|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - willie
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 28
176
« on: January 16, 2010, 17:26 »
BigStock is actually my oldest micro stock site. at this moment there are neck and neck with FT which is my most recent site along with IS which is only not even one year old. my earning with BigStock is the same as FT in this short time, which isn't impressive when you consider that FT took a quarter of that time to earn equally, although per sale, BigStock paid more. but i cannot ignore the fact the FT gave me an EXt Lic within a couple of months of joining them.
i thought SS takeover would improve their sales but to date it hasn't been so.
but now i read on another thread that SS is giving discounts on BigStock images.
which means we are going to earn a fraction per sale if this is so.
would anyone care to share their insight on this SS discount for BigStock images?
what would this mean ? less happy campers on BigStock?
177
« on: January 16, 2010, 15:17 »
dp
178
« on: January 16, 2010, 13:12 »
Istock likes submissions to be noise free and silky smooth. Shutterstock likes sharpness and bolder saturation. The nondescript technical rejections at Fotolia have be baffled. Does anyone know what Fotolia's technical preferences are?
I'm not sure I recognise your description of SS and IS to be honest. The odd rejects that I get at either place are for the most part somewhat haphazard and unpredictable __ I wouldn't generally upload an image if I assessed it to be technically borderline without addressing the potential issue. But still occasionally they 'find' one.
I get the impression that FT are more commercially oriented and are actually assessing the history and sales of the submitter as much as the image itself. If they consider you to be proven as a time-served stock photographer, say with 5-10K of sales behind you, (and you don't have a tendency to upload multiple similars) then you'll get very few if any rejections for technical reasons.
your observation of IS vs SS is pretty close. winners of SS are consistent losers with the reviewers of IS. mainly because of post processing... ie over saturated, sharpening, etc. gostwyck's observation on FT is also astute. yes, i find FT quite predictable and very consistent with my work. except for the short deviation of strange rejection during Xmas hols which i give as due to the absence of their regulars. but now that the hols are over, i am back to the approvals as usual. another reason is that i think (here, repeat i think) FT's market is Euro vs IS and SS which are US, so there is a diff in what they buy. but clean images which are not over post processed like the ones IS take have been more or less the ones that FT prefer as well. the only thing i don't care for is their disposition code rejection reason. but i don't get many of these, and for the little i get, i don't pay much attention either, as no site is perfect... or if you prefer, they're all a bit of a pain ... if you have your preference  or disgust 
179
« on: January 16, 2010, 12:34 »
iStock is good for rejecting images for something minor then when you resubmit, they reject it for something else. I personally wish they would tell you everything they see rather than just the one thing and save you the trouble of resubmitting and resubmitting. Most of the time they make it through. For instance I had submitted a photo which had a person in it and they rejected it because I forgot the model release. I understood...my fault...resubmitted with model release and then it was rejected for something else. So they are good for that
sorry, i have to disagree with you. IS has always approved my RESUBMIT. if there was something else lacking with the image, you correct that too before pressing RESUBMIT. the reviewer cannot give you every single reason , but from my own experience, the fact that a reviewer took the time to PM me with an elaborate reason, by itself that alone is exemplary. would you not wish the same is done by reviewers of FT, DT,etc.. instead of their disposition code spat (one or all of the above) hieroglyphics?
180
« on: January 16, 2010, 12:14 »
microstock does not even figure in my life. photography? yes, a whole section of my life is in photography. it's been that way for over 10-15 years . i 've worked in literally every aspect of photography since i came out of photography school. wet behind my ears, moved to the capital to do anything and everything working with the top pros in the business. even met the greatest portraitist at that time, when he was still alive. you can say he is all that i pattern my photography ethics and my strive for excellence. my camera goes everywhere with me, even when i am in the desert or rain forest. no, not underwater... never learned to swim after i almost drowned in a swimming pool at 10, and almost again some 30 years later with a riptide at Playa Conchal ,Costa Rica. unfortunately, some angel wave told me i wasn't ready for heaven, and regurgitated me back to shore l  i suppose heaven already had Matthew Brady,Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Cecil Beaton,Cartier Bresson, W.Eugene Smith, etc.. and there was still no vacancy  seriously, yes, my life is full of um, life, and microstock is but a pebble. it does not even start with microstock, so i can safely and proudly say, i do have a life. except when i come in here to make noise (ah, bad pun).
