pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What is a Nature Stock Image? - PureNatureStock.com  (Read 11448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 27, 2007, 13:09 »
0
Creative Microstock Photographers,

Since my new nature stock agency is in its infancy, I am asking for your input as to the creative aspect of "nature" images.  My desire is to have a nature stock agency unlike SS, IS, DT and the others.  It is still going to be an RF agency, with similar pricing, but better commissions (50%), but, it will be a boutique with limited photographers (50 to 100, haven't decided yet).  The official name, according to my attorney is PureNatureStock, LLC.

Now, what exactly is a Nature Image, in YOUR opinion?   

Could we be successful with a site that refuses to allow a beautiful barn in an open field of yellow flowers?  What if a person was using a cellphone next to a huge waterfall?  How about a pair of binoculars to look at a bear?  (What's the difference?)  Are people in nature acceptable? (are people natural?)  How about log cabins in the Great Smoky Mountains?

Clearly wildlife of all sorts will be acceptable, but what if a bear is stealing food from a picnic table at a state park.  Is that a nature image?  Do you see my quandry?

I don't want to make this site so restricting that it is boring to buyers.  How many pretty landscapes and flowers do we need?  At the same time, I don't want to lose the legitimate business of those looking for a guy using his laptop in the park, OR turn buyers away who are looking for pure nature.

I really need your help in deciding these issues.  I will be drawing on you as photographers, and you know what you think a Nature image is. I want to know YOUR thoughts.  My agency title says a lot.  (www.PureNatureStock.com)  Now, please help me figure out what is really nature!

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell
www.PureNatureStock.com


« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2007, 13:37 »
0
you could accept all of the above images with a slider or something to filter out the images.

how natural do you want your image results???

NO evidence of humans - lansdape
some humans - small person on big lake, or barn on landscape
lots of humans - person using laptop in park
all humans - binoculars

« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2007, 13:42 »
0
The word nature, in the sense that we are discussing, means naturally occurring (and not man-made).

So I would be inclined to think that generic nature photography would include scenes that were either all natural (100%) or predominantly natural (>75%).

An example of an all natural scene would be of an animal in its natural habitat (such as a lion on the Serengeti).

An example of a predominantly natural scene might be of a hawk sitting on a wooden fence.  Or a barn/house surrounded by forest/mountains.

In your case, you are calling your stock site PureNatureStock.  IMO, the word pure means 100%, so I would think that you would only want pure nature shots.

But I think that it all comes down to your target audience.  Who do you expect to be your buyers?  Will they be looking for 100% nature shots, or do they want nature interacting with man-made objects?

Some other questions that could be posed (along this same train of thought) would be:

- Are humans a part of nature?  IMO, yes.

- Are animals captured in a zoo OK?  Or does the animal have to be caught in its natural environment?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 13:44 by GeoPappas »

« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2007, 14:00 »
0
50-100 photographers.  It's a nice promise, but what if you sign up a bunch of duds?   Eventually everyone gets ill, retires, dies, moves, slows down.. etc.  or the dreaded - has to get a real job to pay the bills and can't submit like they used to...    If they are duds do you kick them out?  If you make a promise of accepting only 100, aren't you restricting the agency's potential for growth?  Your strength makes profit for everyone.

Also - if you only have 100 photographers, aren't you limiting the potential of your boutique - unless they are in unique geographical regions spread across the world and upload top quality on a frequent basis.  

Myself - I take a lot of nature and wildlife photography - weather permitting (Canada).  Doesn't sell on traditional micros and I don't submit much.... so a site like yours would be a welcome option to someone like me... BUT if you are only accepting 100 photogs I would be one of your "duds".   I might be wrong, but I think that you'd need to qualify huge fantastic portfolios to keep to your 50-100 photographers limit.

When I looked at your site last week, the last photo I viewed was of a bride looking out a window.  Great stock photo, but if I was a purchaser I would be very annoyed to have to sort through it on in a pure nature site.  (Even I stopped browsing at that point and I'm not a purchaser.)

It's my opinion that a couple hiking in the Grand Canyon would be a very appropriate subject but I sure wouldn't want to see a fashion model.

Bear stealing food is definitely a nature photo in my opinion.  If any particular image is straying too far from your intended audience, simply don't accept it!

Stay on your path and have a check box for "Exclude people in this search".  

« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2007, 14:16 »
0
Since my new nature stock agency is in its infancy, I am asking for your input as to the creative aspect of "nature" images.  My desire is to have a nature stock agency unlike SS, IS, DT and the others.  It is still going to be an RF agency, with similar pricing, but better commissions (50%), but, it will be a boutique with limited photographers (50 to 100, haven't decided yet).  The official name, according to my attorney is PureNatureStock, LLC.

Now, what exactly is a Nature Image, in YOUR opinion?

If you want to differentiate your site from the other agencies you cited, you have to stick with the choice of your name.

For me, a nature image is only associated without interference from the civilized world.  Or, the interference would be to enhance the natural beauty of a place without noticing the human intervention.
Even though humans are part of nature, I wouldn't put any.
Animals in their natural environment would be good.  Animals in a zoo wouldn't.

That's what I would expect from a site with such title.

If you think that it's too limited, then don't be frustrated from the very start, and change the site name.  Although if you do that, then with luck you'll become 'like SS, IS, DT and the others'...
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 14:28 by berryspun »

eendicott

« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2007, 14:16 »
0
It will be difficult to attract people of the caliber you need to get going based on your prices and commission structure, but if you want an example of an ideal portfolio that you need as an anchor to your agency, here's one.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-search-results.asp?st=0&lic=6&lic=1&ns=1&qt=Galen+Rowell&go=1&a=-1

Good luck.

« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2007, 14:24 »
0
Pixart,

Yeah, I know what you mean about the bride pic.  I deleted about 200 images this morning that were not nature stock.  Some of the images on my site are still under discussion, and this thread will help me decide what to do with them.

As to the number of photographers, that is up in the air.  I do not want thousands of photographers, even though that might mean more money for my company.  I want my photographers to have an opportunity to make some money.  If I limit the number of photographers, and find good productive ones, then they should be able to make more money than with most other sites.  Like I said, I am unsure what to do along this line, and it is part of my evolving business plan options.  I'll have all this pinned down before the LLC is finally approved in the next month or so.  Don't worry about the number...maybe I'll leave it open for a while and see where it naturally settles.  I certainly don't want to become another huge impersonal giant corporate agency with tiny commissions, and little concern for individual photographers.   I guess I'm a Mom & Pop store kind of guy, in a world full of Wal-Mart superstores.

As to commissions, I have priced the site at a similar rate to IS, with much higher commissions.  Do you think a higher rate is justified for basically RF stock?  What if an image is on another site, and the price is lower, why buy it at PNS for more?  Are you saying I would be better off getting exclusive photographers and charging like a prime boutique while only accepting exclusive images?

The RF non-exclusivity is the reason I have prices my general stock at competitive prices to IS, DT, and FT.  Here is my pricing again:

$10.00 for 12+ Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$8.00 for 8-10 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$6.00 for 6-7 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$4.00 for 3-5 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$3.00 - 1024 pixels wide Web-sized Large
$2.00 - 800 pixels wide Web-sized Medium
$1.00 - 400 pixels wide Web-sized Small

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand.  What is a nature shot?  You feel a bear stealing food is a good nature stock shot.  Okay; how about a closeup of a boat, half sunk in the river, half full of leaves?  ::)

DD

« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2007, 14:39 »
0
well - like i said in the other thread...

you're putting the word "pure" in your name PUREnaturestock

to me that means 100% nature - no human things involved. no boats sunk, no barns/cabins etc.

pure is 100% - if you don't want it to be pure then take it out of the name ;)

red_moon_rise

« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2007, 14:47 »
0
I like the idea of a sliding scale by the buyers.

100% nature:
- All macro shots that only contain animals, plants, water, stones etc. no manmade objects
- Any landscape that was not shaped/planted by man (wilderness) whithout hints of the presence of man
- All Astronomical images: eg. extreme sunsets, moonshots 600mm+,
- all animal shots where human presence can not be inferred (zoo without fence or feeding tray, playground, toys)
- ....

75% nature
- cultivated landscape with no humans/machines (cotton fields etc.)
- planted trees, pets whithout owners
- manmade landscape (canals whithout boats or manmade objects)
-.....

50% nature
- people in nature but not the main attraction
- some manmade objects in natural looking environment (barn in woods etc.)
- bacically where human influence and nature are balanced

25% nature
- man is main focus in natural environment (bikers, climbers, silhouetts of people etc)

0% Nature
- examples of destruction of nature, spills etc. it used to be nature

What are you guys thinking?

« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2007, 15:06 »
0
Don't worry about the number [of photographers]...maybe I'll leave it open for a while and see where it naturally settles.

I think that is a good idea.  See what develops...

What if an image is on another site, and the price is lower, why buy it at PNS for more?

This already happens with most images (that are not exclusive).  Most people submit the same images to multiple agencies.

For example, a 12 MP image on IS is $10, on StockXpert it's $5, on DT it's $4, on FT it's $3, etc.  So why do people buy on IS when they have the highest prices?

You just need to find the right balance between price (for the buyer) and royalty (for the submitter).

Some reasons that they might buy from your site are:

1. It will hopefully be easier to find an image that is specific to nature

2. There will be a larger variety of nature images

« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2007, 15:08 »
0
I like the idea of a sliding scale by the buyers.

100% nature:
...
...
...
0% Nature

What are you guys thinking?

It sounds like a good idea, but I have no idea how it would be implemented.  Who is going to decide how much "nature" is in a photo?  The photographer?  The inspector?

red_moon_rise

« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2007, 15:16 »
0
The site would have adequate description of each level.
Therefore it is in the photographers best interest to properly rank their images, because that would be the distinguishing feature of the site, that the buyer can specify the amount of nature he is looking for with no particular advantage to a particular level.
The reviewer just confirms the classification/corrects only gross miss classifications or difficult cases.

All the search engine would have to include, is 5 boxes that the buyer can click.

I think I would like to be part of a site like this.

« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2007, 15:42 »
0
Honestly, even though the site name is PURENatureStock, it would be very difficult to limit the site to nothing but non-human nature images.  I think that humans enjoying nature are a very valid subject.  Backpackers in the mountains, people rappelling down the side of a cliff, a fisherman flyfishing in Alaska, a photographer taking images for his stock agency dreams.

Realistically, absolutely pure nature images are rather static and many designers don't want them.    Most designers are interested in people doing things.  Interacting with animals in nature, enjoying nature, or using nature in some way.  That type of image sells as well as the isolated people with paint specks and smiling business people ready to shake hands.

I can picture that a lot of buyers might be plain sick of using images of supermodels on white backgrounds, and might welcome a few good looking real people enjoying themselves in a natural setting.  Most of my sales on SS and IS are that type of sale.  I sell  fewer absolutely pure nature images, but I guess that is due to the heavy competition for those images.

Let me just say that I am not a purist in the sense that I want to be fanatical about nature being absolutely natural.  We are natural too, and a big part of nature.  I am happiest when I am out taking pictures in the Smoky Mountains.  I feel natural at that time, even though I am laden down with camera bodies and lenses.

What I think are Nature images:

1. Beautiful places of the earth.
2. Beautiful animals enjoying life.
3. Man-made structures in beautiful settings.
4. People being humans in various ways, including some technology in natural settings. 
5. Things people have made in natural settings, such as a sailboat on a lake.
6. A bride and groom kissing next to lovely lake.
7. Children playing in the surf on the beach.
8. A lion eating a gazelle.  (Gross but natural)
9. A family having a picnic under a beautiful oak tree.

Things which I think are not quite nature images:

1. People up close, posed, doing things artificial like typing on computers in a field of flowers.  (How often do people really do that?)
2. Closeups of man made objects like that same sailboat on the lake, with no natural setting.
3. Children playing sports in a school field.
4. A bear in a cage or zoo with exposed captured habitat.
5. A family having a picnic on a picnic table at a roadside pulloff.

All I am trying to say is that a balance must be reached.  I think being a human in nature and doing the things that humans do is as natural as a Lion eating a Gazelle.

We don't need absolute micromanagement of what is a nature image, do we?  Do you think you can decide what is a nature image, based in part on your experience as a stock photographer?

What type of nature images sell best for you?

DD

« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2007, 16:05 »
0
DD, the images we expect should reflect the name you choose for your site.

What you seem to envision as criteria for acceptance is the natural feel of a picture, not limited to a nature setting.  The title thus would be misleading.

Then change your name to something like 'PurelyNaturalStock' which encompasses the elements you describe in your previous post.  Photographers, as well as buyers, would exactly know what to expect, and it will make your life much simpler and enjoyable  :)

« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2007, 16:07 »
0
1. Beautiful places of the earth.
2. Beautiful animals enjoying life.
3. Man-made structures in beautiful settings.
4. People being humans in various ways, including some technology in natural settings. 
5. Things people have made in natural settings, such as a sailboat on a lake.
6. A bride and groom kissing next to lovely lake.
7. Children playing in the surf on the beach.
8. A lion eating a gazelle.  (Gross but natural)
9. A family having a picnic under a beautiful oak tree.

I agree 100% with 1, 2, 8.  I disagree 100% with 3 and 6.  About the others, I agree only if the human part has an small importance on the scene and is actually interacting with nature.  A person speaking on a cell phone at the Grand Canyon - NO.  A hiker on a trail - YES.  A photo of a beach with kids on it - YES.  A photo of kids on a beach (kids are the prime subject) - NO.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2007, 16:18 »
0
You know what, WE ALL KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that people shots sell.  Exclude humans from your catalogue and you may discourage a very high percentage of your potential clients.   I know you have a client base in mind - but I think that designers have a certain amount of loyalty - they migrate to exclusively use Istock or Dreamstime etc. - why purchase 10 or 50 credits with your agency if only one of their own clients needs pure nature?

Just be selective with acceptance and use the power of no.

Create a new rejection note that everyone can all whine about "Please clone out human and resubmit".   ;)  Success of your new venture should be first priority and I'd hate to see it fail because you drew a line and didn't have a diverse enough data base for potential clients.


Anyway, back to the discussion at hand.  What is a nature shot?  You feel a bear stealing food is a good nature stock shot.  Okay; how about a closeup of a boat, half sunk in the river, half full of leaves?  ::)


Ah... that's the question?  Is it ART or is it STOCK?   Would this boat image have a purchaser?  I doubt many.  But it's a beautiful shot and could build up your library... I'd purchase credits at an agency with 1,000,000 images before one with 1,000.   

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2007, 16:34 »
0
I have to agree with Adelaide.

To me, the answer is fairly clear, if not simple:  A nature image is an image in which the emphasis is the natural world.  Note that this does not exclude people, or even the odd artificial object like a building or car.  But, the point of the picture, its central focus, is nature--flora, fauna, and landscapes that do not prominently feature anything artificial.  Under my definition, then, I would judge the following as "natural" images:

1. Beautiful places of the earth.
2. Beautiful animals enjoying life.
5. Things people have made in natural settings, such as a sailboat on a lake.  (If the emphasis is on the setting rather than the "things")
6. A bride and groom kissing next to lovely lake. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
7. Children playing in the surf on the beach. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
8. A lion eating a gazelle.  (Gross but natural)
9. A family having a picnic under a beautiful oak tree. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)


The following would not qualify as "natural":
3. Man-made structures in beautiful settings.
4. People being humans in various ways, including some technology in natural settings.

Obviously, no matter what criteria are used to determine if an image qualifies, there will be gray areas.  But, I think that if the emphasis in the photo--the interesting visual elements, the parts that give the photo its character--isn't in some way about flora, fauna, or unspoiled land, then it should not qualify.

« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2007, 16:48 »
0
DD, the images we expect should reflect the name you choose for your site.

What you seem to envision as criteria for acceptance is the natural feel of a picture, not limited to a nature setting.  The title thus would be misleading.

Then change your name to something like 'PurelyNaturalStock' which encompasses the elements you describe in your previous post.  Photographers, as well as buyers, would exactly know what to expect, and it will make your life much simpler and enjoyable  :)

Shutterstock also accepts Vector Art which is certainly not created with a "Shutter."

Dreamstime is not a site full of dreamy images.

StockXpert does not have images full of expert created stock, nor are the stock experts or they would be selling more than they do.

So... PureNatureStock can feature natural images of all sorts, including people and things in natural settings.  The name will attract buyers who want PURE nature stock, and there will be a much higher degree of that type of images on PNS than on any other site.  My original name for this agency was SmokyMountainStock.com, but I shot in more places than the Great Smoky Mountains.  Maybe I'll buy five different domain names, and change the headers per the user click thru.   8)


« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2007, 16:58 »
0
I have to agree with Adelaide.

To me, the answer is fairly clear, if not simple:  A nature image is an image in which the emphasis is the natural world.  Note that this does not exclude people, or even the odd artificial object like a building or car.  But, the point of the picture, its central focus, is nature--flora, fauna, and landscapes that do not prominently feature anything artificial.  Under my definition, then, I would judge the following as "natural" images:

1. Beautiful places of the earth.
2. Beautiful animals enjoying life.
5. Things people have made in natural settings, such as a sailboat on a lake.  (If the emphasis is on the setting rather than the "things")
6. A bride and groom kissing next to lovely lake. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
7. Children playing in the surf on the beach. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
8. A lion eating a gazelle.  (Gross but natural)
9. A family having a picnic under a beautiful oak tree. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
...
Obviously, no matter what criteria are used to determine if an image qualifies, there will be gray areas.  But, I think that if the emphasis in the photo--the interesting visual elements, the parts that give the photo its character--isn't in some way about flora, fauna, or unspoiled land, then it should not qualify.

I must say I agree with you Professor!   "A nature image is an image in which the emphasis is the natural world."  That sums my feelings up pretty well. 

Emphasis is the keyword here.  Emphasizing nature in all its forms.  Hopefully leaving few things out over time.  I relish leaving behind model/property releases and creating beautiful artistic pure nature images.  But, I also like shooting pics of cute kids doing things like swimming in a mountain river, and friends looking up at a huge redwood tree.  If people using nature are not valid natural images, why do they sell so well?

« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2007, 17:15 »
0
Is this a "nature" image, in your opinion?


« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2007, 17:20 »
0
Is this a "nature" image, in your opinion?

I would have to say that it is not a nature shot, since the subject is the log cabin.  To me, the picture is of a log cabin surrounded by nature.

Nice shot by the way!
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 17:22 by GeoPappas »

red_moon_rise

« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2007, 17:25 »
0
50% category  ;D

« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2007, 17:42 »
0
Shutterstock also accepts Vector Art which is certainly not created with a "Shutter."

Dreamstime is not a site full of dreamy images.

StockXpert does not have images full of expert created stock, nor are the stock experts or they would be selling more than they do.

So... PureNatureStock can feature natural images of all sorts, including people and things in natural settings. 

So why not name it NatureStock.com instead of PureNatureStock? I think the "pure nature" give a lot of emphasis in something that is not the only focus of the site. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2007, 17:47 »
0
Shutterstock also accepts Vector Art which is certainly not created with a "Shutter."

Dreamstime is not a site full of dreamy images.

StockXpert does not have images full of expert created stock, nor are the stock experts or they would be selling more than they do.

So... PureNatureStock can feature natural images of all sorts, including people and things in natural settings.  The name will attract buyers who want PURE nature stock, and there will be a much higher degree of that type of images on PNS than on any other site.  My original name for this agency was SmokyMountainStock.com, but I shot in more places than the Great Smoky Mountains.  Maybe I'll buy five different domain names, and change the headers per the user click thru.   8)

True, you can call your site any name you want, but since, as you said, the name you have chosen is to attract buyers who are looking for pure nature stock, then don't deceive them with other shots which wouldn't qualify.

"Well begun is half done"

On the other hand, I agree that accepting only the nature shots will limit you, that's why I suggested 'natural' instead, which would 'naturally' encompass a broader range of pictures, like the cabin above.

In the end, it's up to you anyway to decide what you wish to convey.

« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2007, 19:31 »
0
Is this a "nature" image, in your opinion?

I would have to say that it is not a nature shot, since the subject is the log cabin.  To me, the picture is of a log cabin surrounded by nature.

Nice shot by the way!

So, you would say the cabin is a "natural" shot, but not a "nature" shot?

« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2007, 21:55 »
0
Is this a "nature" image, in your opinion?

I would have to say that it is not a nature shot, since the subject is the log cabin.  To me, the picture is of a log cabin surrounded by nature.

Nice shot by the way!

So, you would say the cabin is a "natural" shot, but not a "nature" shot?

Sure...

« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2007, 09:58 »
0
well everything is in the name

if i were a customer of 'pure nature stock' - i would expect that to be nature - not people - not buildings

if you want to allow some people and some buildings, then to me you've picked the wrong name.

if a store is called "pure towels" and you find some car parts there you'd be confused wouldn't ya?

« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2007, 12:30 »
0
This is the puristic definition of NATURE:

NATURE is defined as the use of the photographic process to depict observations from all branches of natural history including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, plant life, landscapes and seascapes in such a fashion that a well informed person will be able to identify the subject material and to certify to its honest presentation.  The human element is excluded here.  Photographs of artificially produced hybrid plants or animals, mounted specimens, obviously set arrangements, derivations, or any form of manipulation that alters the truth of the subject, are ineligible.

If you want to succeed with such a subject specific stock site you will not only need quality images, but also diversity.  As important as the images themselves are the captions, descriptions and keywords.  I will buy from a site such as yours if I know I can search on a scientific name of an animal or bird and know that your site will be able to provide a photo of a rare bird or animal not readily find elsewhere.  For this you need a reasonable number of photographers that specialize in nature photography worldwide.  Those that travel to exotic places to shoot animals and landscapes that a casual photographer will never be able to submit.  If photographers use your site to dump their nature shots that are not readily accepted on the conventional stock sites I am afraid the whole concept will be set for failure.

Good luck with all your plans.     
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 12:34 by Eco »

« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2007, 14:31 »
0
Thanks for all your excellent input and suggestions!

I have deleted a good 25% of the images in the database due to a lack of nature theme.  I am striving to be a nature stock site, and to provide scientific names for all species found there.  If people do not name their species, I am taking the time to look up the latin names in my big supply of Audubon Society manuals.  Lots of work ahead.

From the quality of several who have joined from here, I am seeing very nice imaging, none of this "dump your junk" idea.   I am accepting critically.  At this point there are almost 1000 images in the database.  I am still cleaning things out, but have the worst of the non-nature stuff out of there.

I have listened to what you are saying, and applied it.  You have changed my thinking to a large degree about what is a nature shot.  I am still not prepared to exclude people and people doing things from this site, since these are BIG sellers on other sites, and my site is also about making money, not just collecting pretty pictures.  I am also going to have a sub-specialty in certain mostly natural areas, such as food isolations.  But, on a percentage basis, I would say that PNS will be about 96.3567365% PURE nature stock.  The rest of the images will be related to nature in a big way, and reflect nature. 

I honestly appreciate the efforts you have made to respond to this query and all your intelligent replies.   You have helped shape a new "up and coming" site, and hopefully will have helped it stay on track to being a successful agency.  Thanks to all of you!

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell
www.PureNatureStock.com, www.PlanetNikon.com


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
12984 Views
Last post February 27, 2007, 12:54
by DigitalDarrell
15 Replies
5960 Views
Last post April 04, 2007, 19:01
by DigitalDarrell
10 Replies
4181 Views
Last post January 10, 2017, 18:03
by BaldricksTrousers
11 Replies
5497 Views
Last post October 18, 2017, 15:16
by Cider Apple
36 Replies
9310 Views
Last post August 28, 2021, 00:04
by vintage age

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle