MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 48000000 images  (Read 30426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2015, 06:09 »
+3
There is more to Ireland than landscapes Ron, I guess you live in Ireland and have access to all things Irish bearing in mind there is a huge ex-pat Irish community in the U.S.

There's more to Ireland than leprechauns guiness and the giants causeway

But anyhoo before I shoot anything I always check to see what's available if it's more than a couple of hundred images (disregarding the spam) then I don't bother shooting.

Cripes some of the subjects I shot were so blatantly obvious I could not believe no one had ever shot them!  Not a single one!  So yes they don't make $10,000 but a couple of 1000 images making sales through the year all adds up.


Ireland is known for its landscapes, its called the Emerald Island, tourism is a big part of the economy. For expats what better than to see their beautiful Irish landscapes? But there is more to Ireland, I agree, Guinness sure, Leprechauns never been able to photograph one. St Patricks days, Halloween, etc, would need to be editorial. Dublin / Irish architecture / landmarks, I could do more of that, sure. Dublin Airport, got it. Then ghost estates maybe, whats the demand for that? Social issues: Gambling, alcoholism, poverty, unemployment, hobo's, property bubble, banking bail out, protest marches etc, plenty of that covered because it isnt a typical Irish thing and it would all be editorial.

Maybe this sums it up :)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ailbhemalone/the-most-irish-things-ever#.ua1rOj1Xp

But I am not complaining I have no subjects to shoot. I love shooting landscapes and cityscapes and all other agencies take my images. I was merely agreeing with a point made by Jasmine.  ;)


« Reply #51 on: February 11, 2015, 06:13 »
+4
 i work every day, every photo must earn at least 10$,  i will not work stuff that will not bring 10$, i rather make handshake, i have one  with 3 dl/day i will not shoot flip pancake.  8)

i made some niche industrial images in 2013, they sold about 50 times, then stoped after half year, image is old search algoritm, not copied by other contributors.

so i try to make only high selling images.....

the main problem is , subs are too low to make exotic image, 5x time sold is too low, price are too low for niche, sorry.
spend tho whole day with costs for one or two  images and not earn 200$, no go.


I can assure that I wont be any competition, but what are those serious gaps? What subject matter is high in demand and not covered well? I am not asking to give away your secrets but I find it hard to believe that there are high demand subjects which are not covered. Unless it is a inaccessible niche, like diamond cutting, which I doubt will be high in demand either.

There doesn't have to be a high demand, just a little demand.  When you are the only person with images you'll get all the sales.
Even a very simple subject like a male flipping a pancake, there is only 4 photos of this (flipping an american fluffy pancake) search terms: man flip pancake
If you take 15-20 shots on that subject, it isn't going to earn you $10,000 but I'm guessing it would pay back your time and model fee investment + a decent amount on top of that if it was aprt of a larger shoot where you did 10 other similar subjects.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 08:19 by Cesar »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #52 on: February 11, 2015, 09:00 »
+3
Question for you and Snow. Here's your opportunity to shine.

1) What is the cause of the problems both of you say are causing lower sales and income.

2) What is your solution.


I would call it a personal attack when you call a grown man a princess!  You never miss an opportunity to sneak in those sideways jabs do you.

Give it a rest Pete, I have grown weary of your games and insults.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2015, 09:04 »
0
Well stated. There are holes and filling them, might not be worth the effort. There will not be big sales or returns on many of the niche subjects, but you will have the advantage of less competition. The only way I can see that strategy working out, is if someone falls into a subject or has it easily available, and knows there's a vacancy. Then why not?

Or if you shoot something and it sells. Make more but don't tell anyone else.

I wouldn't advocate shooting unwanted subjects that will get few if any DLs as a business plan.  :)

The issue with many of those unfilled niches is not that they do not exist, but that the demand for those images is only small.

It's nice to have the only 10 images for a specific topic - so you can get all the five sales per year they generate.

