|
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 - Firn
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26
1
« on: March 08, 2024, 01:17 »
While I agree with everyone else here that the minimum pacout of $100 is too high for a small agency like Dreamstime, I do not understand your argumentation? Theft? Because they could go out of business and you might not be getting your money? Accusing an reliable company that has been around for 24 years and has always paid their contributors on time of theft, just because it could potentially go out of business is taking it a bit far, especially since you could say the exact same thing about every other agency.
2
« on: March 08, 2024, 01:11 »
Pixsy is a cool service.
Have you, or any other microstock photographer, had any success with them? Because I tried to used their service for a few very obviously stolen photos and my experience has been very disappointing. They declined to take my case with a whole list of reasons why and among them was 1. That my photos were offered on microstock sites and therefore it was not worth the effort 2. That I had not registered my photos with the US copyright office. Both these reasons were very baffling to me. When you fill out the form for with them you have a field where you can enter whether your images are offered on microstock sites. Why is the option even in the form? And why would I even register my photos with the US copyright office? I am from Germany. Everywhere in Europe you are automatically the copyright owner of your own creations and do not need to register copyright anywhere. And they took weeks to even get back to me. Why don't they just write on their website "We do not accept cases of photos that are offered on microstock sites and are not registered with the US copright office" from the start and save me and them bot the work?
3
« on: November 15, 2023, 05:11 »
I have bad news: I have tried it and it is useless. Maybe if you just want to use your images online in small size it might work, but in full size the altering is extremely visible, even at a low glaze setting. It just looks like it makes the quality of the image bad. There is a lot of fragmentation that gets added to one-colored areas, like this. And they are really all over the picture.  And here are some side by side comparisons of unglazed and glazed full size crops:         The blurry parts are taken from the defocused backgrounds of images, that's where the glaze effect is the worst. Parts that are sharp and and in focus and are very small look okay-ish, but of course you rarely have a photo where everything is in focus and where you have no bigger areas with the same color. You can see that on the eye example. I cannot tell a difference with the dog fur around the eyes, it looks good, but the iris itself, where there is larger colored brown area looks weird. Here is bigger sized example, but this one is already sized down 75% - and you can still notice the effect very much. First one unedited, second glazed.   There is no way any microstock agency would accept images of this quality. These examples are from the recommended low glaze setting with little "protection". If you use the highest setting the images are completely butchered: 
4
« on: October 17, 2023, 00:44 »
I would like to add to Pete's contribution that for about 10 years, at least in Germany, sales of vinyl records and players have been growing steadily. Wow, wow! And who produces them?
Big record companies. I am also from Germany and I can confirm.  I do not know whether it's all music genre, but I listen to metal and here every metal band that brings out a new album will also release multiple versions of it on vinyl. And metal fans swear that they just sound so much better than CDs - and mp3s of course. And, as a book lover with over 2000 books I can also confirm that paper books are still going strong. And I think one of the selling points of books is that people like to give them to other people as gifts. And that just doesn't work so well with e-book files.  But I do not think that this concept can be applied well to the AI vs. real photos discussion, because the problem here is that in many cases you cannot tell them apart. I mean, I think I still can in many cases, but I have seen people fall for AI images online, thinking they were real, that looked so obviously AI generated to me. So many people can't tell the difference, probably especially people who have never taken real photos other than with their phones and have never generated AI images. But I think as AI images will advance further, it will become more and more difficult to tell them apart from real photos, even to the trained eye. And then the comparison to vinyls or books just doesn't work anymore, because you can obviously easily tell these apart from their modern digital counterparts. But how do you chose between an AI image and a real photo as a customer when you just do not know which one is which?
5
« on: September 24, 2023, 01:25 »
6
« on: June 14, 2023, 05:32 »
Almost everything looks very similar, like it's gone through the same "art" filter.
Either many people are purposefully going for the same effect, because it is popular, or they do not know that they can influence the look of an image by describing for example light conditions and you can achieve images that look "artsy" and overprocessed or images that look like more like candid photos, but I think there is some great diversity there, especially since not everyone is using the same AI generator.
7
« on: June 08, 2023, 00:55 »
What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
The plates being different is your "quality issue" ?!  A party store that would for example want a banner or header image for a plate category for their store would not care much whether the images would show the exact products they carry - because the products they carry change by the week, as products get sold out and new products enter the shop. Do you think they hire a photographer to make new banners with up to date products each week? I have so so so many of my photos used in various shops all over the internet, mostly for dog products like collars, leashes or coats, where I can guarantee you the shop does not carry these items, because most of them were handmade by a friend of mine. We are actually constantly shocked by how frequently shops advertise their products by using photos of completely different products they do not sell. Not even talking about other potential usages, like for example an article about the damage caused by disposable dinnerwear. I strongly disagree that "different plates" is a quality issue. But it does not matter, because in the end it is not up to me to decide what your review team finds acceptable and what not. But it doesn't change that they did not have problems with the quality of like 10.000 of my photos, of witch, I can assure you, a lot were much worse and less usefull. Especially in the beginning of my microstock career where I had no clue what I was doing and still had to figure out what had sale potential and what hadn't. And suddenly they have issues where there were none before. This is not my first photo with "different plates". Was not an issue with Adobe reviewers in the past. So, have my photography skills and my judgement of sale potential in photos suddenly drastically declined? Has the usability of photos of differenet plates suddenly declined? Or has something changed about Adobe's review process of real photos? But I am afraid there is no point in arguing any further. I think you are so set on denying that there might even be a chance that the issue was with Adobe (Have you even ckecked back with them? Have you asked them about the rejection rate of real photos now compared to a year ago?), that you will grasp at straws to justify any rejection.
8
« on: June 07, 2023, 01:37 »
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock. I think this would be a much more impactful thread if you would share some examples of content being rejected that you feel was done so in error. It's certainly possible as the moderation team is made up of human beings, but in my experience, it's pretty rare.
If you don't want to share examples publicly here in MSG, simply post the file number of the rejected image and I'll be glad to take a look..as long as you are OK with me giving a public answer with my feedback.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
Mat, I've shared an example here:
Same here. With AI images they accept "every crap" that I throw at them. They would probably approve a dog with 5 legs. But real photos?
This for example was rejected for "quality issues":
This is a 100% crop:
I know this image is not a masterpiece, but there is absolutely no issue with focus, exposure or noise, so I really do not know what to fix about this.
Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe. 10.000+ images passed quality control without problems and now I suddenly forgot how to photograph? But medicore AI images are all no problem? Adobe keeps disappointing me more and more and I have less motivation to bother with real photos and all the work that comes with them compared to AI images. 
When a lot of people come out at the same time and say they suddenly start to have lots of random rejections when they did not have this issue for years, don't you think that maybe it is worth to at least look into the overal issue, instead of just single examples?  It seems more likely that the issue is with Adobe, especially since it started right when Adobe started accepting AI content and review time grew to a whole month, than that we all suddenly forgot how to take decent photographs.
9
« on: June 05, 2023, 00:27 »
I am getting a lot more photo rejections than usual. I keep reading that people use topaz to denoise files especially for Adobe.
Might try that.
Same here. With AI images they accept "every crap" that I throw at them. They would probably approve a dog with 5 legs. But real photos? This for example was rejected for "quality issues": This is a 100% crop: I know this image is not a masterpiece, but there is absolutely no issue with focus, exposure or noise, so I really do not know what to fix about this. Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe. 10.000+ images passed quality control without problems and now I suddenly forgot how to photograph? But medicore AI images are all no problem? Adobe keeps disappointing me more and more and I have less motivation to bother with real photos and all the work that comes with them compared to AI images.
10
« on: June 02, 2023, 00:33 »
I would like to know something more about DT and DP,do I need to recover an old thread?I didn't find detailed threads about how it's going for you there,because I have thousands of contents to upload on DT for example and I don't know if I should waste time.is it a waste of time?
I think it depends very much on your port. Both of them obviously aren't strong earners, you can tell that probably from the monthly poll. For me Dreamstime has been performing pretty much without change since I started submitting there. I don't earn much there, but enough to add to a couple hundret $ a year and when you have embedded keywords into your files it's a nice (very) small extra money each year for pretty much no extra work. Depositphotos on the other hand is surprising me lately. It started very slow, but now I have many sales each day (unfortunately all 0.27-0.37$). Still isn't much compared to the big agencies, but more than with DT and considering they have the easiest upload process of all agencies since they don't even have categories, so all you do is upload and hit submit, that's well worth it for me. Of all the agencies I submit to Bigstock is really the only one that brings in so little revenue that it might not even be worth the little work it takes to submit photos there. I feel like this agency is pretty much dead. But the poll says it's doing better for most than for example DT and DP, which I find baffling, because I only make a tiny fraction of what I make in DT and DP on Bigstock.
11
« on: May 09, 2023, 04:06 »
Interesting video and he has a some very solid predictions.
I thought this was too finny. I couldn't forget how AI created these and it just shows how training can get conditioned to think of some word or product by repeating images, that the AI is skewed. Ketchup under a minute.
https://youtu.be/LFmpVy6eGXs
This is indeed very interesting. And it's not the only case where you can notice that AI has been trained to "think" in stereotypes. Anyone noticed that, when you have midjourney (and probbaly every other AI image generator) create a human, unless you specify, the human is always caucasian? Isn't that sad? For the AI the "default" human is caucasian. And that doesn't even represent the real state of the world, because there are more Asian and Indian people in the world than caucasian white people. I've come across a lot of other strange stereotypical trainings with AI. I let midjourney generate dogs with all kinds of foods, not specifying the dog breed. When I wanted to have dogs with Sushi, it always gave me dogs resembling Shiba Inus, so a Japanese breed. I let it generate women with clorful hair and midjourney keeps giving me women with tattoos and so on...
12
« on: May 03, 2023, 06:01 »
I have also opted out of Data deals, but let's not forget that Shutterstock only added the opt out option quite a while after they started doing the AI training data deals, so these might as well be payments for the time our images were used for AI training before we could even opt out, because SS only pays out the contributor fund money every 6 (?) months, so these could be payments from December 22.
13
« on: May 03, 2023, 03:36 »
Hey, I didn't want to make a new thread because of this. Anyone having problems with their earning summery missing sales?
Since this morning the amount of this month's earnings on the earning summery page and the unpaid earnings in the upper right corner on my dashboard show a different amount by around $60.
I thought the missing sale(s) would show up eventually, but it's been a while now and new sales keep dribbling in, but nothing to make up for the missing amount.
14
« on: March 29, 2023, 04:10 »
I think there are very few areas where real photography will stay in demand, at least for some time. Who knows about the far away future? Maybe at some point humanity will be so used to AI generated images, that no one will even think to care about authenticity. But at least for now, and for the upcoming years these are the ares I can think of: - Even photography. I think especially with wedding photography one must be out of his mind to want AI generated images instead of having real photos of the actual event. I also think there will be some constant demand for sports and concert photography. This will probably be easy to AI generate as well, but already now, especially in concert photography, when reporting about a concert there is a high demand to have photos of a very particular concert, even if a band or artis did a whole tour with 20 shows. If a web site reports about one concert, most will use images of that particular concert instead of the photos from any show. Fashion runaway shows is another area where I don't see AI doing the job anytime soon. I think there will be some areas of event photography that will be mostly taken over by AI. For a company it might be more important to have photos of an event that give a shiny image to the outside world instead of authentic images. - Individiual dog/pet photography. The area of stock animal photography will be completely covered by AI, but there is a high demands for pet owners, mostly of dogs and horses, where the owners want to have great photos of their animals and are willing to pay good money for it. (Sadly due to my lack of driver's license that's not a real option for me, otherwise I would try to go into this direction) - Portrait photography. We already know that this can be done by AI and I am sure it will be - especially the young generation that hasn't cared for authenticity for a long time, but uses Instagram filters to morph themselves into completely different people will not care and I can totally see them using a portrait AI service where they just send in a few selvies, even if they need a photo for something like a job application or to hang on their wall. But I think there is a generation of people over 40 who would not do that. So portrait photography will still be there, at least for the next 10-20 years. However, I do not know whether that's really a area of photography that brings in much money. The very small photography shops where you would go to to have a family portrait taken or a passport photo have become very rare here and usually you can just go there without an apointment, as the photographers don't really seem to have a full shedule. - Editorial photographers. I think this area will also be taken over by AI more than some popel think. If the AI can generate a famous building there really is no need for a real photo. I think the area of street/travel photography will be the one to most suffer from AI images, but there are still news events, like a demonstration, a polical meating, etc. that need to be covered. That's really all I can think of. I think most areas - landscape, wildlife, macro, underwater, astrophotography, scientif, fashion & beauty, street, travel, food photography - They will all be 95% replaced by AI in the future. I think for now there is still a great demand for authentic photos. I have been playing around with AI generators a lot (know your enemy), and I can still see a lot of things where it is struggling with. Hands are still an issue, so are rodent feet, animal claws, insect legs, the AI has problems understanding the proper relation of things like "on the left/right, next to, behind, inside of, etc..." and never places stuff where I want it to be, it ignores way too many instructions and adds way too much stuff you didn't tell it to add and some things it fails to understand completely (someone please successfully generates "tube of glue" on midjourney!) , in studio-settings the light sorces in eyes often don't seem to come form the same direction for the left and right eye with animals, very specific not so common plants or even animals it doesn't seem to know at all. And sometimes it just goes batshit crazy - This was basically "cat hunting a mouse":  I really have no idea where Midjourney went wrong here.  So there are still some major issues. But, I think with how fast AI is progressing, we can expect most if not all of them to be sorted out within maybe a year.
15
« on: March 27, 2023, 12:05 »
Firn, are you noticing a decline in sales already now, or is your concern more about the near future?
It's more about the future. My sales are as usual so far, both in terms of downloads and revenue. But I don't expect a decline so fast. The latest version of midjourney that lets you basically create photorealistic images is maybe 2 weeks old? Up till that point AI photos were rather poor in my opinion. It's really the latest MJ version that is giving me nightmares. It will take a while till everyone catches on to what AI can do now, most of all customers. But eventually there won't be any money to be made with microstock photography and I am afraid it will be rather sooner than later.
16
« on: March 27, 2023, 10:03 »
Product photography. For new products. AI can't replace it.
You are more optimistic than I am. You can upload a snapshot cell phone photo to midjourney, give it instructions and it will create something for you. No product photographer needed. I don't think it would work for product photography yet, because MJ doesn't do texts and writes in its own alien language, so every product packing with text on it would not work and I don't think it can really completely reproducing an object yet, just another version of it, but it's absolutely something I can imagine for the future: Just take a snapshot of your product, upload it to MJ and tell MJ "make me a beautiful advertisement shot" and voil! But besides this, I did actually start looking for other jobs, but it's not like someone is searching for a product photographer anywhere in my area. As said, I am not considered as "trained" with my university degree since I did not work in that field for 15+ years and the only very few job offers where being trained wasn't a requirement were not an option for me for various other reasons, like not having a driver's license. I though portrait photography might be one that would always be in demand, but I've already seen sites where you can send in a couple of cell phone selfies and it will create 100 of professional looking portrait photographes with your face.
17
« on: March 27, 2023, 06:33 »
Doesn't worry me anymore. I retired from stock photography at the beginning of this year. The props room has been cleared out and I have a bit of gear to sell - thats if its worth anything anymore???
I am honestly jelous of you, I wish I could just do the same. Be done with all of this mess. Unfortunately I have no plan B. My only job other than microstock has been doing art. I am so screwed.
There are other Plan Bs depending on your skills and whether you want to start again with other types of imagery.
There was a thread here a while ago where we talked about other opportunities such as:
- designer resources agencies
- printed merchandise
- direct selling
There are pitfalls and learning curves in some of them, and nowadays a lot of competition in most. But, for example, I was able to make an additional $1,000/month after about a year of focusing on those three things.
Your puppies would look cute on greeting cards and printed merchandise, if you haven't already tried that. In fact, remember last Christmas I saw one of your photos sold on greeting cards here in our Australian supermarket?
There is a big demand for product mockups. But that requires further investment of props and learning new skills. But its definitely a growing market. I need to expand my skills in PS to produce quality smart objects like this quick example I just found, where it perfectly wraps around the product:
https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/1395344090/boho-candle-mockup-candle-label-mockup
Here's an interesting story that happened to me just the other day: I was trying to sell one of my graphic designs and placed it on one of my own photography backgrounds for the cover photo. The product never sold but the background did! Someone went and bought it from Adobe Stock and I received $20 for the background photo. lol
So there is still a need for good background shots, I guess.
So, yeah, there are other Plan Bs.
(But just to add: I am not shooting any more photography though. I have enough files. I was planning to do some more product mockups this year - I kept those props but I got rid of all the rest. But I just cannot get motivated. Maybe because the whole industry is so depressing. Just for fun and relaxation, I have been enjoying doing graphic design projects as my creative outlet.)
Oh, and one more thing (apologies - this is becoming a very long answer). At the end of last year I decided to set up a new website from scratch. I had closed my Etsy shop so I didn't have a website through them anymore. I have always wanted a quality site which was kind of like a one stop place to showcase my work - and to my surprise I sold some work (some videos mainly) and maybe more that I havent known about. It's not a direct selling site - I didn't want all the hassle of that anymore. I just link my products to a couple of specific agencies where they can be purchased. My sales on those sites have gone up this year, so who knows???
I do a lot of marketing on social media sites and started up some new social media accounts for a fresh start. I believe everything helps. I have purchased things that I see promoted on social media - so I figure others may as well.
https://milleflore.com/
Thanks Annie, but I do not really believe any of these Plan Bs will really work, because designer resources agencies, printed merchandise and direct selling will be completely taken over by AI art as well. Yes, my puppies would look great on that. But how do I compete with such AI images, most of all images that can be mass produced in 5 seconds whereas crafting, getting dogs to sit still, moving furniture for space, setting up light, etc. takes me several hours to produce one such image?   I have a puppy shooting for a friend ahead this weekend and I have seriously been crafting stuff for it for weeks, spend lots of money on material as well, will have to drive there for 1 hour and the shooting itself will take hours, because it is so difficult to get 7 weeks old puppies to sit still and then I will spend hours on post-processing. And then AI can now do all of this in 5 seconds. Product mockups can now be generated with the AI in 5 seconds too:  There is really absolutely nothing where my skills can outperform AI anymore. In the time I can produce one image, at great effort, time and also material costs, the AI can generate 500 images for the costs of a fraction of a cent. I am officially not needed anymore. And I don't really have any other skills. I have an university degree, but it has been over 15 years since I did anything with that so I am considered "untrained" and no one would hire me, and even in the very unlikely scenario I could find someone to hire me I would need to move to a different city far away for a job in that field anyway, which wouldn't work because of my husband's job here. I am feeling absolutely hopeless.
18
« on: March 26, 2023, 12:30 »
Doesn't worry me anymore. I retired from stock photography at the beginning of this year. The props room has been cleared out and I have a bit of gear to sell - thats if its worth anything anymore???
I am honestly jelous of you, I wish I could just do the same. Be done with all of this mess. Unfortunately I have no plan B. My only job other than microstock has been doing art. I am so screwed.
19
« on: March 20, 2023, 13:25 »
I still don't understand what is the main idea about this new program ?
They offer an unlimited download option for customers where they can download as many images as they want. I do not know the price for it, but let's say it costs $300 per month. Depositphotos gets 60% of this, so $180. The remaining 40%, so $120, go into the revenue share pot and get divided between all contributors that take part in the program, depending on how many images the customer downloaded from them. So, let's say the customer downloads 20.000 images. That's $120 divided thorugh 20.000 = 0.006$. That's the revenue a contributor gets per downloaded image. And the number gets lower for contributors the more images the customers downloads (as the $ number is divided through more images), while it always stays the same for depositphotos, because they take their 60% share from the whole price the customer pays for the unlimited subscription. A customer could theoretically download your whole port and you would only get cents for all of it. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. It has been a while since I read up these terms and the link in the new e-mail doesn't lead me anywhere but the contributor information page that does not even mention the Revenue-Sharing-model anywhere.
20
« on: March 20, 2023, 11:21 »
I got the same email today as well. This agency has always been very low earner for me, so I am thinking about deleting my port.
Please let us now Firn if you got any response from them.
I got a reply. It just said "You were removed from the joining revenue share model". Nothing more. No explanation why I even ended up in this. But by now I have deactivated all my files and I intend to keep them deactivated at least for now. I don't like any of this. I don't like this joining revenue share model where Depositphotos always gets the same 60% of all earnings, but contributors have to share the remaining 40% with each file downloaded and the more images customers download the less we get while our images are on a "take all you can eat buffet" that encourages customers to download as many as possible, if not even all so we end up getting scraps. I strongly believe our share for each image downloaded will end up being something in the $0.000X range. I don't like how I was just put into this model after making it clear I was not interested. I don't like how there is no explanation or apology. Depositphotos just isn't earning me enough to put up with this. Unfortunately I don't have the liberty to leave every agency that tries to screw us over (which would be pretty much every agency) as I depend too much on their income, but depositphots isn't one of them.
21
« on: March 20, 2023, 11:14 »
Did you have to opt-in, or was this automatic?
I don't know about chillbilldill, but I was opted in automatically today. - After they had sent me this "offer" 2 times last year and I declined it. I deactived all my files now.
22
« on: March 20, 2023, 07:47 »
I am bringing up this old thread becaus ei just got a mail from them that I am now part of their Revenue-Sharing-Modell. Anyone else got this? I have always declined this in the past, because I absolutely do not want my images as part of any free download subscription. Looks like it's not optional for me anymore. I've sent them a mail to remove me from this or delete my account. In the meanwhile I will deactivate all my files with them now, which will take me forever, as I can only do it manually for each image, but there is no way my images go into any unlimited download subscription.
23
« on: March 15, 2023, 13:49 »
Some on the keyword team have told me that even if they decline to add a word to the keyword system search term recognizable words it is still searchable in title and description. I was happy to hear that, but in my tests, it does not seem to be true.
I can confirm that keywords the system doesn't know and have a red border cannot be searched. I have heared people claim the contrary before, but it' s not working for me for example for my tropical plants with botanic names. Istock/Getty's keyword system does not know 95% of them and when I search for them, I don't find my pictures. However, the search works if the unknown keyword is part of the image title/description. Just an example: iSTock does not know the name/keyword "Philodendron Verrucosum". When I search for that term my images that have the full botanic name in the title show up. However, just last week I submitted an image where I just have the name "Philodendron" in the title, but "philodendron verrucosum" in the keywords (not recognized by iStock). This image does not show up in the serach for "philodendron verrucosum" Doesn't this work for you? I would imagine that you would also put "Cannelton, Indiana" in the image titel and description?
24
« on: January 24, 2023, 07:23 »
Maybe I will be alone with my opinion here, but I think these photos all look awful.
There is something almost creepy about the way these people look. Even when the AI doesn't make errors with anatomy, everything is "too perfect", "too smooth" and kind of too flat. The lack of texture in everything makes it look like graphics from a modern computer game. Maybe if I saw a single photo like this somewhere I would not notice, but when they are all put together like this, it looks like there is just something awfully wrong about them.
25
« on: January 22, 2023, 02:18 »
That's really good and it shows you learned what sells. Your total images in your portfolio on SS, 43% have at least one Download? Stunning and a good success rate.
How many total images now? And no that's not about how big is your collection. You could have 200 and make more than people who have been uploading. Not how many but what are they. (seems I'm repeating that a lot?  )
Yes, 43% have at least one download. I am not sure I understand the "how many total images. Not how many, but what are they?" question. I have 11.119 images in my port, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by "what" are they. Do you want to know which images specifically sold? That would be hard to explain with thousands of images. My port is not a secret, I use the same username: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Firn?sort=newest
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