181
« on: January 15, 2010, 22:54 »
If I don't make a cent on my photos during this little adventure, that's ok with me. The thought of complete strangers looking at and buying my photos sounds thrilling, so I want to try it.
I also want to learn and grow as a photographer, and take even better pictures. This method seems like a good way to do it, since it really seems flexible time wise.
Then you should join flickr, or another website when people comment on each other's images. Licensing stock imagery is a business that should be taken seriously, even more nowadays then a few years ago.
once more, wise old Mr Locke has hit the nail on the head... yes, flickr is where you should start .
182
« on: January 15, 2010, 21:53 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6021948-tea-for-two.phpjust spontaneous seeking within istock food section, i found this selection impressive enough for you to grasp what a good photograph can be. notice the lighting is light without losing detail to lens flare , and the shadows if any are light . images like this is possible so long as you pay careful attention to your exposure. if you're inexperienced in "seeing" lighting ratio,etc... and taking the best exposure, i would suggest taking a reading off a grey card then bracket +-1/2 , 1 stop, and see what you have on your calibrated monitor. most food shots are more or less arranged lighting, and thus, the photographer have already done a lot of homework re lighting and exposure. and most would be shooting on manual setting , well, at least i do. but i wouldn't get too deep into the semantics of it all. i would rather suggest you spend the next few days merely leafing through these awesome section and just sponge off as much info you can into your "mind's eye" as to how these photographers light their food shot, and how they expose them. once it sinks in, then you can pick up the camera and experiment. for now, i suggest a lot more looking than shooting.
183
« on: January 15, 2010, 20:38 »
every month IS sends out a newsletter with lots of useful articles.
if you know someone who is with IS, i suggest you ask them to send you some of these past newsletters.
another way to see if your work is up to IS standard may be to visit IS and look at the images there. if food is what you shoot, then look under that category.
i think food is a difficult category to shoot well, if you're new to this type of photography. i don't know your past photography experience , but i suggest going to IS and look over their images there.
then compare them to what you shoot best. and then go from there.
once again, if you are new to photography, i would stay away from isolated shots, food, and the more ambitious stuff. for now at least. but if you know how to light an object well, and get a white background ,etc.. then go for it.
i suggest try shooting in natural light first. there are less factors to complicate things for you.
one thing for sure, work to get the correct exposure before shooting.
pay close attention to shadow details and highlight , and make sure these are not blocked or clipped. use fill in flash or reflectors to achieve this.
and then when all is right on , take the photo.
IS favours work that has little or no post processing, other than spotting and colour correction. unlike SS that tends to like the opposite.
be sure your focus is spot on too. don't use post processing to sharpen a poorly focused image. reshoot.
i hope that helps. and for the rest, as i said, visit IS site and look well.
184
« on: January 15, 2010, 14:42 »
happy for you.
another bonus for being exclusive would be that you now only spend time uploading to IS. giving you more time to make more images instead of submitting to the other sites which may or may not be worth your expectations.
185
« on: January 15, 2010, 14:06 »
other than some truly odd rejection during the festive season, which i account to "christmas help" and "atilla's family sitting in for the regular reviewers", i find that i am actually getting more approvals than rejections all across the board for the Big6+3.
then again, my works have changed too . i updated my shooting concepts and shied away from the perenial clones of the past decade.
i would assume i am in the right direction to think that it is a new decade,
so i expect the buyers are looking for a change too.
186
« on: January 15, 2010, 13:55 »
my experience with StockXpert has gone back to the good ones as i originally experienced before the internal conflict that left them sort of left in limbo.
since my return to submitting new images to StockXpert, after an initial batch of "we don't need this subject", i decide to stop thinking of StockXpert as the old StockXpert.
ie. they obviously don't want the same old same old.
since then, StockXpert have been approving all of my new works and very promptly.
it's obvious they want a new site to rise from the ashes of a once excellent StockXpert.
we cannot expect them to just take our same old same old , and with the same breath expect StockXpert rebirth.
as Race pointed , they want IS standard, but something more.
i think that's good news. it's a new decade, and i for one welcome StockXpert 's rebirth.
187
« on: January 15, 2010, 11:53 »
I would strongly advise you against picking a site just because you think it'll be easy to get accepted - in the long run this will do you no favors. If you're going to give it a shot - and I see no reason you shouldn't - then start wtih iStock.
I'm now an exclusive but I was an independent for 4 years - I have uploaded to all the major sites (and a few that are no longer around). High standards, a consistent review process and a large volume of buyers are good if you're going to try and build a stock portfolio. Rejections stink - we all hate them even when they're totally justified and we understand them - but if you're willing to learn from them and improve, it can be a great experience.
You'll hear some chatter about random insane rejections and no standards for IS reviewers, but that's mostly from people who haven't figured out what they're doing wrong and would rather blame the reviewers than look dispassionately at their own shortcomings. It can be hard for some people to do, but that's the way to grow.
Good luck
well spoken. yes, i agree on all counts whatever you read about IS. they can really be anal . but then again, IS is also where you can improve the fastest, if you can set aside your ego. you will also find the most helpful ppl in IS from their exclusives by writing in the forum. as a newbie, you will also get the most rejections from IS if you cannot produce a "perfect" shot straight off the camera because IS do not like too much post processing. which i totally think is correct too, as the more you post process, the more it degrades your images. many ppl say shoot RAW so you can tweak your images. to many, this translate into "you can cheat with RAW if your photography control of getting the proper exposure stinks." well, it may get you through many other stock sites, but not with IS. if you want just to get lots of approval, just close your eyes and pick anything under the big 5. if you want to really seek trial by fire and learn ASAP , go IS. yes, i agree, IS is not what any newbie should go with , but if you really can take the beating and learn from it, IS rejections comes with specific reasons unlike FTor DT ,etc.. hierglyphics rejection explanation. since you don't have much time to shoot, i wouldn't bother trying photoshopping to "redeem" your images. this takes a lot of homework too. i would simply read the IS reviewers rejection reason, and reshoot trying hard to not do the mistake they pointed out in your image. much faster than trying to learn photoshop . finally, enjoy and welcome to the world of S&M, lol..
188
« on: January 15, 2010, 09:42 »
I am brand new to this concept of stock photography.
I have a DSLR, and I love taking pictures of food and most of all my friends and family. Something about food and my loved ones that I just love to shoot.
Anyways, I stumbled upon this micro stock photography phenomenon through the internet and thought maybe I can make some money on all these shots I have.
Thing is, I have a day job that takes a big chunk of my time. (I'm an English teacher). I currently only have enough time to contribute to one company.
So any good advice on what one company I should invest my time on? Like I said, I'm really brand new at this, don't even know if my stuff is worthy of stock! Looked over some other threads and seem to think that istock and shutterstock might not even accept my stuff due to their strict standards?
You have a day job, why worry about this? Just enjoy your camera and showing your images to your friends and family. Everyone that gets or has a dslr doesn't have to join a stock site.
i agree with Sean. to suceed in micro stock is time consuming, and really not so cost effective . not many actually make money , and many that do, spend almost every hour on it like a full time real estate salesman . i don't think you can be a hobbyist and "make money" in micro stock, or any stock . you have to do it full time, esp as a newbie in a business where volume is imperative. if it were not for being a retiree or someone who has lost a job,etc... i would say the same thing to anyone as well. it's not the Mr Locke is afraid of competition. he doesn't need to be afraid of competition, he already is a superman with IS. and i say this sincerely. and really, Mr Locke did not just happen to pick up a camera and la dee da, he is a top seller . he puts in many hours in his work . compared to Mr. Locke, majority are simply dabblers.
189
« on: January 13, 2010, 23:50 »
if any site is really "concerned" about contributors' interest. they would have done what many contributors here have done, ie. use whatever software to track their images and find the thieves.
do you know of any site who actually did that to ensure no one has actually stolen from contributors? i am sure there were enough cases of theft. it's been taking over this forum many times, so i am sure the agencies all know it is happening.
but do we see any of the say, Big 6 , coming in on our behalf to charge in like a knight on a silver stallion to say, "hey, you don't have to do this on your own, we are now getting our legal team to surf the web to make sure this never happens again".
noooooooo, up to now, we have hear (...... listen) *silence*
another thing, i remember someone once mentioned that when stock images were more expensive, pilfering of images or copyright infringement were less prevalent. this was due to the fact that whoever paid bucks for stock images
actually really meant to use them, and they know the agreement and are aware of the copyright laws,etc..
but as subs came into the picture, every tom dick and harry can literally pick up tons of images at woa, as advertised by every site "get as many as you like and pay as little as possible"
this gives the impression that woa, i get all these images for so little. and then some dude comes in to get all these subs priced images and he puts in on a cd and sells the cd. just like anything else, music, movies,etc.. and they think hey,
i paid for these images from xxx stock sites, you know. i didn't steal them,
i bought them , so like i paid for my cd i have the right to put these music on the web .
well, sounds familiar? hey, it's royalty free.
so, i bought it, and now i can use them anyway i please without paying any "royalties" .
so, really. i think the sites are partly responsible for this.
there has been a gross misinterpretation of what "royalty free" really meant.
i have seen even editors of magazine or contributing writers for equipment magazines misinterpreting "royalty free" as well.
so, if these contributing writers who write regularly for magazines don't understand the implication, is it no wonder the common person doesn't either?
I don't think any of "The Big 6" are going to waste their time chasing after infringements. If they do it'll be a one-time "please take it down and sign up for our service" notice. Beyond that forget it. Are they going to have a lawyer chase after a $1-$25 image? Probably not.
Getty on the other hand can recover hundreds or thousands of dollars per offense. And they did use tracking software to find infringements.
And I don't think anything that's for sale should have the word "free" associated with it. Royalty Free automatically gives the impression it's free for the taking. Whoever came up with that missed marketing or business 101.
I don't think anything that's for sale should have the word "free" associated with it. Royalty Free automatically gives the impression it's free for the taking. Whoever came up with that missed marketing or business 101. phew, finally someone came right out to say it. i thought i was the only one thinking ROYALTY FREE was the silliest thing anyone can call intellectual property. YES, YES, YES,... any Business or Marketing student would have laughed in your face when you use the words FREE, CHEAP, LITTLE, TAKE ALL YOU WANT FOR AS LITTLE...i could go on forever. but ... i am too tired already. thx Paulie.
190
« on: January 13, 2010, 22:33 »
if any site is really "concerned" about contributors' interest. they would have done what many contributors here have done, ie. use whatever software to track their images and find the thieves.
do you know of any site who actually did that to ensure no one has actually stolen from contributors? i am sure there were enough cases of theft. it's been taking over this forum many times, so i am sure the agencies all know it is happening.
but do we see any of the say, Big 6 , coming in on our behalf to charge in like a knight on a silver stallion to say, "hey, you don't have to do this on your own, we are now getting our legal team to surf the web to make sure this never happens again".
noooooooo, up to now, we have hear (...... listen) *silence*
another thing, i remember someone once mentioned that when stock images were more expensive, pilfering of images or copyright infringement were less prevalent. this was due to the fact that whoever paid bucks for stock images
actually really meant to use them, and they know the agreement and are aware of the copyright laws,etc..
but as subs came into the picture, every tom dick and harry can literally pick up tons of images at woa, as advertised by every site "get as many as you like and pay as little as possible"
this gives the impression that woa, i get all these images for so little. and then some dude comes in to get all these subs priced images and he puts in on a cd and sells the cd. just like anything else, music, movies,etc.. and they think hey,
i paid for these images from xxx stock sites, you know. i didn't steal them,
i bought them , so like i paid for my cd i have the right to put these music on the web .
well, sounds familiar? hey, it's royalty free.
so, i bought it, and now i can use them anyway i please without paying any "royalties" .
so, really. i think the sites are partly responsible for this.
there has been a gross misinterpretation of what "royalty free" really meant.
i have seen even editors of magazine or contributing writers for equipment magazines misinterpreting "royalty free" as well.
so, if these contributing writers who write regularly for magazines don't understand the implication, is it no wonder the common person doesn't either?
191
« on: January 13, 2010, 15:36 »
everyone has given their theory to these decrease in dls, except the obvious reason: buyers ran out of choice with your port due to subs, and bought all of yours . now, either you give them new choices so they can shop again at your flea mart or they go elsewhere to lesser popular portfolios who are finding an increase in dls. the other obvious answer would be, as Achilles and DT pointed out, same old same old don't count anymore. they don't want the cliche generics because they already have too many. same like mom and pop stores are not taking in anymore new inventories of what they already have too many . times are rough with a smaller budget. some buyers have closed shop due to the stock market crash, and many probably decide not to shop anymore in order to keep afloat. in all, for those who agree with me that sub stinks, and i know even the esteemed perenial top sellers agree with me too, (as one even told me that in his PM, which i so happily discovered. i won't name him, as this is as it should be in PM), we really have nothing to cheer about when we sell ourselves short with subs. and now, we are here blaming or crying in our spilt milk? lol, you should have seen the writings on the wall. 
192
« on: January 12, 2010, 19:53 »
So the question is, where will be get the paper to line bird cages, pack boxes, make paper mache masks or wrap dead fish? No more free supply! I see a marketing opportunity coming of age. Blank, clean newsprint.
hey that sounds like a great business venture, Race. you don't even need to produce the clean newsprint, just gather them from the third world countries who would still be using newsprint. let's get into this business together. maybe we'll get so filthy (bad pun) rich with this joint venture, we won't need to be micro stock photographers . hell , you could even use the profits to start your own editorial only micro stock site. me? i can retire to lay on the beach in some Greek island, drink my Guinness.
193
« on: January 12, 2010, 19:21 »
^^^ I'd very much agree. I've just checked my last 200 sales and out of those 95 were subscriptions __ over 47%. It looks to me that more buyers may be moving over to subscriptions so we may get little or no benefit from the new prices/levels.
you know, i just realise here that many of you "experienced" contributors and long time micro stock group ppl here do not approve of subs with DT. so why no one is asking DT for an opt out button like we have with IS, StockXpert?
194
« on: January 12, 2010, 15:08 »
edited for brevity
I just flicked back through my last 200 sales and only 25 of them were subscriptions .. so that's only 12%.
yes, you have a point there. i , like you, don't pay much attention to dissecting which is sales or subs. but looking quickly at my dls and earnings, it more or less equals dollar per dl. which i suppose isn't that bad for 3MP. (i don't submit any larger to micro, giving them only the min requirement, leaving the XXL to Alamy). being recent in micro, i like the idea too that i will reach Level II sooner with this new rating, which i gather would increase potential earning per dl too. i really don't expect miracles with micro stock as far as earnings go, since everyone seems to go ape with pushing for subs. but i can't knock DT for trying to show they are at least giving our rants an ear and trying to appease us. maybe not completely, but as they say, "bad or good; compared to what?" compared to other micro sites i'd say DT is getting my images more than any other of the Big 5+3, since DT is my top earner. only other one that i am hoping for a new change would be my #2 earner Stockxpert, which i hope will also give us something to be happy about soon. whatever, i think now that the tide has moved back to DT, Getty cannot ignore this. and killing StockXpert is certainly not going to bring StockXpert contributors to move to IS, esp when many of us already have both IS and StockXpert accounts. and killing StockXpert will certainly not sit well with us, for those who used to have a site that was earning well before all this screwup with Getty of StockXpert.
195
« on: January 12, 2010, 12:36 »
double post
196
« on: January 12, 2010, 12:29 »
i can see the redundance of newsprint, Race,
but like it or not, i still prefer my hardcopy of VOGUE.
and based on the consensus of the models i work with, all young and the current generation, they too prefer to read their copy of Vogue . not one of them has a web subscription.
i am old like you, but not all young people like the idea of web media.
many things change but some things keep coming back.
and others don't change at all. eg. comics, vinyls, ... as much as the producers want to push
them to web media , many of these young people who were born after the vinyl and hard copy generation are still going back to collect the old stuff.
the move to web media does not mean the users want them. only the makers want them because it increases their net profit. much like subs that micro stock sites adore , which is the bane to contributors. just because it's prevalent does not mean people approve of it.
some times they have no choice. or more so, they have no say in this matter of transition . much like many of my young photographic students tell me they deplore digital media, and prefer shooting with the old mamiya 2 1/4 even though it's so difficult finding the wide choice of films like we had in our times of being newbie in photography.
i think the tabloids , newspaper,etc.. can be replaced. they're all mush anyway.
i will miss them only that i won't have them to use to clean up my kitty litter.
but magazines like Vogue, i don't think too many would prefer to see them on the monitor. many photographers and models still want the "organic" feel of it.
197
« on: January 12, 2010, 12:13 »
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What? !!!
That's ridiculous! Resubmit them.
Resubmitting to SS is not very good idea. You can get warning9 or something) for that, if they find out.
not if you make some slight changed to the shot. cc. or even cropping, or even flipping them the idea being that this could end up in the hands of another reviewer the next time, one who is not bias
198
« on: January 12, 2010, 11:59 »
I was not especially thinking so much about people being deliberately corrupt or manipulative.
Even with the best intentions we all subconsciously bring our inherent points of view to any subject whether we are looking at pictures or making making pictures.
And the very process of taking an image is of itself a manipulation and an intervention.
yes, you are right too. if we really want to be sticky about it, like it or not, nothing is really objective. even the fact that say, W E Smith's portrayal of Minimarta, is by itself an opinion. .. his. as Richard Avedon once said, in his quote on portraiture, even though it applies to photography in general..."The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion. There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
199
« on: January 12, 2010, 11:39 »
I believe the creator, whomever or whatever you believe that may be, has the rights to the planet and it's natural rocks. Any copyright probably expired over 65 million years ago.
well, i know you cannot use Apple because Apple and Macintosh own it , even though it was actually adam and eve who hold the copyright to "apple", and Mac themselves committed an IP theft by calling it their own . i tried goggling adam and eve to inform them of this, but i don't think they've updated their computer , or maybe eden's IP (internet provider) has been struck by a worm (argh, bad pun). also, the Queen on the face of the quid coin and canucks' ought to know better. the crown jewels on her head really belongs to india, africa,etc... if anyone knows about theft, she would, also, the sky behind the canadian dollars and other currency, also has an IP (intellectual property) owner. if i last checked, i don't think , as Race calls it ... the Creator , did not sell his sky RF, so many someone should inform the dudes who print currencies that they too are infringing on someone's IP Race is right... ..."BS... don't get me started"... p.s. i just heard through the grapevine that SPCA and Animal Rights Movement are also coming up with their list. one word "*" that porn sites cannot use, as it's both demeaning to women, and more importantly, insulting to felines. my cats just asked me to witness their petition.
200
« on: January 12, 2010, 10:56 »
How a photograph is taken, the angle, the framing, the moment chosen etc will influence how the image will be read by a viewer.
Photography is not and never has been truth.
good thread RAce. alias, i agree with you too. photojournalism is , by rule, supposed to be objective. you learn that in journalism 101. but yes, the media is corrupted , and many examples of such subjective and manipulation to move an opinion are evident everywhere. we see it every minute on say yahoo news, msn news, or worse the blatant news sites that cover the movie stars etc. a simple distortion created by foreshortening, can make a little shark look like jaws. mr. flat nose suddenly looks like pinnochio. lighting can make Obama look viscious, cropping, perspective,etc.. can transform a respectable person into something sinister. manipulation of "editorial" images is consistently used by political parties at election time, to make their opponent "look bad". it's been done all the time, until it has become an art form, albeit vulgar. is this journalism? well, to them it is. yes, many editors deviate from their objectivity to simple give us the W5 by manipulating their images like so. i agree. the bottom line is news people have always been of two schools: 1) the old school of giving us objective w,w,w,w,w,.. 2) the new school of sensationalism... to sell news to win viewers for their advertisers. but all in all, the days of finding a reporter who works like W.Eugene Smith is certainly long gone. I have yet to meet a photojournalist today, or from the 80's till today, who would pick up his work and walk out of the door when the editor wanted him to "lie" or "manipulate" the news. journalism is supposed to be just that, objective reporting. but many will argue that reportage to elicit an opinion, or to move an opinion, etcc.. is also journalism. whatever. it all depends on which editor you work for. i worked for crooked editors whose interest were just to sell papers, as much as i worked for editors who threw my photo essay with the slightest hint of subjectivity out the door. not many of us had the luxury of W Eugene Smith, who really worked for himself... not Times, not Life, not any one... but himself. that' truly commendable, but that's for another thread. we won't get into that. all in all, Race is right on one thing too, times have changed. or rather, his quote from Dylan (not thomas but bob), said it many years ago, and it still applies, TIMES ARE A CHANGING. great thread, Race. i 'll give it back to you, and wiil continue reading ...
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