That simply does not make economical sense at microstock prices.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #54 on: February 11, 2015, 09:09 »
-1
Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(87)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(2)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(4)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(7)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(66)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(1)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(15)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(2)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(25)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(3,778)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(3,408)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(3)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(7,605)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(15)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(300)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(14)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(928)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(146)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(0)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(307)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(83)

Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
(36)

Of all the searches above which are very famous they just have so many images on the site that the buyers don't need to go anywhere else chit SS has 48 million images but hardly any of the ones I as a buyer could be looking for to use because no one has shot many of them yet but they are there and they are very popular.


Uncle Pete

« Reply #55 on: February 11, 2015, 09:10 »
0
And I wonder if like some places, they will stop taking new contributors? Same logic, why do they need more? Have applications once a year, based on portfolio, not a few images as samples.

SS Members by registration year rounded.
2005 - 4300
2006 - 3900 = 8200
2007 - 3800 = 12,000
2008 - 5500 = 17,500
2009 - 7200 = 24,700
2010 - 5000 = 30,700

I don't have data for years after that. I will make an assumption (without proof) that other agencies had similar growth in new members.

What I'm getting at is this. Not only has the volume of images increased greatly, the number of competitors has also grown.

I wonder if someday, like GL stock, they will stop taking anymore images? How many images do you really need for the buyers? This does concern me about how rapid the libraries are growing.

For this one I'd say - shoot them and don't tell anyone else what you found.

Of all the searches above which are very famous they just have so many images on the site that the buyers don't need to go anywhere else chit SS has 48 million images but hardly any of the ones I as a buyer could be looking for to use because no one has shot many of them yet but they are there and they are very popular.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #56 on: February 11, 2015, 09:17 »
0
There is a post from Jon Oringer that states there are now over 70,000 contributors.

And I wonder if like some places, they will stop taking new contributors? Same logic, why do they need more? Have applications once a year, based on portfolio, not a few images as samples.

SS Members by registration year rounded.
2005 - 4300
2006 - 3900 = 8200
2007 - 3800 = 12,000
2008 - 5500 = 17,500
2009 - 7200 = 24,700
2010 - 5000 = 30,700

I don't have data for years after that. I will make an assumption (without proof) that other agencies had similar growth in new members.

What I'm getting at is this. Not only has the volume of images increased greatly, the number of competitors has also grown.

I wonder if someday, like GL stock, they will stop taking anymore images? How many images do you really need for the buyers? This does concern me about how rapid the libraries are growing.

For this one I'd say - shoot them and don't tell anyone else what you found.

Of all the searches above which are very famous they just have so many images on the site that the buyers don't need to go anywhere else chit SS has 48 million images but hardly any of the ones I as a buyer could be looking for to use because no one has shot many of them yet but they are there and they are very popular.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #57 on: February 11, 2015, 09:46 »
0
Well stated. There are holes and filling them, might not be worth the effort. There will not be big sales or returns on many of the niche subjects, but you will have the advantage of less competition. The only way I can see that strategy working out, is if someone falls into a subject or has it easily available, and knows there's a vacancy. Then why not?

Or if you shoot something and it sells. Make more but don't tell anyone else.

I wouldn't advocate shooting unwanted subjects that will get few if any DLs as a business plan.  :)

The issue with many of those unfilled niches is not that they do not exist, but that the demand for those images is only small.

It's nice to have the only 10 images for a specific topic - so you can get all the five sales per year they generate.

That simply does not make economical sense at microstock prices.

This has been my point throughout this thread

« Reply #58 on: February 11, 2015, 09:59 »
+2
I've said this before but the difficulty in this business is how to extrapolate any useful data from these numbers - without being able to drill down.

SS has 48m images but how many of those actually sell more than once. How many are cats and dogs? Or landscapes that are basically mud and grass with bits of trees sticking out of them.

They have 70k contributors - but how many of those people are active? How many images do people upload by month and what is the distribution of uploading i.e. what percentage upload >100 or >10 or less than 10.

I use Stock Performer and my own records and I make my decisions based on these numbers and my own additional research....Otherwise all I would have to go on are these meaningless top level statistics and personal anecdotes.

I don't expect the agencies to produce that data because of the competition but this is why I rarely read the "doom and gloom" stuff  - there is nothing there for me.

PS. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the people who joined in 2011 to 2014 when we were saying the exact same things are absolutely raking it in. Great ports, contemporary style, creative concepts and compositions, market savvy and a huge work ethic....I envy them.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 10:13 by Red Dove »

cuppacoffee

« Reply #59 on: February 11, 2015, 10:13 »
0
...how many of those actually sell more than once

When the subject of having an agency automatically delete non-sellers after a period of time comes up everyone revolts. "But my old images sell now and them, I want to decide what to delete not have someone else decide, old subjects may become popular again, etc." One can't have it both ways.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #60 on: February 11, 2015, 10:15 »
+6
100% agree. I post this "stuff" for perspective, not because it has some deep meaning. People can get what they want for it. But it's better than being totally in the dark about how things have changed.

I'd love to see the agency total on the percentage of files that have never sold. And same as you, how many people joined, failed and went away. Or how many of that claimed 77,000 joined, finally passed and have a few hundred images and will potentially never make payout - and they went off to do something else.

We can only hope that more people discover that it takes long hours, hard work and years to make any decent returns, and that new people stop dropping in, because they heard there was good money in Microstock.

I've said this before but the difficulty in this business is how to extrapolate any useful data from these numbers - without being able to drill down.

SS has 48m images but how many of those actually sell more than once. How many are cats and dogs? Or landscapes that are basically mud and grass with bits of trees sticking out of them.

They have 70k contributors - but how many of those people are active? How many images do people upload by month and what is the distribution of uploading i.e. what percentage upload >100 or >10 or less than 10.

I use Stock Performer and my own records and I make my decisions based on these numbers and my own additional research....Otherwise all I would have to go on are these meaningless top level statistics and personal anecdotes.

I don't expect the agencies to produce that data because of the competition but this is why I rarely read the "doom and gloom" stuff  - there is nothing there for me.

« Reply #61 on: February 11, 2015, 10:20 »
-2
Question for you and Snow. Here's your opportunity to shine.

1) What is the cause of the problems both of you say are causing lower sales and income.

2) What is your solution.


I would call it a personal attack when you call a grown man a princess!  You never miss an opportunity to sneak in those sideways jabs do you.

Give it a rest Pete, I have grown weary of your games and insults.

Maybe Snow would like to entertain you and your passive aggressive games pete. I have come to realize over time that the "questions with no simple answers" that you frequently put forth are largely conscious one-upmanship banter. I am not interested in wandering down one of your strategic rabbit holes, so that you can lead the subject wildly off track and attack my viewpoints.

I simply agreed with Snow viewpoint using a +1, that many of us who have been contributing for years have equal or superior equipment to those who are new and that if you have old equipment you should speak for yourself. I will leave it at that.




Uncle Pete

« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2015, 10:27 »
+1
Typical for you, complain and shout conspiracy, say that SS lies, call me an agency parrot, and when someone asks for specifics or a straight answer, you back up and shoot another personal attack at me? Nice evasion of the questions, because you don't have any answers, just your negativity and crying.

At least I voiced a personal opinion, which I was told to "keep to yourself". Thanks a bunch.  ???

Question for you and Snow. Here's your opportunity to shine.

1) What is the cause of the problems both of you say are causing lower sales and income.

2) What is your solution.


I would call it a personal attack when you call a grown man a princess!  You never miss an opportunity to sneak in those sideways jabs do you.

Give it a rest Pete, I have grown weary of your games and insults.

Maybe Snow would like to entertain you and your passive aggressive games pete. I have come to realize over time that the "questions with no simple answers" that you frequently put forth are largely conscious one-upmanship banter. I am not interested in wandering down one of your strategic rabbit holes, so that you can lead the subject wildly off track and attack my viewpoints.

I simply agreed with Snow viewpoint using a +1, that many of us who have been contributing for years have equal or superior equipment to those who are new and that if you have old equipment you should speak for yourself. I will leave it at that.

Rinderart

« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2015, 10:45 »
0
I joined Shutterstock March 2012 and they had 23.000.000 images. 23 million !

Shutterstock was founded in 2003, it took them 9 years to get 23 million images. Its 2015, and now they have 48.000.000 images !! They more than doubled the library in exactly 3 years.

At their current rate, they will be reaching 100,000,000 images in 2.5 years, around July 2017. 

Seriously W.T.F.

When I joined, I think they had 350,000 we thought that was huge at the time. Jon was the reviewer.LOL

« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2015, 11:11 »
+1
I joined Shutterstock March 2012 and they had 23.000.000 images. 23 million !

Shutterstock was founded in 2003, it took them 9 years to get 23 million images. Its 2015, and now they have 48.000.000 images !! They more than doubled the library in exactly 3 years.

At their current rate, they will be reaching 100,000,000 images in 2.5 years, around July 2017. 

Seriously W.T.F.

When I joined, I think they had 350,000 we thought that was huge at the time. Jon was the reviewer.LOL

We tend to forget that most of the new images are really "old images" uploaded from the IS migration.

Bruce found iStockphoto in 2000 and it took the IS exclusives who are defecting up to 15 years to build up those ports.

« Reply #65 on: February 11, 2015, 12:07 »
-2
There you go Pete, your true motives revealed. I refuse to play your games and yet you still attempt to portray me in a negative light and more importantly attribute comments to me that I never made.

You are the only one playing mind games and hurling personal attacks here. No one told you to keep your comments to yourself, they asked you to "speak for yourself".

Typical for you, complain and shout conspiracy, say that SS lies, call me an agency parrot, and when someone asks for specifics or a straight answer, you back up and shoot another personal attack at me? Nice evasion of the questions, because you don't have any answers, just your negativity and crying.

At least I voiced a personal opinion, which I was told to "keep to yourself". Thanks a bunch.  ???

Question for you and Snow. Here's your opportunity to shine.

1) What is the cause of the problems both of you say are causing lower sales and income.

2) What is your solution.


I would call it a personal attack when you call a grown man a princess!  You never miss an opportunity to sneak in those sideways jabs do you.

Give it a rest Pete, I have grown weary of your games and insults.

Maybe Snow would like to entertain you and your passive aggressive games pete. I have come to realize over time that the "questions with no simple answers" that you frequently put forth are largely conscious one-upmanship banter. I am not interested in wandering down one of your strategic rabbit holes, so that you can lead the subject wildly off track and attack my viewpoints.

I simply agreed with Snow viewpoint using a +1, that many of us who have been contributing for years have equal or superior equipment to those who are new and that if you have old equipment you should speak for yourself. I will leave it at that.

Rinderart

« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2015, 21:00 »
+8
C-mon Kids......STOP! Please. let this crap go. Just ignore if ya have to. this bickering is simply Not needed here or anywhere. Do you know what Nickname this site is called by some? "The Hate club" It doesn't have to be that way guys. I've done my share of bickering over the years and said some pretty stupid stuff, trust me.


We need more, New people with with good Ideas of discussing our options in this business and this just turns them off. Lets not be like many others sites. Also some moderation would be helpful. enough of he said,she said stuff. OK, My Friends. I appreciate all viewpoints good and bad. But, theres a limit. Good talk going and then BAM, it stops.

I used to tell My EX wife, Ya wanna argue? go look in a mirror. lol
« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 21:18 by Rinderart »


« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2015, 21:39 »
+3
ha anyone taken a look at the ads on youtube???
they are worse than amateurish. ppl talking about degrees and changing the world, and each one of the models stammer and stutter like the valley girls of yesteryears.  how can anyone pay for such ads???
microstock is the same. it's not for us to decide whether it is fair that a 2015 ansel adams genius cannot earn any more than some dude who shoots absolute rubbish.
if anyone ever worked in marketing, they too will tell you, just do your job and give the clients what they want. no one asks you to be a genius here, we are asking you to sell an idea the clients are happy to pay.

so what is the problem???  are we all too prima-donna to accept the fact that we should not make those stinking images that clients want?

so, we come back here over and over again, whining why our masterpieces don't sell.
well, we can die and hope our posthumous microstock will suddenly gain value,
or we can just shut up and shoot what the client wants.

how difficult is that??? esp when you get a copy for the sales stats which ss provides us so kindly.
if my dog crap sells, i will shoot more dog crap. if my rembrandt night watch pefect copy has not sold nuts, i won't waste my time trying to do another rembrandt. (no, i did not do a derivative of night watch, just using it as example).

or is it just much easier to whine and whine and whine???? like rinderart says, c'mon kids, stop!!!
i am guilty of causing a few waves here , but it is more to stir up the other guys and gals to write something here . leaf has a good forum here for us, and hopefully we don't waste it over
character assasinations , or start another hate club or territorial dogshit.

let's all remember we are fighting the same battle. why are we killing each other???

Rinderart

« Reply #68 on: February 12, 2015, 00:15 »
0
ha anyone taken a look at the ads on youtube???
they are worse than amateurish. ppl talking about degrees and changing the world, and each one of the models stammer and stutter like the valley girls of yesteryears.  how can anyone pay for such ads???
microstock is the same. it's not for us to decide whether it is fair that a 2015 ansel adams genius cannot earn any more than some dude who shoots absolute rubbish.
if anyone ever worked in marketing, they too will tell you, just do your job and give the clients what they want. no one asks you to be a genius here, we are asking you to sell an idea the clients are happy to pay.

so what is the problem???  are we all too prima-donna to accept the fact that we should not make those stinking images that clients want?

so, we come back here over and over again, whining why our masterpieces don't sell.
well, we can die and hope our posthumous microstock will suddenly gain value,
or we can just shut up and shoot what the client wants.

how difficult is that??? esp when you get a copy for the sales stats which ss provides us so kindly.
if my dog crap sells, i will shoot more dog crap. if my rembrandt night watch pefect copy has not sold nuts, i won't waste my time trying to do another rembrandt. (no, i did not do a derivative of night watch, just using it as example).

or is it just much easier to whine and whine and whine???? like rinderart says, c'mon kids, stop!!!
i am guilty of causing a few waves here , but it is more to stir up the other guys and gals to write something here . leaf has a good forum here for us, and hopefully we don't waste it over
character assasinations , or start another hate club or territorial dogshit.

let's all remember we are fighting the same battle. why are we killing each other???



Well said. But......And a big but. My name is on it and because of stock I've been contacted to do some amazing, Very profitable jobs through the years. Thats a saving Grace By doing the best you can.

My Mentor told me many Years ago. "It is not our job to determine the value of our work, It IS our job to keep it ours and to simply do the best work we can"''Ya might wanna read this.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/life_as_a_photographer.shtml
« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 00:24 by Rinderart »

« Reply #69 on: February 12, 2015, 09:08 »
+1
C-mon Kids......STOP! Please. let this crap go. Just ignore if ya have to. this bickering is simply Not needed here or anywhere. Do you know what Nickname this site is called by some? "The Hate club" It doesn't have to be that way guys. I've done my share of bickering over the years and said some pretty stupid stuff, trust me.


We need more, New people with with good Ideas of discussing our options in this business and this just turns them off. Lets not be like many others sites. Also some moderation would be helpful. enough of he said,she said stuff. OK, My Friends. I appreciate all viewpoints good and bad. But, theres a limit. Good talk going and then BAM, it stops.

I used to tell My EX wife, Ya wanna argue? go look in a mirror. lol

I agree with Rinder that this is a very important discussion. Maybe not so much for those who use MS as "extra income" but for us who have a much bigger plan for MS it is mission critical.  For me, niche is nice if I'm there and see it in my mind.  But the saturation has forced me into video. Personally I see no way out of the quick sand. Tomorrow it will be more challenging than yesterday. Some in here brought up the question, what can we do?  I'll tell you that last year when this tone of discussion started, agencies exposed for their cheating, misleading ways, I took action. Am I happy about it? Yes that I did, but no on the return. Video is just like stills in that you have to have good, usable stuff and a plan.  Maybe 300 videos is too soon to tell, probably. But while I shoot the videos, I'm snapping pictures as well to keep that part of my work alive. In a nutshell that's my plan.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2015, 09:44 »
+2
Maybe the time has come to pack up and leave Micro RF? (not directed at Mantis, in general)




« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2015, 10:27 »
+8
Maybe the time has come to pack up and leave Micro RF? (not directed at Mantis, in general)

I am feeling the same way. Very few topics here are good news......very few inductry milestones are favorable to the contributor.....in fact i cant think of one. Very demotivating.

dpimborough

« Reply #72 on: February 12, 2015, 10:58 »
+5
There is a post from Jon Oringer that states there are now over 70,000 contributors.

And I wonder if like some places, they will stop taking new contributors? Same logic, why do they need more? Have applications once a year, based on portfolio, not a few images as samples.

SS Members by registration year rounded.
2005 - 4300
2006 - 3900 = 8200
2007 - 3800 = 12,000
2008 - 5500 = 17,500
2009 - 7200 = 24,700
2010 - 5000 = 30,700

I don't have data for years after that. I will make an assumption (without proof) that other agencies had similar growth in new members.

What I'm getting at is this. Not only has the volume of images increased greatly, the number of competitors has also grown.

I wonder if someday, like GL stock, they will stop taking anymore images? How many images do you really need for the buyers? This does concern me about how rapid the libraries are growing.

For this one I'd say - shoot them and don't tell anyone else what you found.

Of all the searches above which are very famous they just have so many images on the site that the buyers don't need to go anywhere else chit SS has 48 million images but hardly any of the ones I as a buyer could be looking for to use because no one has shot many of them yet but they are there and they are very popular.

That figure from Jon Oringer is an exercise in BS I checked the forums from 2005 and does he realize how many of those original contributors have not uploaded a single image in over 5 years?  Plus there are lots of contributors who never made it through the initial 10 image acceptance plus SPAM accounts and accounts with a handful of images.

It would be more interesting if we could see how many contributors were still active in the last two years.

« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2015, 11:28 »
+5
I guess this is where crowdsourcing finally leads, and how it ends up. 

They now have a business model which all but guarantees that no individual supplier can make a profit.   They'll never get another new photo from me, and I'm guessing I'm not alone.  Where do they go from here?  Is it like the typical overcrowded health club, with bright-eyed new members signing up as fast as discouraged old members leave?

« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2015, 11:43 »
+4
I have less than a 1000 images at FT and I'm at around position 3.000 in weekly ranking.
SS may have a bit more, like 4.000 active contributors with more than 1000 files.

The insane image volume is from factories and similars, not from excess of contributors.
If things get really bad, there will be less uploads. The market always balance itself.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
7906 Views
Last post April 30, 2012, 14:45
by pancaketom
20 Replies
9796 Views
Last post January 07, 2013, 08:53
by Lotti
32 Replies
31638 Views
Last post March 02, 2014, 11:17
by Uncle Pete
989 Replies
197282 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
1 Replies
4948 Views
Last post June 05, 2014, 18:17
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors