MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How is this possible?  (Read 24166 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2019, 19:13 »
+2
 
.
I'm not doing this for the income, although what I make, I do use for equipment. I also have found the challenge and getting my images out, for profit, to be rewarding. Lucky me I have multiple other sources of income. I'd hate to depend on Microstock, it's just so unreliable and always changing and returns are lower every year.

I also had my own business. Like farm producers, the market is tougher with competition growing and expanding.



similar to my experience - shareware of the 80s-90s was overtaken by MS windows providing many of the special features our work covered (eg a multitasking app for DOS that let you copy part of your text screen and merge into another doc).  I designed multiplayer online games for 15-20 years before being overtaken by Hollywood blockbusters with budgets in the millions. 

I've been active in stock since the 70's and had some of the first CD royalty free products, soon overtaken by microstock. 

I've always made my living by dancing among the elephants - finding my niche while preserving my life choices - retired, now, MS provides for several 4 wk foreign trips each year


John Maria Meyer

« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2019, 10:34 »
+1
Quote
@Clair Voyant: But in a way, this is still valid today, no? Though it's not the platforms anymore who reject producers with low quality products but the customers themselves. By just not buying the products. Unless they (the products) are good and relevant and as Uncle Pete put it, have a clear message. The problem I see (as a Newbie with hardly no experience, whoopsie) seems rather to become visible with good stuff in this flood of images and footage. So even if one puts hard work into it, it doesn't mean (anymore?) that it pays off. Cause it won't be seen, literally.


To make money at Microstock now you still have to be very good...the difference being the skills needed are in marketing and business being an excellent photographer not so much.

Hm...I don't quite get this. Can u explain?

As a contributor on SS, Pond5, wherever, I'm one of many. How could I market my portfolio to customers who are buying there? If not by providing good quality footage or images with good keywording to show up fast in the search results - at least when looking for "best match" stuff. Showing up in the "popular" search is harder to influence, I suppose.

Don't think customers are following any contributors' facebook pages so it hardly makes sense to me to follow eg. Pond5's advice and "share my Artist Page on social media, forums, and personal websites". Or is anyone doing that and having (more) sales bc of that?

The only fee marketing strategies to draw the attention of customers to my port (I can think of rn) are all platform related. Like showing up in the staff picks. Or writing a blog post for a platform.

That's why I'm wondering: if the skill of a business / marketing person in the stock world is more needed than the skill of a photographer or videographer, how and where to apply that skill?

« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2019, 11:24 »
+2
Marketing and business skills are essential in knowing what and how to shoot rather than just shooting something well. The poke and hope approach just won't cut it anymore. Gone are the days of one or two good RM sales covering the cost of a shoot and then some. Nowadays with returns so low it's all about volume, and to maintain volume you need to understand what marketers want today and also be able to anticipate what they might need tomorrow. You have to stay not just on top of trends but also ahead of them. That takes business savvy, not lighting skills.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2019, 13:41 »
+3
^^^^^^

Uncle Pete... It was never a closed shop, ever. You either passed a jury of editors or you did not, but closed it never was. You either had the goods or you did not. And if you did not have the goods, they rejected you - simple as that. I got rejected a few times and finally got my quality up and got accepted. All it took was a lot of hard work, skill, ability in ones craft etc. Simply put, they did not just take anybody unless you had game. Is the NHL or NFL or PGA a closed shop? Nope.

When the reply is, "We are not accepting any new photographers with this type of material." That's as good as closed to me.  :) When some places required 500 slides to be considered, that's pretty closed.

Let me say, I would rather have Microstock, or the good sites, at least hold the standards of before 2010. But that's history and we can't expect any change. RF is a degrading kind of license.

I think the lower standards make the collections look terrible and lower the buyers and public impression of what we do.  Thus the perceived value. This low standard might make finding our images more difficult, but I don't see weak and horrid images as competition, just a distraction.


I've always made my living by dancing among the elephants - finding my niche while preserving my life choices - retired, now, MS provides for several 4 wk foreign trips each year

Right, find a niche, do something different. I decided to shoot what I enjoyed the most. I admit that others who depend on the income or feel that earnings are the measure of their value, will have a different viewpoint.

Last I checked, I will never be retired, but working four jobs or more doesn't mean I have no time for doing what I like. I bought a  Macgregor 25 sailboat last year, it has yet to be in the water. I think I should have started smaller? My latest camera and lenses cost more than the boat... photos at least make some returns.  ;D

A day at the races, is a working vacation for me.

georgep7

« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2019, 13:59 »
0
...and saiboats do great returns!

...a few days later....

..returning...

...to the harbour...

...if you put them into water...

:) :P

« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2019, 18:28 »
+2
Marketing is about more than selling and publicising. In particular for contributors its about market research and placing your product where it will generate most income. Producing fantastic images if there is no demand for them or you are trying to sell them in the wrong place is pointless. From the wider business perspective one of the key things is understanding and controlling costs.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2019, 18:38 by Pauws99 »

John Maria Meyer

« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2019, 02:43 »
0
Thanks @Pauws99 and DavidK for your thoughts on marketing. That helps, I really had a different perpective on it and didn't think about marketing this way. Guess it's actually saying a lot about my background but let's not psychologize this ;)

Right, find a niche, do something different. I decided to shoot what I enjoyed the most. I admit that others who depend on the income or feel that earnings are the measure of their value, will have a different viewpoint. [...]

Sounds like a good plan to me. The hard part here is to manage doing sth different AND meeting a market demand at the same time. Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income, it's definitely a factor. Like when the milk price in Europe was so low that farmers spilled their milk on their fields rather than selling it. They didn't only protest against dumping wages but also fought for their self confidence that they felt was under attack by those low prices.

Sorry for the farming interlude, just thought it might be a good example that fit the Stock World, too...? Hard to spill images and footage on fields, though.

[...] In particular for contributors its about market research and placing your product where it will generate most income. Producing fantastic images if there is no demand for them or you are trying to sell them in the wrong place is pointless.[...]

Where would you do market research? It obviously will depend on your products, but like - watching ads on social media and following the trends in your specific niche...is that marketing research already? What else are you doing? Like contacting companies about what images they need? Or even YouTuber-style "Hello, sponsor me"...??

« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2019, 03:04 »
+3
Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.

" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me.  As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2019, 15:01 »
+2
...and saiboats do great returns!

...a few days later....

..returning...

...to the harbour...

...if you put them into water...

:) :P

AKA a floating hole in the water that you pour money into.

Two happiest days for a boat owner, the day they buy it and the best is the day they sell it.  :)

I still think I can make some skyline shots from the water? And maybe lighthouses. HA HA, dreamer.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2019, 15:17 »
+1
Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.

" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me.  As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Expenses, since you asked, I don't sell enough on Microstock to pay for the gas or hotel room for a weekend shooting at the races. I do make more on scenery or historic sites going and coming, than I do from sports photos.

I know this is kind of avoiding the true financial side, but I'd have all this gear, cameras and lenses, even if I never uploaded one stock photo. I can rationalize that expense which is  actually ignoring that it's still a real expense?  ::)

For someone who's in this for the money, the perspective is different. Every cost fee and expense is deducted from earnings to find real profit. I'm not doing this for recognition or an ego boost. That leaves hobby. I thinkproducing Microstock images costs me more than I get back.

Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting.  ;)

« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2019, 15:57 »
+1
Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.

" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me.  As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Expenses, since you asked, I don't sell enough on Microstock to pay for the gas or hotel room for a weekend shooting at the races. I do make more on scenery or historic sites going and coming, than I do from sports photos.

I know this is kind of avoiding the true financial side, but I'd have all this gear, cameras and lenses, even if I never uploaded one stock photo. I can rationalize that expense which is  actually ignoring that it's still a real expense?  ::)

For someone who's in this for the money, the perspective is different. Every cost fee and expense is deducted from earnings to find real profit. I'm not doing this for recognition or an ego boost. That leaves hobby. I thinkproducing Microstock images costs me more than I get back.

Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting.  ;)
The cost of your time is really about "opportunity cost" what activity are you forgoing to do that work. If its lying in bed, writing on discussion boards ;-). Its zero. It may be negative if its avoiding on line gaming, visiting bars etc. Or the cost of giving up a career.

John Maria Meyer

« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2019, 02:37 »
0
Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-) [...]

Ha, congrats to the canvas story, really like that :)

One more question on marketing strategies - so your advice above mainly refers to stock images. I guess it's applicable to stock footage, too? At least to some extend. Videos is art galleries hardly sell... Anything else you'd do when talking about marketing strategies specificly for stock footage?

[...] As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.

Thanks for sharing this! Actually, the question of work costs that are not properly covered by the work's income is what brought me to stock footage. Let's see how that goes for me. Or rather for us - I'm not doing this alone which helps reducing the costs.

Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting.  ;)

I'd say, yes, it's a cost :) The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

« Reply #37 on: July 21, 2019, 15:02 »
0
The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.

I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.

memakephoto

« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2019, 21:22 »
0
The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.

I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.

I don't know if I believe that but for the sake of argument let's say not many from India are contributing. So? Would you eat garbage if you were hungry? If I was stuck in the desert for 2 weeks I might eat anything, but that's desperation. Why would SS be so desperate they would take such obviously low quality images?

Bottom line is this is not how you compete long term.

« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2019, 10:26 »
0
The explanation I think fits for the fellow from India is that India is a market where SS is still learning what will sell and what won't.

I think that it has only been fairly recently that very many people from India started contributing to SS and they are still hungry for anything.
I suspect that there is little demand in India for images and a very rapidly growing supply so its going to be hard to earn from "indian" focused images. Potentially its a big market and maybe someone who really understands it could do well.

« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2019, 10:41 »
0
can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/

first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...
Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.

this guy is a joke of nature...and those who admire hm have portfolio even more mediocre and probably not even manage to reach 10 dollar a months. those people probably suffer off solitude...they need those joke forum to fill their day because really i cannot understand spending time to earn a bunch of dollar and complaint that their 400 hundreds terrible photos don't sell everyday...another to follow is the desperate marbury king of doom and gloom thread,

sometimes i ask myself if they troll or really are surprised not to sell andy photos.
but the problem i m feeling ashamed to contribute to the same agency of those people. it's really depressing.
Take a look at his most recent post. I think hes beginning to realise the futility of what hes doing.

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2019, 16:43 »
0
yes i was reading today and he wrote that has not even reached the 500 dollar threshold...probably in october end...so it's probably not even near 350dollar in near a year uploading with 7000 files...and most of his sale are from the wall story between mexico env usa....so when those photos will not be so important the rest of his portfolio is worth like the paper i clean my a....s....after popo.

what make m laugh it's that he is not even humble to say i'm sorry my experiment is a complete failure...he say he's selling something,...ahahah....the problem this zillions of portfolio like that are that they hide good content especially new.


jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #42 on: July 29, 2019, 16:49 »
0
At the risk of starting another argument because people can't read, don't want to understand or whatever I feel that stock photography is not art photography, that to make money you have to be fast and above all you have to produce many images. Now watch a bunch of rubes come along and argue this point.
The great and most excellent photographer Phil Lowe himself states that he does not do stock photography. Why he peddles his masterpieces at 33 cents a copy I don't understand but to each his or her own.
I do stock. I'm learning to quickly produce images that sell. They are not art. They are stock.
People with piddly ports of less than 1000 images, especially less than 500 images should not even comment. How do they know anything about stock? Well, the fact that they have small ports proves they don't know stock.
So, yeah, I'm not taking those kinds of pictures anymore because they are too hard to do, take too much time and maybe bring in a quarter and maybe not. Like your pictures geogif. Good work.

one that wrote this idiot stuff should be put in siberian jail....not only he is a miserable failure..he stil  thinks to be on the right track...

he should ask what  this guy tell about his word

https://it.fotolia.com/p/202483008

a guy that has sold only in fotolia more than 250000 images and probably much much more,....with only 2000 images...ok he started when the golden era was at its peak...but still selling like crazy and uploading probably not even 100 foot per year.

« Reply #43 on: July 29, 2019, 16:51 »
+1


I'd say, yes, it's a cost :) The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp

for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth

« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2019, 01:37 »
0


I'd say, yes, it's a cost :) The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp

for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth
Related but not the same thing NPV is a way of measuring the value of an investment taking into account interest rates (or cost of capital). ie if you give me 100 now its worth more than giving me, say 110 in 5 years as I could stick it in an interest bearing account and get more. Its a more sophisticated method than the "payback period" i.e If I spend $3000 on a camera how many years will it be before I earn it back (I wish). One of the difficulties in stock is knowing what the future value of our Port is. Personally I think anyone thinking it will fund their retirement for more than 5 years at best is being optimistic.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2019, 02:33 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2019, 08:35 »
+5
TBH, I don't even see why we should be preoccupied by such mediocre examples, because they are not really a threat to people doing stock seriously.

On one side, the guy complaining about the sales is very likely to abandon pretty fast. Most of his pictures, due to his low skills in photo taking, editing and keywording, won't even be visible.

On the other side, that dear Grossinger seems to miss a lot of points about stock and algorithm. He's focused on volume, on which he's partially true. You need a lot of pictures, indeed, it is a major parameter. In the end, however, he does not understand that he's drowning his statistics and that most of his pictures will go down the rankings pretty fast, once they won't be anymore that "fresh". We can see pretty easily that he's not doing very well: when I search the query "grossinger shutterstock" on Google for last week's results, I can find only two uses of his pictures. It's just a sample, as many websites won't credit photographers nor agencies. In the same time, when I perform the same query for my Shutterstock name, I find three times more uses, while my portfolio on SS is two to three times smaller.

So, to summarize, he's pretty irritating, because he pretends to know everything on stock while being on purpose on a single platform (he posted somewhere else: "Yep, I'm taking and submitting as many images as I can and have little time for other activity. So I don't waste my time on other agencies when I can use that time right here on Shutterstock to submit more images."), offering uninteresting pictures and missing out essential points of market strategy. However, I don't see him as a threat, given he doesn't seem to question himself.

These kind of contributors, however, are much more a threat to Shutterstock, that is hosting non valuable assets on its servers, but I will gladly let these corporate vultures (SS) deal with it, given that, in the end, such examples of newbies won't do me real harm.

« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2019, 10:37 »
+3


I'd say, yes, it's a cost :) The concept of "opportunity cost" is really interesting, though!

another name for it is net present value, used in finance https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/npv.asp

for stock we each have to decide what our time is worth
Related but not the same thing NPV is a way of measuring the value of an investment taking into account interest rates (or cost of capital). ie if you give me 100 now its worth more than giving me, say 110 in 5 years as I could stick it in an interest bearing account and get more. Its a more sophisticated method than the "payback period" i.e If I spend $3000 on a camera how many years will it be before I earn it back (I wish). One of the difficulties in stock is knowing what the future value of our Port is. Personally I think anyone thinking it will fund their retirement for more than 5 years at best is being optimistic.

My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago.  I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography.   Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans. 



Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2019, 23:02 »
+3
My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago.  I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography.   Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans.

1) Don't quit your day job quite yet?
2) Don't bank on Microstock income having a long term profitable future.
3) When someone is selling a commodity, price is more important than quality. (that's sad, but true, many of us work very hard at this and we are paid insulting low prices)
4) You are correct, the decline hasn't stopped. Things will get much worse, before they go flat. I keep hoping the decline will stop soon. There is no better.
5) More agencies need to drop out, before we see a leveling off of the market and values.

At the risk of starting another argument because people can't read, don't want to understand or whatever I feel that stock photography is not art photography, that to make money you have to be fast and above all you have to produce many images. Now watch a bunch of rubes come along and argue this point.

I can read and your argument ends with, anyone who disagrees is some kind of rube, as you insult any disagreement. Oh you are so wonderful, in your own mind?  :) Trying to put people down, so they won't disagree? Rather insulting for someone of your highest caliber and super intelligence above all the rest of us? Can you write without unnecessary preemptive personal attacks?

Right, stock is not an art, it's stock. Making images that buyers want is the game. Niche market, stand out, different, expressive, I agree, and there are so many other ways to say the same. But yes, this is not art, except for the art of making descriptive, useful, or visual statements in images.

I don't know what your cause is, or why you must attack Grossinger, but your arrogance and attitude is totally self serving. He's doing his "thing" you do yours. You don't get to tell me or anyone else how we should run our own business or what we should be doing. If he finds out that numbers aren't the answer, let him figure that out on his own, just like others who shoot goats or ducks or junk yards and haven't discovered, they don't make any sales, because there's no demand.

It's not your job or privileged to be hounding someone you disagree with, he's doing you no harm.

By the way, you miss that many people here and there, took far more than 10 months, even in the "good old days" to make $500. I seem to recall some that are forum regulars on SS that took years. Your constant picking at Grossinger suggests there's some other motivation, because you don't use the same standards for anyone else.

What's the point of your targeted attack and picking at one specific person?

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #48 on: July 31, 2019, 04:58 »
0
Its ana rrogant man who doesnt have a clue what geis talking avout... serial spammer the worar sanple of whwre thisnindustrybhas gone nowadays. And indoubt heis even near 500 dollar. A lot of people in the beginning had very few images in 10months considering the 10 week limit.... he has 7000 images and doesnt sell practicalky nothing despite he thought he is tactic would have made himnprobably much much more

« Reply #49 on: July 31, 2019, 05:01 »
0
My portfolio's return per shot is half what it was three years ago.  I don't see anything on the horizon that will stop the overall decline in the "commodity price" of photography.   Portfolio size growth helps but in the end... Wanna be retirees and full timers need to factor a steep angle of decline into future plans.

1) Don't quit your day job quite yet?
2) Don't bank on Microstock income having a long term profitable future.
3) When someone is selling a commodity, price is more important than quality. (that's sad, but true, many of us work very hard at this and we are paid insulting low prices)
4) You are correct, the decline hasn't stopped. Things will get much worse, before they go flat. I keep hoping the decline will stop soon. There is no better.
5) More agencies need to drop out, before we see a leveling off of the market and values.

At the risk of starting another argument because people can't read, don't want to understand or whatever I feel that stock photography is not art photography, that to make money you have to be fast and above all you have to produce many images. Now watch a bunch of rubes come along and argue this point.

I can read and your argument ends with, anyone who disagrees is some kind of rube, as you insult any disagreement. Oh you are so wonderful, in your own mind?  :) Trying to put people down, so they won't disagree? Rather insulting for someone of your highest caliber and super intelligence above all the rest of us? Can you write without unnecessary preemptive personal attacks?

Right, stock is not an art, it's stock. Making images that buyers want is the game. Niche market, stand out, different, expressive, I agree, and there are so many other ways to say the same. But yes, this is not art, except for the art of making descriptive, useful, or visual statements in images.

I don't know what your cause is, or why you must attack Grossinger, but your arrogance and attitude is totally self serving. He's doing his "thing" you do yours. You don't get to tell me or anyone else how we should run our own business or what we should be doing. If he finds out that numbers aren't the answer, let him figure that out on his own, just like others who shoot goats or ducks or junk yards and haven't discovered, they don't make any sales, because there's no demand.

It's not your job or privileged to be hounding someone you disagree with, he's doing you no harm.

By the way, you miss that many people here and there, took far more than 10 months, even in the "good old days" to make $500. I seem to recall some that are forum regulars on SS that took years. Your constant picking at Grossinger suggests there's some other motivation, because you don't use the same standards for anyone else.

What's the point of your targeted attack and picking at one specific person?

Funny. The irony here is that is a quote from wonderboy himself, not jonbull. So if you ask me you've already answered your own question. Grossinger deserves it.

Hopefully your little hiccup will open your eyes to what Joe is really about.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 05:27 by DavidK »


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors