pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Creates First Silicon Alley Billionaire  (Read 25015 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2013, 09:49 »
0
]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:43 by Audi 5000 »


« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2013, 09:55 »
-2

Their payout is 27% counting shutterstock and bigstock.  Bigstock at 50% and shutterstock around 24%.  Overall payout will probably be lower next report with subs introduced at bigstock.

Thanks. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the threads to find the sums.

[And two minus votes for saying "thanks"!!!!]
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 12:23 by BaldricksTrousers »

Tror

« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2013, 11:11 »
+2

Net Income

Net income for the first quarter of 2013 increased by 50% to $5.6 million as compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of 2012. Net income available to common stockholders/members for the first quarter of 2013 was $5.5 million or $0.16 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $2.8 million or $0.13 per share on a fully diluted basis in the first quarter of 2012.


So, they increased their net income by 50%. So why shouldn`t we get at least a raise by, lets say, 20%? Any reason for that? They are making mroe money on our content and we should participate. And why are there still people here who want to block such a move against the interest of the contributor?


Faulty logic there. Their profit was about 10% of turnover (5.6m on 51m).  I think we determined in the past that their payout to suppliers is around 30% - say 17m. So if you increase that by 20% it will knock 3.4m off the profits, taking them to about 2.2m, or a 20% fall in profits, compared with last year.

Why do you think shareholders should agree to a 20% cut in earnings, so that suppliers can have a 20% increase in payout? The effect of  rapidly falling year-on-year profits would probably wipe 75% off the share price (it would certainly go below the IPO level, which included an assumption that profits would rise in future).

I think this calculation shows just how ridiculous it is for people to talk about a "fair commission rate". What's fair? Is 30c per image fair and 25c not fair? Would a 50c starting rate be "fair", causing a $17m fall in profits and causing SS to go bankrupt? Or should they double commissions and double the subscription price, and then we can all feel that we're getting a "fair" 50c to 76c per dl - and mourn the fact that all the buyers have gone to Thinkstock so we don't get sales any longer, but at least they are "fair" 76c sales that aren't happening.

Sure, I'd love to see an increase in commissions AND earnings, but I don't want to see commissions rise and LOSE earnings as a result.

It's really very clear from the figures that the only way our earnings can achieve a sustainable improvement on SS is from them growing sales overall and opening new markets. We can't get meaningful earnings growth from higher commissions there because it would destroy the entire business model - maybe a penny a sale for subs is feasible, but that is only worth 3%-4% to us.  The SODs market they opened up recently has given my earnings a 30% boost this month (admittedly, 10% is more usual).

Shareholders and contributors alike will benefit from SS growing its markets. Neither party will benefit from any significant pay rise for contributors.

The difference between Jon being a billionaire and Jon being bankrupt and us all out looking for "proper" jobs appears to be about an extra 10c commission per download. And who here thinks 48c is "fair" but 38c is "unfair"?

It's working, let's not call for it to be broken.

PS: I'd love to know if Balex's dad thinks that achieving a 10% profit on turnover constitutes grinding the workers' faces in the mud and, if so, what the correct profit level is.

I follow your logic here and that is why I think it was a bad move for the contributors that SS goes wallstreet. The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.

« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2013, 11:55 »
0
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.

Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.

« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2013, 12:19 »
+2
PS: I'd love to know if Balex's dad thinks that achieving a 10% profit on turnover constitutes grinding the workers' faces in the mud and, if so, what the correct profit level is.

You are forgetting that SS paid down dept, had one time IPO and relocation expenses at a expensive location in that time period.

As for the corp they run at 3% annual profit on recent annual revenues of 3 billion. In the early years % of profit was less than 3% and he gave key people and supervisors stock in the corp. He would be the first to tell you he did not do it alone and it did not happen over night. If you drove by the offices or visited you would never know the corp is so successful. So the answer would be yes in practice he does. 

The company core culture understands that it's success rest on the success of the people within it.  If you put that concept into action you don't need to raise money for growth by putting the people who made you successful in the first place out to dry.

Happy cows produce better milk and they don't enjoy the maxim he who dies with the most toys wins.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 17:07 by gbalex »

« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2013, 12:59 »
+1
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.

Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.

That is a good one, let's not talk about what the Wallstreet crowd did to pension funds recently!

« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2013, 13:11 »
-1
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.

Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.

That is a good one, let's not talk about what the Wallstreet crowd did to pension funds recently!

Let's not talk about the politicians who dismantled the sensible regulations that had previously kept the market in check. Capital markets are not perfect and they do need effective regulation.

« Reply #82 on: June 30, 2013, 13:46 »
+4
The shareholder concept is almost always destructive for the general economy while only few have profits.

Of course it isn't. It has provided the capital over the last couple of centuries to allow the world to industrialise and raise the standards of living for all. Most infrastructure (railways, telephone systems, etc) were originally funded privately with cash raised from the stock markets. Whenever someone invests their money in stock they are taking a risk. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose but their investment is necessary and it is beneficial to society. By far the biggest investors are pension funds and hopefully you will, in time, also benefit directly from that.

That is a good one, let's not talk about what the Wallstreet crowd did to pension funds recently!

Let's not talk about the politicians who dismantled the sensible regulations that had previously kept the market in check. Capital markets are not perfect and they do need effective regulation.

Let's not forget that politicians and wall street work hand in hand a lot of the time. This is a revolving door relationship for some politicians as they get out of office, they get right into the corporate world they helped make laws to help themselves really.

I am in agreement that SS going public isn't in the best interest of the contributors but shareholders. Thats y i put my money on its stocks for the time being and this latest article among a couple of others has helped move the stock to its all time high this past week. Made more money one day with stocks than all of last 2 months income on SS (if i sell that is). I wish they would make more articles =P

Uncle Pete

« Reply #83 on: July 01, 2013, 13:06 »
0
Gets my vote. Here's to his success, which has also contributed to many people here making their own smaller return at the same time.

Congrats to Jon! It's pretty awesome success story.

I'm happy to be able to utilize his creation to sell my creativity.

Shutterstock has made me a very happy thousandaire.

« Reply #84 on: July 01, 2013, 14:30 »
+6
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!

« Reply #85 on: July 01, 2013, 14:48 »
0
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!

Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.

« Reply #86 on: July 01, 2013, 15:24 »
-1
Yes, an increase would make no sense, and I know all those coffee growers in Guatamala agree.  Actually, the only reason they wanted a raise was so they could buy TVs and be able to see Howard Schultz on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". 

So if commissions are increased in the coming year, we should refuse, in order to keep the business healthy.  However I think it's more likely that  commissions will be cut - in one way or another - and if so we probably won't  have the option to decline.

Ron

« Reply #87 on: July 01, 2013, 15:41 »
+3
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!

Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.

« Reply #88 on: July 01, 2013, 15:48 »
+3
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!

Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.

That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.

Ron

« Reply #89 on: July 01, 2013, 15:55 »
0
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!

Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.

That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #90 on: July 01, 2013, 15:58 »
0
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!

Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.

That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.

Everything on the internet is true.  Bonjour.   ;D

« Reply #91 on: July 01, 2013, 15:59 »
-3
:
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 03:15 by gostwyck »


Tror

« Reply #92 on: July 01, 2013, 16:04 »
+4
Yes, an increase would make no sense, and I know all those coffee growers in Guatamala agree.  Actually, the only reason they wanted a raise was so they could buy TVs and be able to see Howard Schultz on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". 

So if commissions are increased in the coming year, we should refuse, in order to keep the business healthy.  However I think it's more likely that  commissions will be cut - in one way or another - and if so we probably won't  have the option to decline.

Do you need everything spoon-fed for you? If you want 'a raise' then get off your arse, do some more work and thereby earn it. Your success or otherwise is entirely down to you and the effort you are prepared to put in.

The success enjoyed by Oringer and SS was earned through hard work, risk-taking, technical skills and ingenuity. I'm guessing he didn't sit there like an effing cry-baby, wailing for 'a raise' from whomever he thought might have more money than him. If Oringer wants more money then he has to think up new ways to sell more images (on our behalf) and then risk his money exploring new markets to do so.

I know, I know __ you're now going to tell me that Oringer made all his money off your hard work. Well, you signed up to the ToS. How come you are not asking IS, DT or FT to change the ToS in your favour? After all, they have changed the ToS against your favour on several occasions. At least SS haven't done that.

Please do not insult others. We know you are not objective about SS, but this is no reason for harsh words.

« Reply #93 on: July 01, 2013, 16:05 »
-1
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!


Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.


That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.


They can't, at least in most capitalist countries, as it would be against anti-competition laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

Ron

« Reply #94 on: July 01, 2013, 16:05 »
-1
You can rant all you want, you are still wrong.

« Reply #95 on: July 01, 2013, 16:08 »
+1
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!

Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.

That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.


It's Business 101.  A huge corporation like WalMart (or SS in our case) has the LEVERAGE to set the prices they want to pay their suppliers, and if the suppliers don't agree, they can take the next supplier waiting in line who will gladly supply at the price you were unwilling to accept.

Coca Cola sets the price for the mom and pop store on the corner.  But 99.9% of Coca Cola's sales are going through WalMart, McDonald's, etc... places where they can't easily dictate their price to the customer.

Now you'll say this is an example of SS becoming a corporate behemoth like WalMart and McDonald's.  Like it's a bad thing.  I'm pretty happy being a supplier to a corporate behemoth as long as what I'm earning makes sense for my personal business model (in my case supplying SS, I'm making money hand over fist, with very little costs.) 

The moment I decide the price SS is dictating I get compensated isn't worth my while, I will find another customer or another line of work.  I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.


Ron

« Reply #96 on: July 01, 2013, 16:09 »
-1
That link to wiki proves nothing. Clutching at straws.

Here listen to this. Maybe it calms you down http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083

« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2013, 16:12 »
+1
That link to wiki proves nothing. Clutching at straws.

Here listen to this. Maybe it calms you down http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9135BDEFC471E083


From USATODAY...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-01-28-walmartnation_x.htm

"History has shown that suppliers suffer if they run afoul of Wal-Mart. Rubbermaid raised the prices it charged Wal-Mart in the mid-1990s because of an 80% jump in the cost of a key ingredient in its plastic containers. The retailer responded by giving more shelf space to lower-priced competitors, helping drive Rubbermaid into a 1999 merger with rival Newell, says John Mariotti, a former Rubbermaid executive. "Rubbermaid earned Wal-Mart's wrath by not giving it the best deal," he says."




Ron

« Reply #98 on: July 01, 2013, 16:13 »
-2
I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.

I have stopped uploading to SS and all other agencies. But not because of what is being discussed here.

So in your example WalMart goes shopping for coca cola elsewhere if the price coca cola sets is too high. lol

This is not about coca cola, your example was flawed. Thats all.

Tror

« Reply #99 on: July 01, 2013, 16:15 »
+1
I can't believe there are still people saying that because Jon's stock is worth so much, and because the company's revenues are up, then we should get our commission raised.  This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how business works.

We are suppliers to a company that sells our product.  We're like sellers of widgets to The Store.  If The Store sells 20% more of your widgets this year than they sold the prior year, are you going to raise your per-unit cost to The Store?  Should they voluntarily give you some kind of bonus for selling so many of your products?  Your bonus is the fact that they sold 20% more of your product than the year before! 

Oh, but your widgets didn't see a 20% increase in sales in line with The Store's 20% revenue increase?  Then that means customers were buying a wide variety of products, and fewer were buying yours.  Should The Store reward you for that achievement?  If anything, if your product is being bought less frequently in relation to the other widgets, you would lose favor with The Store and maybe be taken from the shelves.  And you think you should get a raise!

Very true and good example. Of course if The Store did sell 20% more of a supplier's product they'd actually be looking for a volume discount the following year. They'd want to pay less for it not more.
That is completely flawed. We are suppliers as well as manufactures. A manufacturer sets the price. What you two are saying is Coca Cola sell their product to Wall Mart and Wall Mart dictates the price Coca Cola can sell it to them for.

That's exactly how Wal-Mart does business.
Can you back that up? Because I just read that coca cola determines the price of their product.


It's Business 101.  A huge corporation like WalMart (or SS in our case) has the LEVERAGE to set the prices they want to pay their suppliers, and if the suppliers don't agree, they can take the next supplier waiting in line who will gladly supply at the price you were unwilling to accept.

Coca Cola sets the price for the mom and pop store on the corner.  But 99.9% of Coca Cola's sales are going through WalMart, McDonald's, etc... places where they can't easily dictate their price to the customer.

Now you'll say this is an example of SS becoming a corporate behemoth like WalMart and McDonald's.  Like it's a bad thing.  I'm pretty happy being a supplier to a corporate behemoth as long as what I'm earning makes sense for my personal business model (in my case supplying SS, I'm making money hand over fist, with very little costs.) 

The moment I decide the price SS is dictating I get compensated isn't worth my while, I will find another customer or another line of work.  I won't be complaining about it in a forum, while in another browser window I'm simultaneously uploading my next batch to the hated behemoth and saying my prayers for 100% acceptance.

...thats why competition is healthy. We, the contributors, have the raw material in hand and should not feed monocultures.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2454 Views
Last post January 19, 2010, 10:38
by donding
4 Replies
3430 Views
Last post August 27, 2012, 16:40
by leaf
1 Replies
2518 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 13:22
by cathyslife
0 Replies
2006 Views
Last post June 20, 2016, 17:28
by increasingdifficulty
19 Replies
1513 Views
Last post December 04, 2021, 05:18
by Justanotherphotographer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle