmitted images are losing their Model Releases - long running issue. KJ

Partner Program stats showing sales with zero royalties - reported here. Further discussion of this issue & info can be found in the PP forum here KJ

Non Latin alphabet characters causing problems in caption and image description boxes, so any punctuation marks such as apostrophes, ampersands & umlauts etc can cause rest of text to be truncated. e.g. here and a little more info here. Referral mail personal message field also can't handle thesel characters and on the received mail it shows a "?" instead. Ref# KJ-35

Forum subscribe/unsubscribe - These two options are backwards.Ref# PH-9

Moo cards - not able to upload files to order cards. Ref #JG-16


WE ARE ALREADY AWARE OF ALL OF THE ISSUES ABOVE.

PLEASE DO NOT RE-REPORT THEM HERE.

Yep!  very efficient, isnt it. ::)

« Reply #1672 on: October 29, 2012, 11:53 »
0
Old thread I know but buyers are still 'bailing on iStock'. Here's xidigital, a customer for over 5 years, giving both barrels;

"I understand that certain photos require expensive equipment to be shot, but i fail to understand why certain "regular" photos (nothing fancy, just a few people sitting on a couch for example) are considered premium and cost 20 credits+ for a small one! iStock used to be reasonable when it comes to prices - 1credit for small and 5-10 credits for vector. Now it's nearly impossible to find a good photo for 1 credit.

The whole beauty of iStock used to be: affordable good quality stock photos. I know iStock is now owned by Getty (whos pricing policies are beyond naive), and it's sad to see iStock follow the same path. Thankfully there are many alternatives nowadays with great selection at a reasonable price.

Our firm and a few other large design companies in Canada are switching to those alternatives. Anybody else thinks that these prices are a bit too much and driving designers away from this site?"


He then continues with this, later in the thread;

"After I posted this thread, i found that this concern has been raised multiple times and to be honest, some of the replies from photographers really upset me. Some photographers complain that the equipment prices went up and to produce quality photos it requires more money.

I'll give you an analogy: Just because one pizza delivery guy drives a nicer car than the other, doesn't mean that he will get paid more. Just because i just purchased a brand new MBP for 3k doesn't mean that i'll start charging my clients more for the work i do.

The funny part is that photos i've purchased 5 years ago NOW cost 5x more credits with 70% increase for /credit price. What used to cost $1 now costs $8.5. SAME PHOTO! It wasn't retaken.. just went up in price 850%!

I also just found out that contributors only get about 20% comission for their work. Well.. what i can say. Blame iS for that. The rest of the civilized world goes by 70-30% commission structure. 30% to digital content distributor, 70% to content creator. Why do buyers have to suffer for the fact that iS is robbing both photographers and designers?"



http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=348507&page=1

« Reply #1673 on: October 29, 2012, 13:00 »
0
I kind of have to side with iStock on this one. I thought their push for higher prices in the regular collection was good for the industry in general. I can't really defend the agency collection stuff though.

I understand everyone has a budget and micro is supposed to be cheap, but I think some of the expectation for low cost/high quality images has gotten a little out of control. Especially as quality and contributors have improved. Getting images for a buck or two should probably vanish and make way for a more profitable pricing scheme.

« Reply #1674 on: October 29, 2012, 13:19 »
0
I kind of have to side with iStock on this one. I thought their push for higher prices in the regular collection was good for the industry in general. I can't really defend the agency collection stuff though.

I understand everyone has a budget and micro is supposed to be cheap, but I think some of the expectation for low cost/high quality images has gotten a little out of control. Especially as quality and contributors have improved. Getting images for a buck or two should probably vanish and make way for a more profitable pricing scheme.

Yep.  And there's a price slider there.  Use it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
14814 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5191 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
26098 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
6110 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
3902 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle