pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: old photographer, new microstocker. specialty advice?  (Read 9141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 10, 2009, 17:53 »
0
hello guys, how's life out there?

I'm a fellow newbie microstocker with an art photography background, which is(was) quite shocked by prices of the microstock world. then, one day, I figured out that microstock may earn you a little, but refusing it earns you nothing. So I'm basically here to pay for 18-200 nikon I wanted. Seems easy, right?

No. I didn't even get accepted to istockphoto(I'm refused second time) I fear shutterstock because of one month ban, fotolia and dreamstime accepted 2 of my 9 stock photos and the list goes on..

Do you have any idea what I am missing? I mean, I have good command of the language of photography, so anything technical should not be a problem.

I also read much of the microstock literature, so I probably know the basic principles. I know it is not about art or even about good photography, but a difference that blinding was not something I did expect. Instead of general advice, if you have any special thingies or "remember that"s you collected, I'd love to hear what you have to say. Also if you have any clue, feel free to criticize my work, that's something I really need. find the stock photography tag. and if you like, feel free to comment on my others, that's greatly appreciated too.

and thanks guys, a pretty solid community you have there :)

edit: I forgot the link  ;D http://www.flickr.com/photos/26993726@N08/sets/
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 18:03 by neversaynever »


« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2009, 18:04 »
0
Never say never indeed :)

Believe me, you are not the first long time pro who looked down on microstock only to discover that the standards for submission are actually quite high.  

I think your statement "I know it is not about art or even about good photography" is probably your biggest issue.  In fact, it IS about good photography.  It may not be "art photography", but the things factors that make a good photograph are essential to success in microstock just like any other branch of photography (composition, lighting etc.).

I am sure there are many here who would be happy to oblige you by critiquing your work, but I don't see any links.

When your pics were rejected, what were the reasons given?  Most often for long time pros the biggest issues are not compositional or lighting, but more often focus, noise, and artifacting.   I don't know of any other branch of photography outside of micro where the images have to be perfect at 100% pixels.  At 100% is where images that might look perfectly acceptable in print or at normal viewing range will reveal their flaws.  

« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2009, 18:12 »
0
If your photos are technically fine, you must understand that there is a big difference between photography and stock photography.  The agencies don't really want anything that is gorgeous, or artistic.  If they are accepted they most likely won't sell anyway.   A good stock photo is clean, has copy space, smiling faces or tells a concept or represents a season/holiday.  A photo of a nice sunset or a dog playing will certainly have little value to the agencies, so they no longer accept such photos.  You may be Ansel Adams, but if you are not submitting stock photos they won't accept them.

« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2009, 18:36 »
0
I am not a long time pro, of course I'm long time photographer, but I'm no pro(I only held one exhibition, gained like zero money from photography, you know.) I added the link now. Yeah, I did not send them art photos either. That's the confusing part. I thought that I was sending photos particularly good for stock use. Apparently, it was not. Yeah, that %100 thing is really annoying, but "that" thing made my photos obviously sharper and well defined, so I'm pretty content.(in a week, I learned about diffraction[actually remembered from high school physics classes] and I searched for my camera's noise profiles to keep noise really low, Found by experiment my lenses' sweet spots[at which aperture the lens is most sharp] and many more things.)

For good photography, I have different views. I actually think both of us are saying similar things, but the concept "good photography" taught at me is probably radically different than yours. People I learned from were artists to death.

Rejection reasons, in fotolia, simply says technical problem, nothing detailed. In dreamstime it is often "image sell value too low" I think they are saying they are never going to sell that image if it gets approved. I didn't even got my feet into istockphoto, so I have no idea about them ;D

Do you guys any idea what I should shoot? I am getting really adept at isolated images, but I don't actually like model photography, this is something I have little to no experience. I didn't use any models other than my close friends. Also, I wonder, When you pay for props, model's salary, studio etc. can you really make a profit out of these shots? or is there any way I can't see to take them? How is it like working with models, is it cumbersome, do you feel that you have to command every gesture of the model, or can you relax and just rely on model's modelling iq? Should I look for models for these kind of shots, they seem to be real top sellers.

« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2009, 18:48 »
0
Do you guys any idea what I should shoot?

While we all share some info, we are not all here to educate and push our competition.  I believe all the info you need is out there somewhere, you just need to find it.

« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2009, 18:52 »
0
of course. I didn't think it as a private information as I talk to anyone about what would they wanna shoot and where, but I understand everyone is not that open handed. Anyway, I'm probably less of a competition than you think. I apogolize, then.

« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2009, 19:04 »
0
Do you guys any idea what I should shoot?

While we all share some info, we are not all here to educate and push our competition.  I believe all the info you need is out there somewhere, you just need to find it.

Says the great educator  ;)
Well the simplest way to know is go through the porfolio of the best selling artists, or look at the most populars at any site. If you have a specialty, like people, lifestyle, product shoots, landscapes - just enter some relevant keywords in the search engine and look at what comes up on the first page of the search results, and you will have a pretty good idea what, and especially how to shoot it.

« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2009, 19:12 »
0
I didn't think it as a private information as I talk to anyone about what would they wanna shoot and where, but I understand everyone is not that open handed.

Mr. Locke has a very sharing personality that he tries to hide now and then with tough statements. Apart from my hints in the previous message, you could also read Yuri Arcurs blog on what sells and why. Try this post for instance, but he has more.

« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2009, 19:43 »
0

Well the simplest way to know is go through the porfolio of the best selling artists, or look at the most populars at any site.

Cevapcici, I usually agree with you, but I gotta say,  this is exactly the advice that drives the top selling artists up a tree!  And I can't say I blame them.  Looking at the best selling stuff only tells you what areas of the market are totally glutted because everyone and their cousin has already copied those concepts to death.

ETA, I just checked out your work.  WOW!!  The stuff in your "bunch I'm proud of" section is gorgeous!   IMO some of your images are extremely stock worthy subjects.  Unfortunately they aren't the ones in the "stock" section.  Those are kind of boring (except for the cat, which you have managed to shoot in a unique and creative way).  I do notice you have a lot of Black and White.  I love it and it is artistic, you are right, but the micros don't care much for B&W. 

If you could get releases for some of your people pics, and if they are clean at 100%, I can't see how they would reject those.

Have you considered Alamy?  I think some of your travel type stuff would do better there than on the micros.     
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 19:51 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2009, 20:01 »
0
Welcome to the forum. :)

I took a look at some of your work on Flickr and was very impressed! LOVE the white cat portrait and although it is artsy, I think it could work for stock as well as the fire pic. iStock even mentioned recently that they want more unique photos and I'm positive you can get in there if you keep trying. It took me 5 tries to get in but I was determined with little photography experience and over 20 years of experience in the graphic arts and fine arts.

A really good way to get some help is to upload photos to the help forums at the agencies before you submit to them. The Critique / Tips / Tricks on Shutterstock is a good place to get input from seasoned veterans more than happy to help you get in with your first 10. You can also upload your stock photos here for critique. Also, you can upload graphic design to most of the agencies. This is a very helpful group and I'm sure the microstock field could benefit from your inspiring talent. Go for it!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 20:11 by epantha »

« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2009, 20:11 »
0
Mr. Locke has a very sharing personality that he tries to hide now and then with tough statements.

Yeah, I'm a big teddy bear.  Grrrrr.

« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2009, 03:15 »
0
Firstly, it's a learning process, that's for sure!
Getting to focus your eye on what "Stock "is and what is required.
Each time thinking as you shoot - "This can sell as" - and so on.

You get knocked around by rejections and have to pull yourself up again many times, but as your portfolios grow, along with sales, so will your own confidence.
Yes! It is very different from Art photography and it's almost like having a switch that you have to switch on and off when you move between the two.

As time goes by you will no doubt get into it, and will be glad of the extra income and the satisfaction of people actually buying your work regularly.

Best of luck to you!

« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2009, 04:32 »
0
Research is the way, as you see some think that when you look at the best sellers that you will copy the image, rather than look at composition, lighting, copyspace etc:, however there is another thread here Dreamstime stock rank game, have a look at this tool, these are not all top sellers but 50% do have sales, make some general notes Photo vs Photo, as you will see what has sales and what has not.

The Stock Game MicroStockGroup Thread

Play the Game Here

Alamy as said is a macrostock option, look at their images and your images, you can shoot and upload for both, Alamy will accept editorial and commercial they sell 76% editorial and 75% RM, so if accepted I would suggest licence 'L' which is RM which would exclude that image from RF microstock, again the images that do not fit into microstock may fit into Alamy.

David  ;)
« Last Edit: July 11, 2009, 04:37 by Adeptris »

« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2009, 04:58 »
0
There are thousands of existing microstockers and most of them do not have work as good as yours. All the information you need is already out there in the various tutorials on the agencies themselves, forums, blogs, books, etc. Given all that I'm not sure how we can help? If you can't work it out for yourself then it's probably pointless trying any further __ you either get it or you don't.

Squat

  • If you think you know, you know squat
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2009, 06:25 »
0
I think your statement "I know it is not about art or even about good photography" is probably your biggest issue.  In fact, it IS about good photography.  It may not be "art photography", but the things factors that make a good photograph are essential to success in microstock just like any other branch of photography (composition, lighting etc.).


When your pics were rejected, what were the reasons given?  Most often forlong time pros the biggest issues are not compositional or lighting, but more often focus, noise, and artifacting.   I don't know of any other branch of photography outside of micro where the images have to be perfect at 100% pixels.  At 100% is where images that might look perfectly acceptable in print or at normal viewing range will reveal their flaws. 

First, congrats on a nice port in Flickr.

PixelBytes writes so well and covers it all, I have to say.
I am not so sure if I can agree with you that microstock is "not about good photography",
although to a certain point I might agree with you that "it's not about art photography", as in artistic and creative for gallery work vs art as in vector,etc.. There are lots of very good "art" work and design here in micro stock. If I may even dare to compromise that more than artistic photograph.

No, no Ansel Adams, W Eugene Smith or Richard Avedon here, not even Art Kane . But to give credit to where micro stock deserves, I feel it is as PixelBytes closing statement. It's not just enough to make "artistic" images but also be aware of noise, fringes, color balance,etc.

When I came into micro stock I was a bit apprehensive as well as the "lack of artistic photography". But like every business, there is a place for that ie gallery, and there is a place for generic work. You really cannot expect the best of both works to intermingle.

Most recently I started to see "flaws" at a co-op of experienced photographers who conducted country wide exhibitions. I saw noise the size of golf balls which I was not so critical with, before I started micro. Ironically, I now find myself making enemies of some gallery exhibitors because I pointed out to the chairman that the "exhibitor's works were plagued with noise." So that's the matchpoint :
Gallery 1 : Micro 1, lol...

Lately, with the competition being stiffer, I am seeing a lot more awesome creative works , so I can say that it is perharps misinformation to think that micro stock is just for the dabblers with lots of money to buy the most expensive camera and take boring generic photographs.

.
Generic yes, boring maybe to an extent that there are so many copycats ripping off ideas from the top sellers. Even creative work can become boring if a great photographer or painter is being copied blatantly. I remember my frustration at one seminar when every other bloke present B&W zone VI perfect print that looked like poor man's Ansel Adams, lol.

 Perharps with this stiffer competition in micro to survive, we may see more "artistic" work and less generic.  we probably need to , if we are to stay viable.
Already many are complaining what is the point of having so many stock agencies when every one of them has the same images. We really only need 3, no doubt? ;)



In conclusion, I think if you removed that preconception , you will find some outstanding work in micro as well. They may not sell as well as the "boring" stuff. But even that may be a perception . But are these photographers total slack asses compared to gallery photographers? I wouldn't say so, now that I have spent 16 months rubbing shoulders with some awesome and wonderful people here through Tyler's forum.

You will , I am confident, find yourself changing your opinions about them too, after a few months here. Good luck, and welcome to microstock.

P.S.
if my comments are seem fragmented. Excuse me, as I don't think too sequentially this early in the morning (breakfast time) , even more so on weekends. I usually make more sense and think more coherently after I get a pint of Guinness, lol.
Cheers.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2009, 06:46 by tan510jomast »

Squat

  • If you think you know, you know squat
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2009, 07:04 »
0
Epilogue :P

there was at one time when I first started checking micro to find 1001 variations of isolated shot of cigarettes, or nuts and bolts,etc... same cigarettes, same nuts and bolts, but shot from a different angle. first 100 odd images were all like that , all from the same contributor.
my first impression was  , "what? is this what micro stock is all about?"

However, that's all changed lately. At least , not all cigarettes!!! ;)
But from my knowledge, some officials are clamping down on mass image flooders , which is why you are getting more loud complaints of mass rejections.

So really, it's not that blatant. There's more to micro stock than that.

« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2009, 16:25 »
0
wow! I have never seen a forum with such a welcoming community. thanks guys :)

@pixelbytes thanks for the kind words, very much appreciated. I didn't see this post by arcurs, but I started reading from the newest. Probably get there soon. I also agree with you on that looking to top sellers is, in a way of looking to it, rather pointless. their existence as top sellers does not guarantee that your copy will be sold, instead, it makes your job harder. But in other ways such as learning how microstock works, it may well worth a look.

another aspect, I would never want to sell photos of my friends, and asking for a model release seems quite humiliating to me. even then, they don't look as good at %100.

I will take a look at alamy tonight.

@epantha thanks! I'd wouldnt try five times though :D I sent them for stock review, hope they'll pass. I never thought sending graphic design, but seems to be a pretty good idea, if you can send designs such as letterheads, instead of ornamental patterns or vectors? I am just starting to design(designs you have seen on flickr are my entrance submissions for KABK)
I noted down your advice. better try istock's forums. thanks for that.

@takestock not to mention the feeling that your equipment pays for itself! I would really love that :)

@adeptris this game kicks ass. a huge THANKS for that! I really needed that, my first score is 2 true in 10!

@gostwyck I don't know if you noticed, in the thread header, it says "specialty" advice. it's true I'm in no need of a lesson about aperture, I need advice such as adeptris just gave me. I am trying to learn as fast as I can, and I learned what I knew about microstock in last four days. I just wanted to hear what fellow photographers advised to learn first. I'm not going to leave it where this topic ends, but I am asking for a starting point.

@tan510jomast I started to see same flaws too. I guess it's what we need to compromise for being a stock photographer, tolerance for mediocre technique :D On the other subject, I clearly understand you. I am no crusader of art came here to conquer microstock. Anyway, I don't think microstock does need an ansel adams to prove it's legitimacy. it's fine in this way already. There is a huge market for generic images, and people who can create content should be awarded, there's nothing wrong about that.

I know a few gallery photographers. believe me, one of them can't tell why does he take photos. this guy is called an artist. he doesn't have a clue why he does this, instead of maybe playing tuba? so, no worries about that too.

Confidence is something I really need these days, microstok ruined my self worth ;D

This is a question I wanted to ask, too. Can I earn something with isolations? I mean, I will noI havet be hiring a model anytime soon, so I'm left with others. although I have good nature photos, I understand that they won't sell well. I only think of isolations and still life. any better ways?


"Do you guys any idea what I should shoot? I am getting really adept at isolated images, but I don't actually like model photography, this is something I have little to no experience. I didn't use any models other than my close friends. Also, I wonder, When you pay for props, model's salary, studio etc. can you really make a profit out of these shots? or is there any way I can't see to take them? How is it like working with models, is it cumbersome, do you feel that you have to command every gesture of the model, or can you relax and just rely on model's modelling iq? Should I look for models for these kind of shots, they seem to be real top sellers."

anyone have an idea about this?




« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2009, 17:00 »
0

another aspect, I would never want to sell photos of my friends, and asking for a model release seems quite humiliating to me. even then, they don't look as good at %100.

If you don't want to shoot people, then still life's and/or food might be a possibility.  Lots of people do those subjects, but not too many of them do it really well.  With your artistic sense and lighting skills you might be able to do those subjects in a way that would stand above the crowd.

I think plain old isolated objects have already been done to death.  Pretty tough to luck into an object that is gonna be popular and isn't already well covered.

If you do want to do isolated objects, adding a clipping path might get you extra sales, even though it is a pain to do.  If you don't have a light cube already, it's a cheap investment and makes shooting isolated pretty easy.   Lots of them on ebay.

ETA - don't let the rejections get you down.  Some of the top dogs in micro admit they got turned down the first couple times they applied to IS or SS. :)

« Last Edit: July 11, 2009, 17:03 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2009, 17:32 »
0
I think plain old isolated objects have already been done to death.  Pretty tough to luck into an object that is gonna be popular and isn't already well covered.

Yep.

« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2009, 18:21 »
0
I think your statement "I know it is not about art or even about good photography" is probably your biggest issue.  In fact, it IS about good photography.  It may not be "art photography", but the things factors that make a good photograph are essential to success in microstock just like any other branch of photography (composition, lighting etc.).


When your pics were rejected, what were the reasons given?  Most often forlong time pros the biggest issues are not compositional or lighting, but more often focus, noise, and artifacting.   I don't know of any other branch of photography outside of micro where the images have to be perfect at 100% pixels.  At 100% is where images that might look perfectly acceptable in print or at normal viewing range will reveal their flaws. 

First, congrats on a nice port in Flickr.

PixelBytes writes so well and covers it all, I have to say.
I am not so sure if I can agree with you that microstock is "not about good photography",
although to a certain point I might agree with you that "it's not about art photography", as in artistic and creative for gallery work vs art as in vector,etc.. There are lots of very good "art" work and design here in micro stock. If I may even dare to compromise that more than artistic photograph.

No, no Ansel Adams, W Eugene Smith or Richard Avedon here, not even Art Kane . But to give credit to where micro stock deserves, I feel it is as PixelBytes closing statement. It's not just enough to make "artistic" images but also be aware of noise, fringes, color balance,etc.

When I came into micro stock I was a bit apprehensive as well as the "lack of artistic photography". But like every business, there is a place for that ie gallery, and there is a place for generic work. You really cannot expect the best of both works to intermingle.

Most recently I started to see "flaws" at a co-op of experienced photographers who conducted country wide exhibitions. I saw noise the size of golf balls which I was not so critical with, before I started micro. Ironically, I now find myself making enemies of some gallery exhibitors because I pointed out to the chairman that the "exhibitor's works were plagued with noise." So that's the matchpoint :
Gallery 1 : Micro 1, lol...

Lately, with the competition being stiffer, I am seeing a lot more awesome creative works , so I can say that it is perharps misinformation to think that micro stock is just for the dabblers with lots of money to buy the most expensive camera and take boring generic photographs.

.
Generic yes, boring maybe to an extent that there are so many copycats ripping off ideas from the top sellers. Even creative work can become boring if a great photographer or painter is being copied blatantly. I remember my frustration at one seminar when every other bloke present B&W zone VI perfect print that looked like poor man's Ansel Adams, lol.

 Perharps with this stiffer competition in micro to survive, we may see more "artistic" work and less generic.  we probably need to , if we are to stay viable.
Already many are complaining what is the point of having so many stock agencies when every one of them has the same images. We really only need 3, no doubt? ;)



In conclusion, I think if you removed that preconception , you will find some outstanding work in micro as well. They may not sell as well as the "boring" stuff. But even that may be a perception . But are these photographers total slack asses compared to gallery photographers? I wouldn't say so, now that I have spent 16 months rubbing shoulders with some awesome and wonderful people here through Tyler's forum.

You will , I am confident, find yourself changing your opinions about them too, after a few months here. Good luck, and welcome to microstock.

P.S.
if my comments are seem fragmented. Excuse me, as I don't think too sequentially this early in the morning (breakfast time) , even more so on weekends. I usually make more sense and think more coherently after I get a pint of Guinness, lol.
Cheers.

we went to the sydney museum last year and the had a big photo display on (results from a competition) and there was some absolutely great images but especially in the professional category they was quite a number that I though shocking for ca, noise and sharpening etc (I swear one image had something like usm 300/2/0). I thought a couple of high school category images were some of the best presented :)

Squat

  • If you think you know, you know squat
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2009, 20:41 »
0
I am not a full participant in micro. I do it as more or less a weekend thing. But from the tiny port I have, my repat sales come mostly from travel shot (ancient architecture), and food shots. Not quite isolation work, but more decorative. I used to enjoy isolated images only because it was a sure thing to get approved. But I sort of lost interest in the same light box type lighting . I try now mostly to do more ambient setting as I like the way food looks in a more dressy and relevant setting.
And PixepBytes is right to say isolation work has been done to death.

As for nature. I don't think it's has no potential. In fact, my friend Larry (ljtripod) has a wicked port of nature work, and he sells a lot more than I do.

I think the best approach is to submit a variety of your work, and see which gets the sales. Don't let the rejections ruin your self confidence. Reviewers are no more immortal than any critic. Does a music critic really know more about music to criticized Miles Davis, or Coltrane's work? In fact, the history of jazz has it that Leonard Feather the great critic of jazz once called Charlie Parker's work as a din or chinese music. We all know who Bird is, and every musician studied Charlie Parker. However, not too many musicians study Leonard Feather.  So there goes the analogy between the critic (reviewer ) and the creator .

Once again, as PixelBytes said so well, if we all truly take rejections as a judgement written in stone to our workmanship, all of us would have committed suicide a long time ago.

RT


« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2009, 18:15 »
0
Whilst like Sean I'm not going to directly help you with what to shoot you seem like a nice genuine guy so I'll give you a couple of tips I think might help, for the type of stock that sells on microstock sometimes attention to detail helps and often 'less is more', I had a quick look on your flickr portfolio, your shot of the place setting would appeal more in this market if you remove the flowers and edge design on the plate, and more importantly get the cutlery layout correct, for a buyer to add a design of their own choice is easy to do, to have to remove one they don't like will most probably make them buy someone else's shot. Your shot of the cat is good and the uniqueness of the different coloured eyes is a feature that I think would help it's appeal because it can be used for concepts other than that to do with pets.

If you like nature and you're keen on isolating things then isolate things you find in nature, people will tell you they won't sell but trust me if you do it really well they will sell, mainly because the sites are flooded with isolated shots that haven't been done well.

Good luck





puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2009, 18:33 »
0
Whilst like Sean I'm not going to directly help you with what to shoot you seem like a nice genuine guy so I'll give you a couple of tips I think might help, for the type of stock that sells on microstock sometimes attention to detail helps and often 'less is more', I had a quick look on your flickr portfolio, your shot of the place setting would appeal more in this market if you remove the flowers and edge design on the plate, and more importantly get the cutlery layout correct, for a buyer to add a design of their own choice is easy to do, to have to remove one they don't like will most probably make them buy someone else's shot. Your shot of the cat is good and the uniqueness of the different coloured eyes is a feature that I think would help it's appeal because it can be used for concepts other than that to do with pets.

If you like nature and you're keen on isolating things then isolate things you find in nature, people will tell you they won't sell but trust me if you do it really well they will sell, mainly because the sites are flooded with isolated shots that haven't been done well.

Good luck

I think Sean has been given a bad rep. He's really a nice guy !

Also for your comments, very helpful. I never thought of that .eg. cleaning up the edge frills;
isolate nature ; . But I agree, isolation work has been done to death, but a good one will still find some sales. Just don't copy and rip off the best sellers. Why would anyone in the right mind buy a poor copycat when the original is better done ? As they say, the best way to beat the competition is not to be one.

« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2009, 20:45 »
0
I think Sean has been given a bad rep. He's really a nice guy !

No, I'm not.  Don't tell people that!  ;)

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2009, 22:34 »
0
I think Sean has been given a bad rep. He's really a nice guy !

No, I'm not.  Don't tell people that!  ;)

Oops, sorry Sean, I shouldn't have said that! I take it back  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2268 Views
Last post September 15, 2009, 21:49
by bad to the bone
0 Replies
1064 Views
Last post June 24, 2013, 18:53
by wordplanet
17 Replies
2560 Views
Last post May 03, 2015, 07:15
by ShadySue
52 Replies
7395 Views
Last post December 01, 2016, 15:31
by Pauws99
8 Replies
2229 Views
Last post September 09, 2018, 20:26
by chloehall

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results