pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: boycott shutterstock  (Read 15593 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 21, 2020, 07:03 »
+2
#boycott shutterstock. I deleted my images. Sorry, you have to make so many posts to be in. This is that.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 07:20 by pixelsForever »


« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2020, 14:48 »
0
And why the boycott? I have about 100 photos there, I sometimes get royalties. There have never been any problems.

« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2020, 20:20 »
+7
And why the boycott? I have about 100 photos there, I sometimes get royalties. There have never been any problems.

Okay, you obviously have not been following what is going on at SS. Or dont care that they are ripping you off. Search this forum.

« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2020, 21:44 »
+2
And why the boycott? I have about 100 photos there, I sometimes get royalties. There have never been any problems.

Okay, you obviously have not been following what is going on at SS. Or dont care that they are ripping you off. Search this forum.

Guess we need to give the befuddled guy a break. That was his first post here.

And hey, he's got 100 photos on Shitterstock, sometimes gets royalties, doing great!!!!

So whadda we know???

« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2020, 06:02 »
0
And why the boycott? I have about 100 photos there, I sometimes get royalties. There have never been any problems.

And we really believe you. 100 photos and you get royalties.

« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2020, 07:31 »
+1
And why the boycott? I have about 100 photos there, I sometimes get royalties. There have never been any problems.

Have you done a google reverse image search for your photos?  You may be surprised to see them in use in more places than your royalties can account for.

rinderart

« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2020, 00:10 »
+5
Hey Bryon. would love to see a Link to your Portfolio.

« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2020, 01:44 »
+7
byron dont listen to rinder the old fool, he has no real interest in your portfolio all he wants to do is knock you down and trash all over you and he'lll come up with a 50 year old story how he's been around since the 1800s shooting with magnesium flashes etc and that he makes 100k for a single photo yet he is still here selling images for 10 cent on shutterstock. he still has over 7000 images there and adding which makes him a hypocrite as well.

no one is allowed a different opinion from the masses up here, if you have you'll get trashed, mocked, insulted and patronised, just see the comment from martha as an example and she is supposed to be a sweet old lady


« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2020, 07:02 »
+5
byron dont listen to rinder the old fool, he has no real interest in your portfolio all he wants to do is knock you down and trash all over you and he'lll come up with a 50 year old story how he's been around since the 1800s shooting with magnesium flashes etc and that he makes 100k for a single photo yet he is still here selling images for 10 cent on shutterstock. he still has over 7000 images there and adding which makes him a hypocrite as well.

no one is allowed a different opinion from the masses up here, if you have you'll get trashed, mocked, insulted and patronised, just see the comment from martha as an example and she is supposed to be a sweet old lady

If you sell photos for .10$ you are a fool. That's it.

« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2020, 08:47 »
+7
byron dont listen to rinder the old fool, he has no real interest in your portfolio all he wants to do is knock you down and trash all over you and he'lll come up with a 50 year old story how he's been around since the 1800s shooting with magnesium flashes etc and that he makes 100k for a single photo yet he is still here selling images for 10 cent on shutterstock. he still has over 7000 images there and adding which makes him a hypocrite as well.

no one is allowed a different opinion from the masses up here, if you have you'll get trashed, mocked, insulted and patronised, just see the comment from martha as an example and she is supposed to be a sweet old lady

And yet thats exactly what you do/are doing  ::)

« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2020, 14:28 »
+3
ridiculous thread,
its no wonder agencies get away with everything

« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2020, 22:13 »
+8
byron dont listen to rinder the old fool, he has no real interest in your portfolio all he wants to do is  just see the comment from martha as an example and she is supposed to be a sweet old lady

I am a sweet old lady!

The fact that I hang out with this group proves my sweetness, doesn't it?

And my old age is obvious from my photo.

 :D ;D :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-X :-\ :-* :'( :) ??? :( :-X :-*
« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 22:15 by marthamarks »

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2020, 01:35 »
+3
byron dont listen to rinder the old fool, he has no real interest in your portfolio all he wants to do is  just see the comment from martha as an example and she is supposed to be a sweet old lady

I am a sweet old lady!

The fact that I hang out with this group proves my sweetness, doesn't it?

And my old age is obvious from my photo.

 :D ;D :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-X :-\ :-* :'( :) ??? :( :-X :-*

haha, I was sweet, and after hanging out here for a few years I'm a Cranky Old Crone.  ;D ;D
my photo is at least 10 years old, taken on the good side of 40.


« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2020, 08:26 »
+4
*waving*  another crotchety old bat here.
Shutterstock was my first stock site, way back when I was enthusiastic about the business.
Now, I want to spit on their CEO.

« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2020, 09:13 »
+2
byron dont listen to rinder the old fool, he has no real interest in your portfolio all he wants to do is  just see the comment from martha as an example and she is supposed to be a sweet old lady

I am a sweet old lady!

The fact that I hang out with this group proves my sweetness, doesn't it?

And my old age is obvious from my photo.

 :D ;D :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-X :-\ :-* :'( :) ??? :( :-X :-*

haha, I was sweet, and after hanging out here for a few years I'm a Cranky Old Crone.  ;D ;D
my photo is at least 10 years old, taken on the good side of 40.

I must 'fess up I'm getting crankier and older by the day.

And yes, my photo here was taken about the same time as yours, back when I was still on the good side of 60.

Cranky Old Crones, Unite! :D
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 09:20 by marthamarks »

« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2020, 09:18 »
+2
*waving*  another crotchety old bat here.
Shutterstock was my first stock site, way back when I was enthusiastic about the business.
Now, I want to spit on their CEO.

Crochety old bat here, too!!!

I joined SS early in 2009 (the year my photo here was taken), back in the olden days when you had to pass a test to get in. I got in on the first try, with a set of hard-to-shoot bird photos, no less. Only after joining this forum a few years later did I learn how rare that was. I was proud to be a contributor to SS and even with a small portfolio made decent money.

Now I share your desire to spit, except I'd happily spit on the whole Shitterstock operation, not just the CEO.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 12:04 by marthamarks »

« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2020, 10:14 »
+1
Cranky, crotchety old crone here too. Microstock and photography was supposed to be at least part of my retirement. Yeah, right. Plan A up in smoke.

 👩‍💻  📷  💣  💥


« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2020, 10:20 »
+2
byron dont listen to rinder the old fool, he has no real interest in your portfolio all he wants to do is knock you down and trash all over you and he'lll come up with a 50 year old story how he's been around since the 1800s shooting with magnesium flashes etc and that he makes 100k for a single photo yet he is still here selling images for 10 cent on shutterstock. he still has over 7000 images there and adding which makes him a hypocrite as well.

no one is allowed a different opinion from the masses up here, if you have you'll get trashed, mocked, insulted and patronised, just see the comment from martha as an example and she is supposed to be a sweet old lady

And yet thats exactly what you do/are doing  ::)

Best to lead with a stream of personal insults,  ridicule and age-ism.  Then, follow with your own victimization and a heroic appeal for freedom and tolerance.

"Oh would some power the gift give us, To see ourselves as others see us"
- Robert Burns

« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 10:54 by stockastic »

« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2020, 11:42 »
+2
Cranky, crotchety old crone here too.

Cathy, here's a thought:

Maybe we cranky and crochety old crones should start our own microstock sales site.

Just think of the fun promotions we could put out!

PS: Shelma probably isn't a cranky and crochety old crone just yet, but she might want to consider joining us, too. :D
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 11:45 by marthamarks »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2020, 12:23 »
+3
Grumpy Old Woman aka Stoppy Scottish Cow here.

Happily, never contributed to SS, as I wouldn't knowingly upload for 25c. (Yeah, ironically, I'm leaving files elsewhere which can earn less, though the average is the right side of $1. Sometimes only just.  :( Occasionally submitting, but only when I incur no expenses other than time and electricity.

« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2020, 14:06 »
+3
Grumpy Old Woman aka Stoppy Scottish Cow here.

Welcome, Grumpy Old Woman, to the Crabby, Cranky, and Crochety Crones Club here on MSG!

Abbreviated simply as CC & CC.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 16:12 by marthamarks »

« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2020, 16:32 »
0
ridiculous thread,
its no wonder agencies get away with everything

and no wonder newbies don't stick around!

« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2020, 16:33 »
+3
Thanks for the laugh you crochety, crakety, cranky, grumpy, crabby, cranky crones. ;D

« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2020, 16:34 »
+1
byron dont listen to rinder the old fool, he has no real interest in your portfolio all he wants to do is knock you down and trash all over... [repellent attack deleted]..
no one is allowed a different opinion from the masses up here, if you have you'll get trashed, mocked, insulted and patronised, just see the comment from martha as an example and she is supposed to be a sweet old lady

there you go again --more ad hominem attacks. i know he can stand up for himself, but when have you seen rinder attack a  newbie? and when have you seen an attack as vicious as yours on him?

« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2020, 16:42 »
+1
Thanks for the laugh you crochety, crakety, cranky, grumpy, crabby, cranky crones. ;D

where do i sign up for male auxiliary? the only equivalent male terms seem to be curmudgeon or git, hardly the same

« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2020, 18:00 »
+2
Old, retired, battle-ax nurse here.  You know...the kind who would yank you up outta your hospital bed the day after hip replacement surgery saying "you lay down, you die!".  ;)
Maybe totally boycotting the Bass-turds was a bit too much to ask since so many lost their "real" jobs due to the Covid crap.  Don't even get me started on just how unbelievably evil that was!  Maybe instead we could try to convince people to commit to a "Shutter-shite Last" policy.  If you absolutely HAVE to upload new material to them at least commit to putting them last on the list, 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, whatever.  Maybe the word would "accidentally" get out that most new files go to other agencies first?
I honestly don't know what to do about them.  I do still sell there (I wish I could afford not to), but deleted the top 25% of my port and in the future they only get "new" photos that don't sell anywhere else after a year.

« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2020, 18:11 »
+1
Thanks for the laugh you crochety, crakety, cranky, grumpy, crabby, cranky crones. ;D

Hey, we do aim to please! :D :D :D


Shelma1

« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2020, 19:45 »
+1
Cranky, crotchety old crone here too.

Cathy, here's a thought:

Maybe we cranky and crochety old crones should start our own microstock sales site.

Just think of the fun promotions we could put out!

PS: Shelma probably isn't a cranky and crochety old crone just yet, but she might want to consider joining us, too. :D

Definitely cranky, crotchety, outright b*itchy and over 60. So I guess Im a nasty old hag.

« Reply #28 on: September 11, 2020, 20:43 »
0
Cranky, crotchety old crone here too.

Cathy, here's a thought:

Maybe we cranky and crochety old crones should start our own microstock sales site.

Just think of the fun promotions we could put out!

PS: Shelma probably isn't a cranky and crochety old crone just yet, but she might want to consider joining us, too. :D

Definitely cranky, crotchety, outright b*itchy and over 60. So I guess Im a nasty old hag.

Nasty old hag? Nah, that doesn't fit at all.

But still, you're entirely welcome to join our fun little CC&CC Club! :D
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 16:14 by marthamarks »

« Reply #29 on: September 11, 2020, 20:44 »
+1
Old, retired, battle-ax nurse here. 

You're warmly welcome to the CC&CC Club, too!

« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 16:15 by marthamarks »

« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2020, 13:24 »
+3
Being on the wrong side of 60 I'll join the CC&CC!

I got into ss in 2008 on the first try too which didn't seem like a big deal. I remember making $60+ a month with under 100 images back then but feeling badly that I was only get a few cents for a license. Who knew more than a decade later prices would be even lower and that macrostock sites would follow shutterstock's lead? I joined the boycott and sold my ss stock, but still need to go in and actually delete my portfolio, hoping I don't have to do it one photo at a time. I wasn't making enough there to make it a hard decision and really admire those who gave up real $$$$ to do so.

I also admire people who take good bird photos - one of the hardest subjects out there. My best sellers are lighthouses LOL - easy to shoot since they don't move!

Cranky old ladies and birdwatchers unite!  8)

« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2020, 13:57 »
+1
Being on the wrong side of 60 I'll join the CC&CC!
...
Cranky old ladies and birdwatchers unite!  8)

Yep. We cranky old ladies and birdwatchers must stick together. (And BTW, I'm on the wrong side of 70, so leading the pack around these parts, I suspect.)

Welcome to the CC&CC Club!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 14:06 by marthamarks »

« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2020, 14:18 »
+1
Being on the wrong side of 60 I'll join the CC&CC!
...
Cranky old ladies and birdwatchers unite!  8)

Yep. We cranky old ladies and birdwatchers must stick together. (And BTW, I'm on the wrong side of 70, so leading the pack around these parts, I suspect.)

Welcome to the CC&CC Club!

Thanks!  8)

« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2020, 04:00 »
+2
Of course the REASON they cut now and so severely is precisely because they KNEW not as many people could stop uploading because of the desperation caused by the pandemic. You are seeing it all over with corporations using the opportunity to **** their workers. It is 100% because of the pandemic, just not they way they claim.

« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2020, 17:37 »
+1
Of course the REASON they cut now and so severely is precisely because they KNEW not as many people could stop uploading because of the desperation caused by the pandemic. You are seeing it all over with corporations using the opportunity to **** their workers. It is 100% because of the pandemic, just not they way they claim.

how dogmatic!  no chance that there may be other non-pandemic reasons?  a policy change like this doesnt come out of thin air and the bigger the company the slower to make drastic changes.

not to mention the US-centric view -- MOST of the world is getting back to work; the US has been crippled by ignorant 'leaders' who have cost 10's of thousands of lives

« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2020, 06:20 »
+5
Of course the REASON they cut now and so severely is precisely because they KNEW not as many people could stop uploading because of the desperation caused by the pandemic. You are seeing it all over with corporations using the opportunity to **** their workers. It is 100% because of the pandemic, just not they way they claim.

... no chance that there may be other non-pandemic reasons?...
There is only one reason, putting money in their pockets. Pandemic isn't the reason, it the tool that gave them the opportunity to **** us to a degree that they never could have contemplated in better times.

« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2020, 10:15 »
0
the US has been crippled by ignorant 'leaders' who have cost 10's of thousands of lives

Amen to that.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2020, 11:56 »
+4
Of course the REASON they cut now and so severely is precisely because they KNEW not as many people could stop uploading because of the desperation caused by the pandemic. You are seeing it all over with corporations using the opportunity to **** their workers. It is 100% because of the pandemic, just not they way they claim.

how dogmatic!  no chance that there may be other non-pandemic reasons?  a policy change like this doesnt come out of thin air and the bigger the company the slower to make drastic changes.

not to mention the US-centric view -- MOST of the world is getting back to work; the US has been crippled by ignorant 'leaders' who have cost 10's of thousands of lives

Personally I think this plan was created when Jon was turning over the power to Stan. That long ago, before the Pandemic. Corporate is not fast moving or flexible. I think others here have worked in "big business" where nothing happens without, study, committee, reviews, policy, legal and then revisions. I honestly don't think that SS said, "Oh pandemic, perfect time to screw all the contributors, because the economy is going to be down, sales low and they will be desperate."

In fact the plan stinks and is poorly timed if SS actually cared about keeping their best content? Would anyone intentionally offend the best suppliers and drive them to other agencies?

This was poorly timed by SS and poorly enacted, when it should have been held back. However new CEO needs to make his improved earnings in order to get his big bonus and prove his worth to the corporation, so that tops any content or contributor concerns.
 
"Shutterstock founder and CEO Jon Oringer today (Feb. 13, 2020) announced that he will be stepping down as the chief executive of the publicly traded image marketplace. Stan Pavlovsky, Shutterstocks current president and COO, will take over as CEO starting April 1, 2020. Oringer, who owns 45% of Shutterstock, will move to executive chairman. "

This plan was likely in the works, irrespective of any virus or world pandemic.

Shelma1

« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2020, 14:23 »
+9
It was in the works long before Pavlovsky became CEO, IMO. Getting rid of customer service for contributors, tons of rejections for established contributors, flooding the site with similars, allowing 50 identical keywords until we put up a big stink, smaller and smaller royalties and fewer and fewer big sales...that all started years ago.

Shutterstock was never about helping contributors make a living or being a viable business long term. Its only purpose was to make Oringer, the investors and a couple of chosen others rich.

H2O

« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2020, 05:10 »
+1
As well as contributing to Stock sites, I often buy from them as well, I am in the middle of upgrading a website, am I going to be buying from Shutterstock, well I don't think so, I am off to Adobe.

How many other designers will do this, my guess is just about all of them.

Shutterstock have really annoyed the very people who not only sell on their site, but the buyers as well, in my opinion it is just a matter of time until they are in the Middle Tier for earnings.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2020, 12:55 »
+2
It was in the works long before Pavlovsky became CEO, IMO. Getting rid of customer service for contributors, tons of rejections for established contributors, flooding the site with similars, allowing 50 identical keywords until we put up a big stink, smaller and smaller royalties and fewer and fewer big sales...that all started years ago.

Shutterstock was never about helping contributors make a living or being a viable business long term. Its only purpose was to make Oringer, the investors and a couple of chosen others rich.

Ding Ding Ding and a Bingo.  ;D

And none of the other sites are either. Many have pretended, but the truth is, this is nothing but getting images and video for the lowest cost, and making the most profit for the owners.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2020, 13:28 »
0
And why the boycott? I have about 100 photos there, I sometimes get royalties. There have never been any problems.

Have you done a google reverse image search for your photos?  You may be surprised to see them in use in more places than your royalties can account for.

You talking about Dreamstime or Deposit Photos?

« Reply #42 on: September 19, 2020, 00:08 »
0
And why the boycott? I have about 100 photos there, I sometimes get royalties. There have never been any problems.

Have you done a google reverse image search for your photos?  You may be surprised to see them in use in more places than your royalties can account for.

You talking about Dreamstime or Deposit Photos?

What? I have seen my Deposit files in other places but linked to Deposit.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #43 on: September 19, 2020, 10:23 »
0
And why the boycott? I have about 100 photos there, I sometimes get royalties. There have never been any problems.

Have you done a google reverse image search for your photos?  You may be surprised to see them in use in more places than your royalties can account for.

You talking about Dreamstime or Deposit Photos?

What? I have seen my Deposit files in other places but linked to Deposit.

Not linked, not sourced, not credited.

Have you seen you iStock, Dreamstime or other places photos as Hanna has observed? Especially questionable is how some images arrived at Freepix? I know she's hinting that they come from SS, but they also come from other places. If someone can see your image on their computer, it's already stored on their computer. Image theft isn't difficult or limited to one agency. Problem is, many have hundreds of partners and we don't know who has access and rights to resell our work.

Have you done a google reverse image search for your photos?  You may be surprised to see them in use in more places than your royalties can account for.

How do you know where they were stolen from or who's an API partner and legal or not. Big mess and they don't tell us much.


duns123

« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2021, 06:50 »
0
It was in the works long before Pavlovsky became CEO, IMO. Getting rid of customer service for contributors, tons of rejections for established contributors, flooding the site with similars, allowing 50 identical keywords until we put up a big stink, smaller and smaller royalties and fewer and fewer big sales...that all started years ago.

Shutterstock was never about helping contributors make a living or being a viable business long term. Its only purpose was to make Oringer, the investors, and a couple of chosen others rich.
Well said and totally true. Can I ask someone on the forum if I can leave SS as a contributor BEFORE I get to the minimum payout? I can't say what I earned so far but had over 60 DLs but not close to the min threshold. I was only there for a few months when they cut the payments last May.
I read in the T&C's that if you close your account before reaching it you lose your earnings. If true not a fair deal at all.
Oh here's a little drawing that I did about them The guy in the pinstripe suit is the CEO of SS. The drawing's not very good but it's funny I think.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 06:52 by duns123 »

« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2021, 22:08 »
+1
It was in the works long before Pavlovsky became CEO, IMO. Getting rid of customer service for contributors, tons of rejections for established contributors, flooding the site with similars, allowing 50 identical keywords until we put up a big stink, smaller and smaller royalties and fewer and fewer big sales...that all started years ago.

Shutterstock was never about helping contributors make a living or being a viable business long term. Its only purpose was to make Oringer, the investors, and a couple of chosen others rich.
Well said and totally true. Can I ask someone on the forum if I can leave SS as a contributor BEFORE I get to the minimum payout? I can't say what I earned so far but had over 60 DLs but not close to the min threshold. I was only there for a few months when they cut the payments last May.
I read in the T&C's that if you close your account before reaching it you lose your earnings. If true not a fair deal at all.
Oh here's a little drawing that I did about them The guy in the pinstripe suit is the CEO of SS. The drawing's not very good but it's funny I think.

If you read it in the T&Cs that you'll lose your earnings then that is exactly what will happen.

« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2021, 03:21 »
0



It was in the works long before Pavlovsky became CEO, IMO. Getting rid of customer service for contributors, tons of rejections for established contributors, flooding the site with similars, allowing 50 identical keywords until we put up a big stink, smaller and smaller royalties and fewer and fewer big sales...that all started years ago.

Shutterstock was never about helping contributors make a living or being a viable business long term. Its only purpose was to make Oringer, the investors, and a couple of chosen others rich.
Well said and totally true. Can I ask someone on the forum if I can leave SS as a contributor BEFORE I get to the minimum payout? I can't say what I earned so far but had over 60 DLs but not close to the min threshold. I was only there for a few months when they cut the payments last May.
I read in the T&C's that if you close your account before reaching it you lose your earnings. If true not a fair deal at all.
Oh here's a little drawing that I did about them The guy in the pinstripe suit is the CEO of SS. The drawing's not very good but it's funny I think.

If you read it in the T&Cs that you'll lose your earnings then that is exactly what will happen.

If you ask Shutterstock to make a payment and close the account, they will pay any amount above $1.00. You don't have to reach minimum payout or lose your earnings.


« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2021, 05:12 »
0



It was in the works long before Pavlovsky became CEO, IMO. Getting rid of customer service for contributors, tons of rejections for established contributors, flooding the site with similars, allowing 50 identical keywords until we put up a big stink, smaller and smaller royalties and fewer and fewer big sales...that all started years ago.

Shutterstock was never about helping contributors make a living or being a viable business long term. Its only purpose was to make Oringer, the investors, and a couple of chosen others rich.
Well said and totally true. Can I ask someone on the forum if I can leave SS as a contributor BEFORE I get to the minimum payout? I can't say what I earned so far but had over 60 DLs but not close to the min threshold. I was only there for a few months when they cut the payments last May.
I read in the T&C's that if you close your account before reaching it you lose your earnings. If true not a fair deal at all.
Oh here's a little drawing that I did about them The guy in the pinstripe suit is the CEO of SS. The drawing's not very good but it's funny I think.

If you read it in the T&Cs that you'll lose your earnings then that is exactly what will happen.

If you ask Shutterstock to make a payment and close the account, they will pay any amount above $1.00. You don't have to reach minimum payout or lose your earnings.

Definitly? REAL?

« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2021, 15:35 »
0
I prefer using depositphotos.com they have more designer-friendly roylaties.

« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2021, 07:37 »
+9
I prefer using depositphotos.com they have more designer-friendly roylaties.

Errr, no they don't, much worse RPD. Much worse history of treatment of contributors. Very bad idea.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2021, 13:14 »
+4
I prefer using depositphotos.com they have more designer-friendly roylaties.

Haha. They cut royalties this year by 25%. What used to be 36c per download is now 27c...

« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2021, 04:45 »
+1
I think the least we can do is stop uploading there at all... if you have any self respect...

« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2021, 16:34 »
+3
Adobe Stock continues to grow in sales; plus Mat comes on here and lets us know what's going on which is a bonus.   

« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2021, 02:09 »
+2
Adobe Stock continues to grow in sales; plus Mat comes on here and lets us know what's going on which is a bonus.

Seems like sales on Adobe decreases since their new announcement and region plan, if we can believe the Poll Results on the right and see the graphs.

Mat - in the past -  indeed did that and still does it, if it has nothing to do with the new announcement. But clear answers to that many many questions about the new announcements he did not answer yet, even if they came from contributors, he usually directly reply.
I will not stop writing this until we get answers and will not stop saying the NO answer IS also an answer! Which makes the whole thing worse than any expected.



« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2021, 06:27 »
+2
Adobe Stock continues to grow in sales; plus Mat comes on here and lets us know what's going on which is a bonus.

Seems like sales on Adobe decreases since their new announcement and region plan, if we can believe the Poll Results on the right and see the graphs.



Adobe Stock has never been so slow as in the last few or more weeks. I'm not a large seller on the site averaging $40 a month over a recent 12 month period - until last month. I've only had 2 downloads so far this month. I'm glad I never listened to the loud mouths telling us on SS forums to abandon SS for Adobe Stock. 

« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2021, 13:52 »
+1
Adobe Stock continues to grow in sales; plus Mat comes on here and lets us know what's going on which is a bonus.

Seems like sales on Adobe decreases since their new announcement and region plan, if we can believe the Poll Results on the right and see the graphs.



Adobe Stock has never been so slow as in the last few or more weeks. I'm not a large seller on the site averaging $40 a month over a recent 12 month period - until last month. I've only had 2 downloads so far this month. I'm glad I never listened to the loud mouths telling us on SS forums to abandon SS for Adobe Stock. 
Interesting. Maybe different portfolios attract different buyers.

« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2021, 14:34 »
+2
At this point there's no turning back.

I see a similar downward scenario in PODs and in every other marketplace dealing with digital products where the supply overwhelmed the demand, stock images, design, 3D, video, music, ebooks, software, not to mention the freelancers working for $5 on Fiverr.

We must face and accept the reality that most of the stocky-looking styles are now nearly worthless in the digital market, at best they can still have some value used in PODs for some time but how long before even PODs become inundated with billions of cheap copycats sold by drop shippers for a pittance ?

FineArt is the last bastion of hope for those who can go the extra mile, anybody else will give up and surrender as the juice is not worth the squeeze anymore.


« Reply #57 on: October 01, 2021, 12:50 »
+7
I've uploaded some photos on Shutterstock..then when I realized I was earning only $ 0.10 per photo..ok well, bye bye Shutterstock. I've already read a thread in another forum where many people complained about this. In my opinion, earning $ 0.10 per photo is comparable to the illegal exploitation of workers. Especially when behind a shot there is a preparation and maybe even a cost. How much does Shutterstock make from the subscriptions that editorial or advertising agencies make monthly or annually, then paying his contributors only $ 0.10 per photo?

« Reply #58 on: October 02, 2021, 18:25 »
+5
I've uploaded some photos on Shutterstock..then when I realized I was earning only $ 0.10 per photo..ok well, bye bye Shutterstock. I've already read a thread in another forum where many people complained about this. In my opinion, earning $ 0.10 per photo is comparable to the illegal exploitation of workers. Especially when behind a shot there is a preparation and maybe even a cost. How much does Shutterstock make from the subscriptions that editorial or advertising agencies make monthly or annually, then paying his contributors only $ 0.10 per photo?

A whole lot of us here had this exact conversation 1.5 years ago. Just about everybody complained. The obvious question then was: what do we do now?

Some decided to stick with SS. Others stopped uploading. Others (like me) withdrew completely.

We all have our reasons for doing what we do/did, but the issues you describe and the question you ask are still 100% valid.

« Reply #59 on: October 04, 2021, 09:45 »
0
A whole lot of us here had this exact conversation 1.5 years ago. Just about everybody complained. The obvious question then was: what do we do now?

Some decided to stick with SS. Others stopped uploading. Others (like me) withdrew completely.

We all have our reasons for doing what we do/did, but the issues you describe and the question you ask are still 100% valid.

unfortunately most of the microstock websites have this policy, I personally (at the moment) upload my photos and videos on pond5 which at least gives you the possibility to choose the selling price, it is true that they then keep a percentage of the sold, but at least I can say that my works aren't being sold off for 0.10 cents..

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #60 on: October 04, 2021, 17:06 »
+3
I've uploaded some photos on Shutterstock..then when I realized I was earning only $ 0.10 per photo..ok well, bye bye Shutterstock. I've already read a thread in another forum where many people complained about this. In my opinion, earning $ 0.10 per photo is comparable to the illegal exploitation of workers. Especially when behind a shot there is a preparation and maybe even a cost. How much does Shutterstock make from the subscriptions that editorial or advertising agencies make monthly or annually, then paying his contributors only $ 0.10 per photo?

A whole lot of us here had this exact conversation 1.5 years ago. Just about everybody complained. The obvious question then was: what do we do now?

Some decided to stick with SS. Others stopped uploading. Others (like me) withdrew completely.

We all have our reasons for doing what we do/did, but the issues you describe and the question you ask are still 100% valid.

To each our own, and everyone can decide for themselves.  :)

sergio76: Claiming that SS only pays 10c is ignoring the whole picture. I had an $18 and a $13 download last month for example.

Of course, yes we are underpaid and not treated very well. The reset in January is a travesty, no one can really look forward to making gains, when everything is taken away again, every year. Our reward for hard work is, "go back to level 1".

I'm still asking if everyone who says Boycott Shutterstock is also boycotting iStock for paying us 2 cents or less? Do we hold all agencies to the same standards on an equal basis? What of the new revenue sharing plans and the unknown in that. Who's money are we sharing or getting a share of? I mean, maybe I should join into that and get your money? Isn't that sharing?

« Reply #61 on: October 05, 2021, 07:02 »
+1
To each our own, and everyone can decide for themselves.  :)

sergio76: Claiming that SS only pays 10c is ignoring the whole picture. I had an $18 and a $13 download last month for example.

Of course, yes we are underpaid and not treated very well. The reset in January is a travesty, no one can really look forward to making gains, when everything is taken away again, every year. Our reward for hard work is, "go back to level 1".

I'm still asking if everyone who says Boycott Shutterstock is also boycotting iStock for paying us 2 cents or less? Do we hold all agencies to the same standards on an equal basis? What of the new revenue sharing plans and the unknown in that. Who's money are we sharing or getting a share of? I mean, maybe I should join into that and get your money? Isn't that sharing?

ok, 13 or 18$ on many photos do you have and above all how many times does it happen? however, my bad opinion on ss is not just about the 0.10$, I also happened to have some non-approvals uploaded photos because the moderator sayed me that contained "noise", when the photo was taken with a canon 6D full frame at 100 iso, where they saw the noise only they knew. Or that the description of the photo wasn't pertinently, or that my photo was similar to others already present in the ss database..in short, if I already have to be paid so little and then on 5 photos that I upload I wasting time writing a description and adding tags, after 3 of them are reject with these reasons, for me ss remaining a big rip off... on pond5 at the moment I have 700 photos and only 3 have been rejected and two of them because wasn't present a release, so not a really reject. ss wants the highest quality and then pays you nothing, as they say here in my country "they have seen a beautiful world"...

« Reply #62 on: October 06, 2021, 12:43 »
+3
To each our own, and everyone can decide for themselves.  :)
sergio76: Claiming that SS only pays 10c is ignoring the whole picture. I had an $18 and a $13 download last month for example.

Of course, yes we are underpaid and not treated very well. The reset in January is a travesty, no one can really look forward to making gains, when everything is taken away again, every year. Our reward for hard work is, "go back to level 1".

I'm still asking if everyone who says Boycott Shutterstock is also boycotting iStock for paying us 2 cents or less? Do we hold all agencies to the same standards on an equal basis? What of the new revenue sharing plans and the unknown in that. Who's money are we sharing or getting a share of? I mean, maybe I should join into that and get your money? Isn't that sharing?

ok, 13 or 18$ on many photos do you have and above all how many times does it happen? however, my bad opinion on ss is not just about the 0.10$, I also happened to have some non-approvals uploaded photos because the moderator sayed me that contained "noise", when the photo was taken with a canon 6D full frame at 100 iso, where they saw the noise only they knew. Or that the description of the photo wasn't pertinently, or that my photo was similar to others already present in the ss database..in short, if I already have to be paid so little and then on 5 photos that I upload I wasting time writing a description and adding tags, after 3 of them are reject with these reasons, for me ss remaining a big rip off... on pond5 at the moment I have 700 photos and only 3 have been rejected and two of them because wasn't present a release, so not a really reject. ss wants the highest quality and then pays you nothing, as they say here in my country "they have seen a beautiful world"...

You don't like SS because they rejected you, you are new and don't know how to pass. 700 on Pond 5 where you make nothing with no downloads, but you are accepted. How many on SS do you have?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2021, 06:48 »
+3
The quoting got mixed and messed up, Martha didn't ask about RPD, I did. And I know she would never support or have any downloads on SS, as she left when they stabbed us. I kept my account, because I make some money, and I already had the work done, the images are out in the wild and pulling back doesn't hurt SS, only myself.

With that: A Microstock agency boycott does nothing, they never have. Not IS, not DT, Not DP, not FT and least of all SS. The only way artists can make any change or be effective in improving the earnings, with a protest or boycott, is if we have power over the agency, that forces them to change.

No power, no financial threat = No Change.

Now back to the RPD point. As much as I hate 10c downloads and the reset,

I've uploaded some photos on Shutterstock..then when I realized I was earning only $ 0.10 per photo..ok well, bye bye Shutterstock. I've already read a thread in another forum where many people complained about this. In my opinion, earning $ 0.10 per photo is comparable to the illegal exploitation of workers. Especially when behind a shot there is a preparation and maybe even a cost. How much does Shutterstock make from the subscriptions that editorial or advertising agencies make monthly or annually, then paying his contributors only $ 0.10 per photo?

If someone uploads and keeps their account open, then they are not exploited, they are a willing victim. People who leave have made their own decision to not take the micro payments.

Again, we don't earn 10c per download, that's a false claim.

My RPD is less, and in fact my number of downloads and my income is less on SS than it was, before the change. But a small percentage of something is more than 100% of nothing.

RPD this year
Sept = $1.03
Aug = .68
July = $1.57
June = .27
May = .62
April = .64
March = .24
Feb = .30
Jan = .33

Nothing to cheer about, compared to higher numbers before the changes, but NOT 10C.

And I'll admit that RPD is a terrible, useless statistic, because we earn dollars not some statistical number. But in this case, the claim that we get 10c a download vs the truth, I needed to go look for real numbers. $50 EL skewed July up, and some downloads in the teens, elevated Sept. I'm probably averaging around 45c RPD and I'm not going to spend more time, calculating the exact number. Used to be closer to 75

H2O

« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2021, 09:59 »
+4
Shutterstock are nothing more than a bunch of crooks, having spent over 10 years uploading to them, keyboarding and all the effort that I have put into my Port on this site, I'm reluctant to disable my work.

So I have decided to just let it sit there, but I haven't uploaded anything new since the commission cuts last year.

I suspect that many other contributors will have done exactly the same thing.

Personally, I'm still uploading to Adobe, but I'm also moving into other areas to sell my work.

The reality in my opinion is Shutterstock will slowly die, a great shame really.

They are a classic example of greed over good.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2021, 11:28 »
+3
Shutterstock are nothing more than a bunch of crooks, having spent over 10 years uploading to them, keyboarding and all the effort that I have put into my Port on this site, I'm reluctant to disable my work.

So I have decided to just let it sit there, but I haven't uploaded anything new since the commission cuts last year.

I suspect that many other contributors will have done exactly the same thing.

Personally, I'm still uploading to Adobe, but I'm also moving into other areas to sell my work.

The reality in my opinion is Shutterstock will slowly die, a great shame really.

They are a classic example of greed over good.

I think I can pretty much agree with all of that. I might have uploaded some entertaining plop and shoot, but nothing new and serious in nearly two years now.

« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2021, 13:42 »
+2

The reality in my opinion is Shutterstock will slowly die, a great shame really.


You are right about one thing: to call it an opinion.

Because today's facts are simply showing that SS is doing more than fine. They are not only not "slowly dying", but rather steadily growing :P. See the attachment.

But if you meant it in a philosophical way, then yes, you are right 100%: all of us are slowly dying since the day we were born.  ;)
« Last Edit: October 11, 2021, 13:49 by Zero Talent »


« Reply #67 on: October 11, 2021, 14:52 »
+2
Because today's facts are simply showing that SS is doing more than fine. They are not only not "slowly dying", but rather steadily growing :P. See the attachment.

Agree!
I was disappointed when I found out about new earnings structure, and all of the complaining voices from SS contributors worried me. But it turns out, that those changes did not influence on my earnings in bad way. What's more, my earnings still grow as I'm uploading new content. With the same portfolio, my yearly income on Adobe is still smaller than my income from BME2021 on SS!

« Reply #68 on: October 11, 2021, 15:15 »
+5
They have just pumped up the stock killing the future of the company. Oringer will be long gone. Istock did something similar with H&F debacle and have never recovered since. I would bet that in a few years it will be under not only Adobe but also Istock/Getty in third position in photography and in video I would guess that in 4th after Adobe Getty P5. Even small players now like Artgrid might leave them behind.
 
So yes, I see a bleak future for Shutterstock in the not so far future. Their stock growth has only reflected their contributor commission slash, but many gave them the kiss of death and are now only supplying to Adobe, P5 and other niche players. You know what happens when you cannot offer top fresh content anymore and only millions of millions of subpar assets compared to the competition......



The reality in my opinion is Shutterstock will slowly die, a great shame really.


You are right about one thing: to call it an opinion.

Because today's facts are simply showing that SS is doing more than fine. They are not only not "slowly dying", but rather steadily growing :P. See the attachment.

But if you meant it in a philosophical way, then yes, you are right 100%: all of us are slowly dying since the day we were born.  ;)

« Reply #69 on: October 11, 2021, 19:35 »
+1
They have just pumped up the stock killing the future of the company.....


highly unlikely SS is pumping their own stock   - $100/share stocks don't get pumped since the buy to raise it by 10% over millions of shares is enormous

compared to pumping a penny stock to $1 or $2 -- an increase of over 100x for much less invested

« Reply #70 on: October 11, 2021, 19:37 »
+1
along w Pete, i dont concentrate on RPD since total income is my only real measure.

but here's my RPD for those who care
Oct $0.388   
Sep $0.379   
Aug $0.493   
Jul $0.493      
Jun $0.500   
May $0.953   
Apr $0.641   
Mar $1.104   
Feb $0.303

again, nowhere near the 10c lvl and actual $ still > AS most months
 

« Reply #71 on: October 11, 2021, 23:32 »
+2
Maybe I got myself explained wrong. It is not that they are pumping it artificially but they made a quick money grab the same as Getty did with Istock some years ago. At that time Getty grabbed clients money multiplying prices for customers and so many disappeared. Shutterstock went the opposite route. They have put the burden on contributors and those are disappearing fast (just look at what gets uploaded nowadays at SS).

With such moves you make investors happy in the short term because your benefit increases dramatically but down the road things don't look so rosy anymore. Lets talk about SS stock in 2 years . You will see how drastically different their stock market graph and corporate benefits will be.
Contributors and after clients will be where the good content is. And it is no longer at SS.

They have just pumped up the stock killing the future of the company.....


highly unlikely SS is pumping their own stock   - $100/share stocks don't get pumped since the buy to raise it by 10% over millions of shares is enormous

compared to pumping a penny stock to $1 or $2 -- an increase of over 100x for much less invested

« Reply #72 on: October 12, 2021, 00:01 »
0
The quoting got mixed and messed up, Martha didn't ask about RPD, I did. And I know she would never support or have any downloads on SS, as she left when they stabbed us.

Thanks, Pete, for clarifying that. Even I was having a hard time tracking my own comments through that long, muddled thread.

Milleflore

  • Australia
« Reply #73 on: October 12, 2021, 00:30 »
+2
The quoting got mixed and messed up, Martha didn't ask about RPD, I did. And I know she would never support or have any downloads on SS, as she left when they stabbed us. I kept my account, because I make some money, and I already had the work done, the images are out in the wild and pulling back doesn't hurt SS, only myself.

With that: A Microstock agency boycott does nothing, they never have. Not IS, not DT, Not DP, not FT and least of all SS. The only way artists can make any change or be effective in improving the earnings, with a protest or boycott, is if we have power over the agency, that forces them to change.

No power, no financial threat = No Change.

Now back to the RPD point. As much as I hate 10c downloads and the reset,

I've uploaded some photos on Shutterstock..then when I realized I was earning only $ 0.10 per photo..ok well, bye bye Shutterstock. I've already read a thread in another forum where many people complained about this. In my opinion, earning $ 0.10 per photo is comparable to the illegal exploitation of workers. Especially when behind a shot there is a preparation and maybe even a cost. How much does Shutterstock make from the subscriptions that editorial or advertising agencies make monthly or annually, then paying his contributors only $ 0.10 per photo?

If someone uploads and keeps their account open, then they are not exploited, they are a willing victim. People who leave have made their own decision to not take the micro payments.

Again, we don't earn 10c per download, that's a false claim.

My RPD is less, and in fact my number of downloads and my income is less on SS than it was, before the change. But a small percentage of something is more than 100% of nothing.

RPD this year
Sept = $1.03
Aug = .68
July = $1.57
June = .27
May = .62
April = .64
March = .24
Feb = .30
Jan = .33

Nothing to cheer about, compared to higher numbers before the changes, but NOT 10C.

And I'll admit that RPD is a terrible, useless statistic, because we earn dollars not some statistical number. But in this case, the claim that we get 10c a download vs the truth, I needed to go look for real numbers. $50 EL skewed July up, and some downloads in the teens, elevated Sept. I'm probably averaging around 45c RPD and I'm not going to spend more time, calculating the exact number. Used to be closer to 75

You take the good with the bad now with SS. Its like iS but better. For example, from today's sales on SS:

« Last Edit: October 12, 2021, 00:37 by Milleflore »

« Reply #74 on: October 12, 2021, 10:07 »
+2
Maybe I got myself explained wrong. It is not that they are pumping it artificially but they made a quick money grab the same as Getty did with Istock some years ago. At that time Getty grabbed clients money multiplying prices for customers and so many disappeared. Shutterstock went the opposite route. They have put the burden on contributors and those are disappearing fast (just look at what gets uploaded nowadays at SS).

With such moves you make investors happy in the short term because your benefit increases dramatically but down the road things don't look so rosy anymore. Lets talk about SS stock in 2 years . You will see how drastically different their stock market graph and corporate benefits will be.
Contributors and after clients will be where the good content is. And it is no longer at SS.

Doom's Day predictions are a dime a dozen. There is a guy in every main square prophecying that The End is Nigh.

Yeah, there is always a chance for SS to fail in two years. But if it will happen, it will not prove that you are wise, but just a lucky gambler.  :P

Even so, if there will still be demand for stock on the market, a competitor or more will jump straight in, to fill the gap.
You will be fine, maybe even better, if SS made a mistake, because smart competitors tend to learn from mistakes.

If demand is still there, buyers buy from a different outlet.
As simple as that.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2021, 10:29 by Zero Talent »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #75 on: October 12, 2021, 11:22 »
+1
The quoting got mixed and messed up, Martha didn't ask about RPD, I did. And I know she would never support or have any downloads on SS, as she left when they stabbed us.

Thanks, Pete, for clarifying that. Even I was having a hard time tracking my own comments through that long, muddled thread.

Sometimes people start typing above the [-/quote-] and then when re-quoted it's a worse mess. Or the upper  [-/quote-] gets removed somehow and all the origins are one off. Most of all, I didn't want you showing as posting what I did about SS.  :)

Anyway I look at it, I make less and my RPD is less, but I don't make 10c a download. I do dislike those 10c subs of course, plus I dislike the reset even more.

My view of the stock is, it's over valued. This is mostly owned by insiders and now and then Jon or Stan or one of the other executives, sells off a block. People forget that Jon took a salary of $1 a year (I'm pretty sure of that history) but received stock. Just like Stan gets a big bonus, in stock, for raising earnings. It's all magic numbers, but the point is, they get paid and others get bonuses based one stock, not on huge unreasonable salaries.

What's pushing the price up is the stock market are buyers who were too late to be in on the IPO. For years SSTK was valued in the upper $30 range, but was trading for more then that. Now that the corporation cut our earning to the bone, and can show more profits because they pay us less, more people who read reports and don't understand, will think this is growth. It's not growth, it's profit on the books by taking it away from the artists.

Stock prices are based on supply and demand, it's that simple. What people are willing to pay and what people are willing to sell for. There's no underhanded tricks from SS, just a market. Personally the stock is over valued for the future and stocks are supposed to be long term, not short. When the earnings aren't what people imagine they are and aren't growing like they expect, I suspect we will see an adjustment down.

None of this SSTK value is my business. I was waiting for the stock to hit $30 again, and I don't have deep pockets so what could I do with 100 shares. Sure if the price doubled I'd have $3,000 minus the taxes and fees, but I'd also have the risk. Who wants a risky stock at $100 a share, which makes the profit per dollar invested, smaller? When SSTK was $50 a share it was listed as over valued in many financial sites. Now for some reason it's Fair or Under valued. That's what drives investors.

I bought DraftKings the day it came out at roughly $19 a share. Everything I had to spare and still be able to pay my bills for that month. (I live at as close to zero debt, as I can. No credit card balance, no loans, cars are paid in full at purchase, exception is the mortgage.)  DKNG is up roughly 156% so I'm happy. SSTK can go to $200 or drop to $10 I don't care.

Doom's Day predictions are a dime a dozen. There is a guy in every main square prophecying that The End is Nigh.

Here's the visual of my opinion or Microstock in general, current situation and the future. The gold rush is over.



ps Oringer is already gone? He moved to Florida. "Over the previous yr, he and a companion have invested in additional than 100 high-tech startups, 10 of which Mr. Oringer himself co-founded." Down from 51% ownership in SSTK to 39% at the time of the article. I'd say he has other interests which are more important to him and he's not leaving... he's already gone.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2021, 11:25 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #76 on: October 13, 2021, 11:11 »
0
The quoting got mixed and messed up, Martha didn't ask about RPD, I did. And I know she would never support or have any downloads on SS, as she left when they stabbed us.

Thanks, Pete, for clarifying that. Even I was having a hard time tracking my own comments through that long, muddled thread.

Sometimes people start typing above the [-/quote-] and then when re-quoted it's a worse mess. Or the upper  [-/quote-] gets removed somehow and all the origins are one off. Most of all, I didn't want you showing as posting what I did about SS.  :)


Thanks again Pete. You're a true mensch!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
5732 Views
Last post July 01, 2008, 10:40
by sharpshot
106 Replies
17793 Views
Last post December 07, 2011, 16:18
by BaldricksTrousers
31 Replies
6672 Views
Last post June 03, 2020, 06:44
by spike
54 Replies
11951 Views
Last post June 16, 2020, 16:51
by Clair Voyant
5 Replies
2020 Views
Last post June 22, 2020, 13:17
by oooo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle