Author Topic: Exclusively everywhere but IStock (Read 13724 times)

Microbius · « **on:** March 31, 2009, 06:07 »

I've just been uploading to all the sites I contribute to and a thought occurred to me.
IStock's exclusivity is designed to draw buyers in by having a big chunk of their collection available only on IStock, fair enough, but by having such restrictive upload limits on nonexclusives there will be a hefty chunk of images in the microstock market at any given time available everywhere but IStock. Those images we have uploaded to the others while waiting for the IStock weekly slots to free up. Isn't this totally self defeating? Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?

michealo · « **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2009, 06:17 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 31, 2009, 06:07

Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?

No, IS has the exclusive content and it is likely that non exclusives upload their most saleable images first, so it is likely that the upload their best work first.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2009, 06:51 »

Quote from: michealo on March 31, 2009, 06:17

Quote from: Microbius on March 31, 2009, 06:07
Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?

No, IS has the exclusive content and it is likely that non exclusives upload their most saleable images first, so it is likely that the upload their best work first.

Yep. They aren't going to upload garbage to IS, they'll upload the best stuff. It weeds out the chaff.

Microbius · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2009, 06:52 »

I think maybe I haven't made my point clear. What I'm saying is that IStock has the exclusive contributors, but at any given time when a buyer might search there will be a huge amount of images (of varying quality, including top notch ones) available on all the other microstock sites while not available on IStock. A consequence of their upload limits on nonexclusives. So for a buyer there is no real advantage to searching IStock's image library over any other. They may even have a wider selection of quality images on other sites as a consequence of exclusivity rules not working with the upload limit rules.

Modified after last post:

I disagree, those with the biggest backlogs will be the big producers like Yuri et al. there will me a huge amount of top notch images on other sites not represented on IStock at any given time

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2009, 07:47 »

Nope, we get it. If a contributor uploads 60 images a week from their work, it is likely to be a variety of their best. The other sites that take everything will have the best as well, as then the seconds, the duplicates etc. One business image from a person, is likely as good as the next, so if one isn't there, no loss.

loop · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2009, 08:24 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 31, 2009, 06:52

I think maybe I haven't made my point clear. What I'm saying is that IStock has the exclusive contributors, but at any given time when a buyer might search there will be a huge amount of images (of varying quality, including top notch ones) available on all the other microstock sites while not available on IStock. A consequence of their upload limits on nonexclusives. So for a buyer there is no real advantage to searching IStock's image library over any other. They may even have a wider selection of quality images on other sites as a consequence of exclusivity rules not working with the upload limit rules.

Modified after last post:

I disagree, those with the biggest backlogs will be the big producers like Yuri et al. there will me a huge amount of top notch images on other sites not represented on IStock at any given time

There's a main difference: more or less, worse or better, you will find the same content everywhere but at istock.

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** March 31, 2009, 08:28 »

Quote from: michealo on March 31, 2009, 06:17

Quote from: Microbius on March 31, 2009, 06:07
Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?

No, IS has the exclusive content and it is likely that non exclusives upload their most saleable images first, so it is likely that the upload their best work first.

It looks like there are a bunch of people producing hundreds of saleable images a week and istock only gets a fraction of them. Has anyone worked out what their most saleable images are before they upload them? I am often wrong when I try to do that and it looks like most people have the same problem.

I do think that over the years the restrictive uploads policy will hinder istock. I can't understand why they don't let the most successful contributors upload more and restrict those that have a high rejection rate.

Nero the Fiddler · « **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2009, 09:41 »

The times will change they always do.

fullvalue · « **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2009, 09:55 »

Quote from: Nero the Fiddler on March 31, 2009, 09:41

The times will change they always do.

That about says it.

Also, Getty has it covered. They own StockXpert so they make money any way you slice it.

studio10 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2009, 10:05 »

There are a lot of exclusives at istock providing high quality images. I don't think they need to open the gates to get more images or better images. As others stated, the restrictions on non-exclusives make sure that istock stays unique - with exclusive files, and only the better files from non-exclusives. I think they have it figured out, and I would be surprised if they made any changes making it easier for non-exclusives. There is no shortage of contributors - exclusive or non-exclusive. Don't hold your breath for changes to non-exclusive at istock.

KB · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2009, 10:40 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 31, 2009, 07:47

Nope, we get it. If a contributor uploads 60 images a week from their work, it is likely to be a variety of their best.

You've been exclusive too long, Sean!

The weekly upload limit for a black diamond is only 35/week. Mere mortal golds can upload only 25/week.

michealo · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2009, 10:52 »

Quote from: KB on March 31, 2009, 10:40

Quote from: sjlocke on March 31, 2009, 07:47
Nope, we get it. If a contributor uploads 60 images a week from their work, it is likely to be a variety of their best.

You've been exclusive too long, Sean!

The weekly upload limit for a black diamond is only 35/week. Mere mortal golds can upload only 25/week.

For Gold thats still a theoretical 1300 images a year ...

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2009, 10:59 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 31, 2009, 06:07

I've just been uploading to all the sites I contribute to and a thought occurred to me.
IStock's exclusivity is designed to draw buyers in by having a big chunk of their collection available only on IStock, fair enough, but by having such restrictive upload limits on nonexclusives there will be a hefty chunk of images in the microstock market at any given time available everywhere but IStock. Those images we have uploaded to the others while waiting for the IStock weekly slots to free up. Isn't this totally self defeating? Surely it wipes out any advantage to IStock of having exclusive content?

I've been making this same point for over a year, since the UL limits shrank to a pitiful 30/week for diamonds.

As it has been brought up many times before and istock persists in the tight upload limits, clearly they are not worried about it.

Of course the assumption that everyone who wants to upload more than 15, 20, or 30 images a week is uploading duplicates or crap is totally false IMO. With moderate effort a FT stock shooter can produce 50 - 100 good images a week, nearly every week of the year. The conglomerates can produce quite a bit more.

fullvalue · « **Reply #13 on:** March 31, 2009, 11:16 »

Getty doesn't care. The non-exclusive "Istock" content is available through StockXpert. Either way Getty gets the coin. It would only matter if non-exclusive boycotted StockXpert as a protest to Istock's low limits and that's both unlikely and warped.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** March 31, 2009, 13:33 »

Quote from: KB on March 31, 2009, 10:40

Quote from: sjlocke on March 31, 2009, 07:47
Nope, we get it. If a contributor uploads 60 images a week from their work, it is likely to be a variety of their best.

You've been exclusive too long, Sean!

The weekly upload limit for a black diamond is only 35/week. Mere mortal golds can upload only 25/week.

Whoops, my bad. I thought I remembered Yuri at UGCX saying it was 60.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** March 31, 2009, 13:35 »

Quote from: Nero the Fiddler on March 31, 2009, 09:41

The times will change they always do.

Oh, ye anonymous stock sage. If only we knew who you were, to be able to assign a level of knowledge to your name, wouldst color us all with delight. One would expect someone with your experience should be able to rise above the retribution rumored from some stock sites to unveil thyself.

Milinz · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2009, 14:05 »

I really don't know what to think... Again iStock reviewer rejected my illustrators application with 'we don't need' reason... Now it is 180 days to be able to upload again and that means I will have at least 500 vectors more on all other agencies... Quite interesting is point that my vectors sell as well as anyone else on iStock... I really don't care anymore about they don't give me chance to earn money on iStock selling vectors.

The other is inconsistency in PHOTO rejections:

Particular newest photo of tourist taxi boats

Notice for File #XXXXXXXX: tourist taxi boats‏

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. {[ Beach, excursion, Island, Oasis, Sand, sun, Taxi, tourism, Tourist]}
Funny rejection reason with TOURIST TAXI BOATS NOT TO BE KEYWORDED AS TAXI OR TOURIST...

Maybe there is only fully relevant keywords as BOAT and SEA... Nothing else is
there relevant at all....

Quite interesting when knowing that image is sellable stock photo accepted on many other agencies ;-)

What to think and what to say except I am really confused.

I think I will continue with quite not having hope for iStock sales and that is the truth I must accept.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2009, 14:16 »

As usual, griping about keyword rejections without showing the image is a useless venture. Please post the image in question if you want critique or sympathy.

Milinz · « **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2009, 14:17 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 31, 2009, 14:16

As usual, griping about keyword rejections without showing the image is a useless venture. Please post the image in question if you want critique or sympathy.

No need to post: just pick any other agency from big ones in my portfolio links and you'll see it.

pancaketom · « **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2009, 15:12 »

As far as uploading only your best to IS when the limits are lower than what you are producing, I find that often IS accepts what is rejected at other agencies, even some of the best sellers (and vice versa). After I found deepmeta I prepped a heap if images and just uploaded my limit every week. I didn't try to pick the best ones I just submitted them all in order. I found about no difference in acceptance rates. It does seem like there is the IS image library, and the other image libraries, and it would make sense for someone searching for an obscure image to check both IS and somewhere else, preferably one with a decent search system.

helix7 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2009, 15:26 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 31, 2009, 07:47

...The other sites that take everything will have the best as well, as then the seconds, the duplicates etc. One business image from a person, is likely as good as the next, so if one isn't there, no loss.

And it shows. Just look at SS and all the garbage they have in the collection, clogging up the search results. I really wish they were tougher with reviews. I'll take a few rejections if it's for the greater good of the collection. I really don't think exclusivity is hurting the istock collection at all, and buyers probably appreciate that they find fewer duplicates or similars in searches.

KB · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2009, 16:03 »

Quote from: Milinz on March 31, 2009, 14:05

Particular newest photo of tourist taxi boats

Notice for File #XXXXXXXX: tourist taxi boats‏

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. {[ Beach, excursion, Island, Oasis, Sand, sun, Taxi, tourism, Tourist]}
Funny rejection reason with TOURIST TAXI BOATS NOT TO BE KEYWORDED AS TAXI OR TOURIST..

Zeljko, I took a look at the image in question. I have to agree with the inspector on most of those.

Beach - No beach in sight, only water.
Excursion - Seems ok to me.
Island - No land in sight, only water.
Oasis - An oasis from our hectic life? Maybe; I don't know if you'd get many hits because of it, and it certainly isn't the typical meaning of the word.
Sand - No sand in sight, only water.
Sun - I prefer to use the keyword "day" or "daytime" for images that were taken in the daytime, and reserve the word "sun" for when it actually appears in the frame.
Taxi - Implies an automotive taxi, IMO. Use "water taxi" instead. But I do see there are a dozen or two images which have been accepted with the terms "boat" and "taxi". There's that inconsistency you mentioned.
Tourism - Seems ok to me.
Tourist - I don't see anybody, so how could "tourist" be applicable? Use "tourist boat" instead (and DA to tourboat, not ferry!). And don't forget "nobody"!

I hope that helps.

Microbius · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2009, 16:37 »

Quote from: pancaketom on March 31, 2009, 15:12

I didn't try to pick the best ones I just submitted them all in order.

Exactly what I do too. I doubt very many choose their best to upload to IStock if they produce more than 30 images a week. We just end up with a big que of equally good images "exclusively available everywhere but IStock" till the upload slots free up. Keeping track of what has and hasn't been uploaded would be too much hassle when IStock is just one of many sites you upload to.

With the exception of SS, which accepts all kinds of sh*te, especially as far as illustrations go, no one of the big six agencies has a greater concentration of garbage than any other.

RT · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2009, 17:02 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 31, 2009, 16:37

With the exception of SS, which accepts all kinds of sh*te, especially as far as illustrations go, no one of the big six agencies has a greater concentration of garbage than any other.

I disagree, some of the sh*te on SS is much more sh*te than on other sites, but if you read the forums you'll see that some contributors there have trouble getting their sh*te on other sites so they stick only with SS safe in the knowledge that no matter how sh*te it is SS will take it as long as it passes their technical standards.

Milinz · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2009, 19:27 »

Quote from: KB on March 31, 2009, 16:03

Quote from: Milinz on March 31, 2009, 14:05
Particular newest photo of tourist taxi boats

Notice for File #XXXXXXXX: tourist taxi boats‏

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. {[ Beach, excursion, Island, Oasis, Sand, sun, Taxi, tourism, Tourist]}
Funny rejection reason with TOURIST TAXI BOATS NOT TO BE KEYWORDED AS TAXI OR TOURIST..
Zeljko, I took a look at the image in question. I have to agree with the inspector on most of those.

Beach - No beach in sight, only water.
Excursion - Seems ok to me.
Island - No land in sight, only water.
Oasis - An oasis from our hectic life? Maybe; I don't know if you'd get many hits because of it, and it certainly isn't the typical meaning of the word.
Sand - No sand in sight, only water.
Sun - I prefer to use the keyword "day" or "daytime" for images that were taken in the daytime, and reserve the word "sun" for when it actually appears in the frame.
Taxi - Implies an automotive taxi, IMO. Use "water taxi" instead. But I do see there are a dozen or two images which have been accepted with the terms "boat" and "taxi". There's that inconsistency you mentioned.
Tourism - Seems ok to me.
Tourist - I don't see anybody, so how could "tourist" be applicable? Use "tourist boat" instead (and DA to tourboat, not ferry!). And don't forget "nobody"!

I hope that helps.

Thanks for taking your time to see about keywords... There are 3 people on that boats actually - 1 man and one woman are sleeping and third one looks at beach... But, never mind - they are so tiny and hardly to say recognizeable.
Sand is visible through water, as well I used sun due to reflections on the water.
I've also read rejection mail again... They found artifacts on full size... I wonder where but never mind... I really don't earn much there and all effort I need to upload just one image is not worth of doing it.

Milinz · « **Reply #25 on:** March 31, 2009, 19:35 »

Quote from: RT on March 31, 2009, 17:02

Quote from: Microbius on March 31, 2009, 16:37
With the exception of SS, which accepts all kinds of sh*te, especially as far as illustrations go, no one of the big six agencies has a greater concentration of garbage than any other.

I disagree, some of the sh*te on SS is much more sh*te than on other sites, but if you read the forums you'll see that some contributors there have trouble getting their sh*te on other sites so they stick only with SS safe in the knowledge that no matter how sh*te it is SS will take it as long as it passes their technical standards.

I agree - I have sh*te images considering iStock solely... Even I am not good enough to be 'illustrator' on istock - which is quite funny because I am on all other agencies... Not other agency have any problem with my vector sales as well as that iStock rejecting almost 2/3 of photos what I send to all. And, I really have thorough picks for stock photos.

But, also what you saw at SS may be the same on iStock but in exclusive area... They sometimes accept images with quite errors which I never would be able to get accepted there as non-exclusive...

MichaelJay · « **Reply #26 on:** April 01, 2009, 01:56 »

Quote from: Milinz on March 31, 2009, 19:35

And, I really have thorough picks for stock photos.

Well, really, I don't try to be mean - but with the exception of one image at Fotolia I didn't see anything that I would qualify as a decent selling image. Maybe this is a question of perception but 10 sales are actually saying that not too many customers share this opinion.

As said, this is not meant to be mean. If you are happy with your sales, go on. But if are trying to make more money, I would recommend stepping back a bit and trying to figure out how to become better.

Microbius · « **Reply #27 on:** April 01, 2009, 04:52 »

Quote from: KB on March 31, 2009, 16:03

Quote from: Milinz on March 31, 2009, 14:05
Particular newest photo of tourist taxi boats

Notice for File #XXXXXXXX: tourist taxi boats‏

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. {[ Beach, excursion, Island, Oasis, Sand, sun, Taxi, tourism, Tourist]}
Funny rejection reason with TOURIST TAXI BOATS NOT TO BE KEYWORDED AS TAXI OR TOURIST..
Zeljko, I took a look at the image in question. I have to agree with the inspector on most of those.

Beach - No beach in sight, only water.
Excursion - Seems ok to me.
Island - No land in sight, only water.
Oasis - An oasis from our hectic life? Maybe; I don't know if you'd get many hits because of it, and it certainly isn't the typical meaning of the word.
Sand - No sand in sight, only water.
Sun - I prefer to use the keyword "day" or "daytime" for images that were taken in the daytime, and reserve the word "sun" for when it actually appears in the frame.
Taxi - Implies an automotive taxi, IMO. Use "water taxi" instead. But I do see there are a dozen or two images which have been accepted with the terms "boat" and "taxi". There's that inconsistency you mentioned.
Tourism - Seems ok to me.
Tourist - I don't see anybody, so how could "tourist" be applicable? Use "tourist boat" instead (and DA to tourboat, not ferry!). And don't forget "nobody"!

I hope that helps.

@Milinz
I agree with KB, you can't really put a convincing argument for "Beach, Island, Oasis" and "Sand" looking at it on SS it also has words like "trees" and "speed" attached. You really need to slim down the keywords to get it accepted on IStock.
Given this I was ready to slate the illustration work too but there's actually quite a bit of decent work in your SS portfolio. If you're thinking of applying to IStock as an illustrator again make sure you send them some of the less abstract stuff. The backgrounds will sell once your in but for initial application they like to see that you can actually draw.

Milinz · « **Reply #28 on:** April 01, 2009, 06:57 »

Quote from: Microbius on April 01, 2009, 04:52

Quote from: KB on March 31, 2009, 16:03
Quote from: Milinz on March 31, 2009, 14:05
Particular newest photo of tourist taxi boats

Notice for File #XXXXXXXX: tourist taxi boats‏

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. {[ Beach, excursion, Island, Oasis, Sand, sun, Taxi, tourism, Tourist]}
Funny rejection reason with TOURIST TAXI BOATS NOT TO BE KEYWORDED AS TAXI OR TOURIST..
Zeljko, I took a look at the image in question. I have to agree with the inspector on most of those.

Beach - No beach in sight, only water.
Excursion - Seems ok to me.
Island - No land in sight, only water.
Oasis - An oasis from our hectic life? Maybe; I don't know if you'd get many hits because of it, and it certainly isn't the typical meaning of the word.
Sand - No sand in sight, only water.
Sun - I prefer to use the keyword "day" or "daytime" for images that were taken in the daytime, and reserve the word "sun" for when it actually appears in the frame.
Taxi - Implies an automotive taxi, IMO. Use "water taxi" instead. But I do see there are a dozen or two images which have been accepted with the terms "boat" and "taxi". There's that inconsistency you mentioned.
Tourism - Seems ok to me.
Tourist - I don't see anybody, so how could "tourist" be applicable? Use "tourist boat" instead (and DA to tourboat, not ferry!). And don't forget "nobody"!

I hope that helps.

@Milinz
I agree with KB, you can't really put a convincing argument for "Beach, Island, Oasis" and "Sand" looking at it on SS it also has words like "trees" and "speed" attached. You really need to slim down the keywords to get it accepted on IStock.
Given this I was ready to slate the illustration work too but there's actually quite a bit of decent work in your SS portfolio. If you're thinking of applying to IStock as an illustrator again make sure you send them some of the less abstract stuff. The backgrounds will sell once your in but for initial application they like to see that you can actually draw.

No point in sending anything to them - they simply threat me as I am quite some beginner with no expirience despite I live from marketing/advertising design since 1992...

[edit] Also, I really don't have time to guess what would be that what they want me to draw because I can draw anything with pencil or wacom tablet... It is quite stupid from them to expect me to obey their requests if I don't know what that requests are. Also, there is stupidity in that approval for illustrators... They want cartoon - but not in the way I draw them... Also, they want lines to be artsy and artsy is not what stock image is in basic and so on...

Milinz · « **Reply #29 on:** April 01, 2009, 07:16 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on April 01, 2009, 01:56

Quote from: Milinz on March 31, 2009, 19:35
And, I really have thorough picks for stock photos.

Well, really, I don't try to be mean - but with the exception of one image at Fotolia I didn't see anything that I would qualify as a decent selling image. Maybe this is a question of perception but 10 sales are actually saying that not too many customers share this opinion.

As said, this is not meant to be mean. If you are happy with your sales, go on. But if are trying to make more money, I would recommend stepping back a bit and trying to figure out how to become better.

You are partly right... I more do my photography for known buyers in advance payed for it exclusively and under 'gun for hire' principle... So, not much left for upload on stock - especially for micros... But really, on fotolia as you saw there are just part of my images because they've used to reject on random incosistant basis all other I have here and there and there was quite stance of not uploading there for long time... I've started to upload there again in just a month or two back time with my rasterized vectors and from 82 accepted images I am now on over 200 with bronze tier. And now limiting factor is EPS up to 2MB... But I started to upload my newest vector also and seems reviewers like them because no much rejections on that kind of images. Fotolia sells well for me as well as other sites but interesting to say for me is that no rules exist in what image will sell everywhere... It is mostly this one is selling like crazy here and that one over there and some third on some other agency. No, I don't beleive that my photos on micros are wow at all... They are just plain stock images which comply to maybe too precise subjects which comes with low subscription sales... But, mostly they are bought as pay-per-download or ELs... Vectors are the same - some kind of compromises in execution so all agencies to accept them. I am more likely found a way to have some average quality images which comply to all agencies rather than making hits for some specificial agency. No, I am just saying that I have some schedule to follow in growth of my portfolio on all agencies which I prefer more for now and until I see that all that agencies are bringing decent money to me. After some of 2000 images on-line on all agencies I beleive I will have time for 'wow' works to upload. And, I am just at 1/3 of my way to that first goal I plan to achieve... So, there are 1400 or more unique images to draw and photograph or postproscess some old... And, unfortunately there is no time to learn how to comply to iStock needs because my own needs are priority!

And yes - I am learning through this 'gun for hire' jobs alot! And there is always room for improvement to any photographer...

Magnum · « **Reply #30 on:** April 01, 2009, 09:17 »

I think I´ve heard that before, that u hate Istock and are quitting uploading to them

And after a while here you go again...

Milinz · « **Reply #31 on:** April 01, 2009, 16:39 »

Quote from: Magnum on April 01, 2009, 09:17

I think I´ve heard that before, that u hate Istock and are quitting uploading to them And after a while here you go again...

I stopped on CRESTOCK and will not upload Until they give me more than 100% commision - so for them never.
On iStock I never liked their upload interface and their policy... I am liberatian so, I even told them I hate their system and they know that ;-)

Catastrophe · « **Reply #32 on:** April 05, 2009, 12:56 »

Well, each site has their own way of trying to make the most money. In business you have to have an advantage, pick your niche - or you are just another noname site. IS tries to do that by having unique content, SS by having the most. Others are probably the cheapest. Some go for the highest quality, etc.

Those "sh*te" images may be useful to someone - I am absolutely AMAZED at some of the images that have 100+ downloads on lots of sites.

And it shows. Each of the top sites has their own flavor. People buy from different sites for different kinds of images. Everyone knows that lots of images rejected at one site often end up best sellers at another site.

I don't only upload my best to IS. I upload a little bit of everything and see what sells. If one image sells well, I do tend to upload more like that. But it's not a quality thing - it's more of a business images sell well on IS, creative images better on SS, etc...

fotografer · « **Reply #33 on:** April 05, 2009, 13:05 »

Bear in mind that at DT an image with 100 dls might be an assignment image and have never actually sold or in the case of IS be old images from the days when they were free.

Quote from: Catastrophe on April 05, 2009, 12:56

Those "sh*te" images may be useful to someone - I am absolutely AMAZED at some of the images that have 100+ downloads on lots of sites.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Exclusively everywhere but IStock (Read 13724 times)

Microbius

michealo

Sean Locke Photography

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

loop

sharpshot

Nero the Fiddler

fullvalue

studio10

KB

michealo

lisafx

fullvalue

Sean Locke Photography

Sean Locke Photography

Milinz

Sean Locke Photography

Milinz

pancaketom

helix7

KB

Microbius

RT

Milinz

Milinz

MichaelJay

Microbius

Milinz

Milinz

Magnum

Milinz

Catastrophe

fotografer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors