pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Will Getty buy Shutterstock?  (Read 8502 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

H2O

« on: March 22, 2021, 07:00 »
0
This is really just a thought, all these moves by Oringer smack of cashing in, shareholders, commission cuts and really now he has shown his hand, I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants.

So what are the alternatives for him?


« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2021, 07:16 »
+3
Shutterstock is doing well financially, especially so since they cut contributor's commissions with the new payment structure. Why would they sell it?

« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2021, 07:21 »
0
So what are the alternatives for him?

1. Continue to savage contributor commissions in the hope enough will hang in there to prop up profits.
2. Request Uncle Sam corporate bailout support package.
3. Quit the company and run off with tail between legs.
4. Declare bankruptcy.

« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2021, 07:40 »
+4
This is really just a thought, all these moves by Oringer smack of cashing in, shareholders, commission cuts and really now he has shown his hand, I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants.

So what are the alternatives for him?
Shutterstock are in a very healthy financial position despite any wishful thinking otherwise. A more plausable question would be "What are Shutterstock going to acquire next"? They have liquid assets of over $400m.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2021, 08:46 »
+2
This is really just a thought, all these moves by Oringer smack of cashing in, shareholders, commission cuts and really now he has shown his hand, I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants.

So what are the alternatives for him?
Shutterstock are in a very healthy financial position despite any wishful thinking otherwise. A more plausable question would be "What are Shutterstock going to acquire next"? They have liquid assets of over $400m.

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. Stan gets his bonus shares from cutting our commissions, he's worth millions. He doesn't care.

Shutterstock is not failing or losing money. When the earnings from our loss, start to level off, the stock will drop down again. But by then, the people riding the wave, have sold millions of dollars of their shares for double what they paid or double the value when they were awarded them as compensation.

Here's part of who owns SSTK  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/ownership/fi-a23mec

and  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/ownership/nys-sstk/fi-a23mec?ownershipType=institutional

66% is owned by institutional entities. Jon used to own 55% himself.

"Jon Oringer (Shutterstocks Founder, Executive Chairman of the Board and largest stockholder) is selling 2,064,000 shares of common stock in this offering." August 2020. @ $48.50 a share. In very round numbers $1,000,000,000 of his shares were sold and he put that money into the bank or whatever else. Buying his new home for $42 million is nothing. He could pay cash for it, and still have $950,000,000 left!

@H2O how much cash do you think he needs or wants? I don't see any financial problems for Jon at all.  ;D

"I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants."

Just a later thought... will Shutterstock buy iStock? Getty is a different business.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 08:56 by Uncle Pete »

H2O

« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2021, 10:20 »
0
This is really just a thought, all these moves by Oringer smack of cashing in, shareholders, commission cuts and really now he has shown his hand, I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants.

So what are the alternatives for him?
Shutterstock are in a very healthy financial position despite any wishful thinking otherwise. A more plausable question would be "What are Shutterstock going to acquire next"? They have liquid assets of over $400m.

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. Stan gets his bonus shares from cutting our commissions, he's worth millions. He doesn't care.

Shutterstock is not failing or losing money. When the earnings from our loss, start to level off, the stock will drop down again. But by then, the people riding the wave, have sold millions of dollars of their shares for double what they paid or double the value when they were awarded them as compensation.

Here's part of who owns SSTK  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/ownership/fi-a23mec

and  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/ownership/nys-sstk/fi-a23mec?ownershipType=institutional

66% is owned by institutional entities. Jon used to own 55% himself.

"Jon Oringer (Shutterstocks Founder, Executive Chairman of the Board and largest stockholder) is selling 2,064,000 shares of common stock in this offering." August 2020. @ $48.50 a share. In very round numbers $1,000,000,000 of his shares were sold and he put that money into the bank or whatever else. Buying his new home for $42 million is nothing. He could pay cash for it, and still have $950,000,000 left!

@H2O how much cash do you think he needs or wants? I don't see any financial problems for Jon at all.  ;D

"I don't expect these commission cut to release as much cash as he wants."

Just a later thought... will Shutterstock buy iStock? Getty is a different business.

Well you have a point, maybe it was wishful thinking, but wishing never did any harm, though in this case I wish it would.

If it was the other way around with Getty being bought by SS, then all the scumbags would be in one basket as I am sure they would combine all the websites into one go to place for ripping artists off.





« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2021, 11:33 »
+3
Visual China Group would be more likely.  They bought Corbis... and distribute for Getty in China. 

farbled

« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2021, 11:34 »
+5
Well you have a point, maybe it was wishful thinking, but wishing never did any harm, though in this case I wish it would.

If it was the other way around with Getty being bought by SS, then all the scumbags would be in one basket as I am sure they would combine all the websites into one go to place for ripping artists off.

It would be a win for SS, since they could adopt IS's payout scheme and tank commissions even more.

« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2021, 15:01 »
0
The only reason why one of the two would buy each other is to eliminate competition. Now, I'm anything but an economist, but from my point of view both of them seem be too big to buy, and there's no real benefit or added value for them as both are more or less doing the same. None of them needs extra content, they are fed more than they need.

What I do see happening is Getty/Istock or Shutterstock buying a company or startup that actually has something to offer.
This can be a technology (AI?) or a userbase (social media or creative software) with strong engagement towards images and video's covering trends outside regular stock.

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2021, 15:46 »
+5
Getty is SO incredibly in debt that the bailiffs are practically knocking on the door and they are living on other peoples money! how could they possibly buy SS?? end even so who would possibly want to buy SS?

« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2021, 20:52 »
0
...

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. ...
 

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.

just curious, but i wonder how many of the  'free market'  ranters (based in the US)  supported the republicans' massive tax cut for the <1%  and added $1-2 trillion to the national debt (the same Rs who voted against giving any support to those suffering economically from the pandemic - claiming it would raise the deficit!)

« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2021, 20:53 »
0
.. dupe...

« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2021, 20:54 »
+1
Getty is SO incredibly in debt that the bailiffs are practically knocking on the door and they are living on other peoples money! how could they possibly buy SS?? end even so who would possibly want to buy SS?

absolute nonsense (and wishful thinking)- where do you get your info? did you do ANY research?  they're struggling, like many other companies due to the pandemic.  learn how the world works!, large debt has never stopped companies from raiding larger, well funded companies, gutting them for profits & giving the leftovers to GoodWill!

they still show a (slight - single digit) increase in earnings each year

altho i had multiple discs licensed with the legacy company Photo-Disc that Getty bought many years ago, I have no connection w the company
« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 21:00 by cascoly »

« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2021, 02:21 »
+1
The only reason why one of the two would buy each other is to eliminate competition. Now, I'm anything but an economist, but from my point of view both of them seem be too big to buy, and there's no real benefit or added value for them as both are more or less doing the same. None of them needs extra content, they are fed more than they need.

What I do see happening is Getty/Istock or Shutterstock buying a company or startup that actually has something to offer.
This can be a technology (AI?) or a userbase (social media or creative software) with strong engagement towards images and video's covering trends outside regular stock.
Shutterstock quite frequently acquire businesses mostly leading to failure. Remember "Flash Stock"? I would expect them to continue to invest/gamble on newly emerging companies.

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2021, 05:17 »
0
Getty is SO incredibly in debt that the bailiffs are practically knocking on the door and they are living on other peoples money! how could they possibly buy SS?? end even so who would possibly want to buy SS?

absolute nonsense (and wishful thinking)- where do you get your info? did you do ANY research?  they're struggling, like many other companies due to the pandemic.  learn how the world works!, large debt has never stopped companies from raiding larger, well funded companies, gutting them for profits & giving the leftovers to GoodWill!

they still show a (slight - single digit) increase in earnings each year

altho i had multiple discs licensed with the legacy company Photo-Disc that Getty bought many years ago, I have no connection w the company

Well, hehe!  thats what I am saying above actually. You should have read that!...theyre all struggling!...I also used photodisc ages back and it was a complete waste of time!

« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2021, 12:00 »
0
Getty is SO incredibly in debt that the bailiffs are practically knocking on the door and they are living on other peoples money! how could they possibly buy SS?? end even so who would possibly want to buy SS?

absolute nonsense (and wishful thinking)- where do you get your info? did you do ANY research?  they're struggling, like many other companies due to the pandemic.  learn how the world works!, large debt has never stopped companies from raiding larger, well funded companies, gutting them for profits & giving the leftovers to GoodWill!

they still show a (slight - single digit) increase in earnings each year

altho i had multiple discs licensed with the legacy company Photo-Disc that Getty bought many years ago, I have no connection w the company

Well, hehe!  thats what I am saying above actually. You should have read that!...theyre all struggling!...I also used photodisc ages back and it was a complete waste of time!

you still havent the question of where you found the research supporting your claim of SS imminent demise

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2021, 14:31 »
+3
...

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. ...
 

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


Yes there was full disclosure last year that Jon was selling some of his stock. Also that sale was handled by a third party, not himself. I had to go look, but the search says standard is 90 - 180 days. That's long gone.

Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. I can summarize by saying, they are all crooks and cons and only care about their own power and influence. "How can you tell if a politician is lying" ANS: "Their lips are moving."

We need to work forward and together not keep splitting and dividing into sides and factions and extremist offshoots. Nothing is simple except people who follow the party line, without thinking or looking at the values and ideas of each position. Party people are usually dull and simple blind followers.

Another more positive way of saying this is, I see good on both sides, depending on the situation and the particular arguments. No party lines for me to toe, which means all sides will dislike me. Hopefully on an equal basis?  :)


Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2021, 04:11 »
0
...

The company has plenty of cash. The hateful thinking who ignore the facts, wishful but distorted thinking, the company is doing just fine. People, many others besides  Stan and Jon have been selling big blocks of stock. Easily documented for months and months because it has to be reported. Jon has millions if not a billion, he doesn't need to care. ...
 

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


Yes there was full disclosure last year that Jon was selling some of his stock. Also that sale was handled by a third party, not himself. I had to go look, but the search says standard is 90 - 180 days. That's long gone.

Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. I can summarize by saying, they are all crooks and cons and only care about their own power and influence. "How can you tell if a politician is lying" ANS: "Their lips are moving."

We need to work forward and together not keep splitting and dividing into sides and factions and extremist offshoots. Nothing is simple except people who follow the party line, without thinking or looking at the values and ideas of each position. Party people are usually dull and simple blind followers.

Another more positive way of saying this is, I see good on both sides, depending on the situation and the particular arguments. No party lines for me to toe, which means all sides will dislike me. Hopefully on an equal basis?  :)

Amen to that!  well said!

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2021, 08:56 »
+2

Amen to that!  well said!

I have enough former friends and frenemies without adding more from the forum. I'm officially a WWM = Wishy Washy Malcontent, when it comes to politics, movements and contrived social issues. Can't even talk about the weather anymore, without someone turning it into a political issue? And Covid, when did science and disease become a political issue?

Covid doesn't discriminate based on who you voted for, or your opinion of how it started, what to call it, or if it's real or not. Nearly 3 million people dead and it's been turned into everything from racial and ethnic to party politics. One person dies from a reaction to the vaccine and that's news. Hundreds of millions of people get vaccinated and no one is tracking that number very closely, except when someone complains they can't get the shots?

Politics SUCKS!

« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2021, 17:58 »
0
.

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


...
Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. ....

didnt want a political discussion - but just commenting that too much whinging ignores the forest for the toothpicks - the complaints  are only a data point confirming a much larger reality

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2021, 01:50 »
0
.

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


...
Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. ....

didnt want a political discussion - but just commenting that too much whinging ignores the forest for the toothpicks - the complaints  are only a data point confirming a much larger reality

 ::) ::) ::) ::)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2021, 08:55 »
0
.

and of course this is NORMAL for company officers after an IPO - those posting otherwise just show their ignorance of how IPO & laissez-faire capitalism in general work.  after the IPO, principals could not sell for a set # of years - looks  like that date has arrived & officers et al are able to realize $ for their stock.


...
Sorry about the second part, I don't do partisan politics anymore. Too many divisions and loaded questions also agendas and twisted party politic situations. ....

didnt want a political discussion - but just commenting that too much whinging ignores the forest for the toothpicks - the complaints  are only a data point confirming a much larger reality

If we stopped printing dollar bills, we could easily recover a Billion Dollars in waste. $1 bills last four years tops, coins last 40 years. Pennies cost more to produce than they are worth. That's kind of budgets and deficits I like to talk about. Nothing about which dumb ass on a D or R side, made the latest stupid financial decisions about deep divided issues like taxes or welfare. Universal issues for the country as a whole, instead of special interest groups, classes or ethnic and racial groups.

NPR 2011:  https://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants

It was 1 billion then and could be over 2 billion dollars now. We keep making the darn coins, that no one wants or uses.

But no, we get to argue about relief and tax the rich? Some things are non-partisan and would help the country, but it seems no one is willing to change just a tiny bit, to recover 2 Billion warehoused Dollars!

ps make a $2 coin with Harriet Tubman on it. Another political football deflated and nothing to kick around and stir up debate, opposition and divide people over contrived racial and social issues. No one uses a $2 bill, so why put her on some obscure bill that just sites in vaults. Be honorable and don't upset the apple cart, at the same time.


farbled

« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2021, 10:13 »
0

If we stopped printing dollar bills, we could easily recover a Billion Dollars in waste. $1 bills last four years tops, coins last 40 years. Pennies cost more to produce than they are worth. That's kind of budgets and deficits I like to talk about. Nothing about which dumb ass on a D or R side, made the latest stupid financial decisions about deep divided issues like taxes or welfare. Universal issues for the country as a whole, instead of special interest groups, classes or ethnic and racial groups.

NPR 2011:  https://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants

It was 1 billion then and could be over 2 billion dollars now. We keep making the darn coins, that no one wants or uses.

But no, we get to argue about relief and tax the rich? Some things are non-partisan and would help the country, but it seems no one is willing to change just a tiny bit, to recover 2 Billion warehoused Dollars!

ps make a $2 coin with Harriet Tubman on it. Another political football deflated and nothing to kick around and stir up debate, opposition and divide people over contrived racial and social issues. No one uses a $2 bill, so why put her on some obscure bill that just sites in vaults. Be honorable and don't upset the apple cart, at the same time.

The coin idea is a good one and is something we successfully did here in Canada ages ago.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2021, 22:00 by farbled »

« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2021, 21:09 »
0
As other said above, I hardly see any reasons for SS to be bought by Getty.

Getty and SS are probably the two most stable guys in the stock market, even though the idea of Getty being soldagain to any random entity does not seem that unrealistic

That being said, if there were something to happen, I'd definitely see much more a move coming from a GAFA (especially Google) to enter the microstock market.

It could be a historical purchase (like Google buying Getty or SS for a historical amount of money), or one of the GAFAs simply starting to offer their users to monetize some content in a similar way microstock does. That would be a real game changer.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2021, 08:23 »
+1
As other said above, I hardly see any reasons for SS to be bought by Getty.

Getty and SS are probably the two most stable guys in the stock market, even though the idea of Getty being soldagain to any random entity does not seem that unrealistic

That being said, if there were something to happen, I'd definitely see much more a move coming from a GAFA (especially Google) to enter the microstock market.

It could be a historical purchase (like Google buying Getty or SS for a historical amount of money), or one of the GAFAs simply starting to offer their users to monetize some content in a similar way microstock does. That would be a real game changer.

True that could be possible. Big problem for Getty is they merged all of iStock onto the Getty servers when they introduced ESP and killed Thinkstock.


The coin idea is a good one and is something we successfully did here in Canada ages ago.


Yes I know that, we can look across the border and see how that all works very well.  :) Pretty much every country in the world, except the US has dropped the dollar bill.

I know the line is, everything is for sale, for the right price, but SS is still growing, the stock is going up. Getty has been much like they started, before Microstock, holding and preserving and archiving. I don't think either is "for sale" or on the market. That leaves maybe Dreamstime if someone big wanted to get in with an established agency, and DT is not healthy, unfortunately.

If one of the giants, wants to get into the market, they have the resources to start on their own and don't need some old worn out agency that's not on the top anymore.

My opinion, SS and IS and Adobe are not for sale and no one is buying either. If one of the group GAFA wants to get into a rather flat business concept, they can do that on their own. The growth period and expansion is in the past. Innovation will be the future of stock photos and video. Considering the free sites are taking some of that business, maybe someone looking for expansion into something new and profitable, would not care about Microstock?


farbled

« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2021, 10:13 »
+2
The question I rarely see these days is, given the over supply of quality images, plus the growing popularity of free sites is this:

What is a photo actually worth these days? And why?


« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2021, 11:49 »
+1
I don't think Getty Images has enough money to buy Shutterstock. Istock was a bargain years ago.
Shutterstock won't be that cheap and i don't think there'll be much return of investment buying a stock photo agency nowadays.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 11:58 by ttart »


farbled

« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2021, 12:50 »
+1
I could conceivably see AS buy iS simply for the exclusives to add to their Adobe exclusive collection. No idea if it would be worth it, but it seems to most believable scenario unless one of the social media giants decides to buy into the game at this late point.

JamoImages

  • Stock Producer & Blogger: jamoimages.com
« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2021, 00:51 »
0
I don't believe SS will be sold any time soon. They're doing extremely well financially. In fact, they recently bought
Turbosquid https://www.turbosquid.com/, a company that sells stock 3D models.

« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2021, 02:44 »
0
The question I rarely see these days is, given the over supply of quality images, plus the growing popularity of free sites is this:

What is a photo actually worth these days? And why?
In the end its worth what people will pay for it. There are many factors in this mostly unrelated to any definitions of "quality" a photogragpher might give it. Supply and demand is the bottom line....if you have the first image of a Martian walking into the Whitehouse "quality" is immaterial. Also how much it cost is only relevant in so far as it affects supply. If I spend 10,000 flying to get a picture of a Polar Bear it doesn't make the image worth more than one by someone who got one walking into his garden. I've long felt in terms of what might be considered standard stock anyone thinking this will generate a retirement income for more than 5 years is optimistic. The photographers reputation at the top end is also hugely important.

« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2021, 05:32 »
0
Microsoft is buying Discord, Salesforce made Slak acquisitions, NVIDIA to Acquire Arm for $40 Billion/ It would be interesting to see a stock listed company (SSTK) being acquired by a non listed company, Getty.

« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2021, 06:17 »
+1
Microsoft is buying Discord, Salesforce made Slak acquisitions, NVIDIA to Acquire Arm for $40 Billion/ It would be interesting to see a stock listed company (SSTK) being acquired by a non listed company, Getty.

Wow, so many acquisitions happening at huge cost.
And we are working in pennies, feel so low.

« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2021, 21:35 »
0
...

ps make a $2 coin with Harriet Tubman on it.
...
i'm all for getting rid of pennies, and nickels & paper $1 & $2 - on the euro model - there are euro 1c & 2c but i've rarely seen them when traveling and supposedly some shops now don't accept them

remember when we used to have 50c pieces?  they still make them but they disappear right away, (or they're in banks but people have just forgotten about them - like the $2 bill)

US$1 bills are still good for tips in countries w/o a strong currency (and coins usually can't be exchanged)

« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2021, 21:46 »
0
The question I rarely see these days is, given the over supply of quality images, plus the growing popularity of free sites is this:

What is a photo actually worth these days? And why?

like any non-fungible, it's worth what someone will pay for it - what's the intrinsic value of an oil-stained canvas? why is it worth more if Picasso applied the oil[paint] to the canvas?

most photos are worth less because they're now commodities in the context of buyers of stock.  it's not that stockagencies are giving artists so little (a different discussion but one that many keep conflating), it's that the worth of photos has declined precipitously - in the 70s-80 agencies sold  images for $300-1000+ for the same purposes they're  used now when they only cost  $1

« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2021, 21:48 »
0
Microsoft is buying Discord, Salesforce made Slak acquisitions, NVIDIA to Acquire Arm for $40 Billion/ It would be interesting to see a stock listed company (SSTK) being acquired by a non listed company, Getty.

Wow, so many acquisitions happening at huge cost.
And we are working in pennies, feel so low.

nothing new - it's been going on for decades now, taking off in the 70s with corporate raiders.  and the US minimum wage has hardly changed since then!

« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2021, 06:59 »
+1
What I wanted to say is that it is more likely that Shutterstock acquires Getty, not vice versa.
Getty is a private company  and their financial numbers are not easily available, but according to this article annual revenue in 2019. was 1B, and about 50% is stock business. So around 500M. And the last year's Shutterstock revenue was 667M and it is 100% stock business.  So SS is a larger stock segment company.
https://www.chron.com/business/texas-inc/article/Getty-Images-struggles-to-frame-a-profitable-14901397.php#:~:text=SEATTLE%20%E2%80%94%20With%20its%20vast%20archive,player%20in%20the%20picture%20business.

farbled

« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2021, 11:03 »
0
like any non-fungible, it's worth what someone will pay for it - what's the intrinsic value of an oil-stained canvas? why is it worth more if Picasso applied the oil[paint] to the canvas?

most photos are worth less because they're now commodities in the context of buyers of stock.  it's not that stockagencies are giving artists so little (a different discussion but one that many keep conflating), it's that the worth of photos has declined precipitously - in the 70s-80 agencies sold  images for $300-1000+ for the same purposes they're  used now when they only cost  $1

I think its a bit more than that. While I agree with what you say, I also think that the idea of selling your Picasso for the same price, and in the same place, as my 30 second breakfast eggs photoshoot was and continues to be a contributor to the decline.

I wonder if a hybrid would work? I remember back in the day my ideal agency had tiers, where the better the work (subjective and hard to measure, I know) the higher the sell price. I wonder if some agency will simply have a permanent free section where the vast majority of product is exactly that. All the stuff every shooter starts out with and doesn't cost extra to produce.

It would give artists something to aim for, increasing their quality and creativity to a point where it generates earnings. Much as I love this industry and have for the past 15 plus years, so much of the collections are, in my opinion (and including some of my own stuff), not even worth the 1-10 cents that are charged for them. It could also train buyers into recognizing that quality should cost more, compete with the free agencies already out there, and maybe get some of those talented people onboard to sell work instead of giving it away...

I know, pipe dream..

Edit: Oooh, and do a plan like 10-5-1. Ten freebies, 5 paid, 1 Premium, all for the low low price of xxx. That way you don't have harvesters soaking up all the free stuff.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 11:09 by farbled »


« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2021, 13:08 »
+1
 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Getty is more or less broke. It is completely financed with debt and will be out of business once interest rates rise

 :-X

wds

« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2021, 21:30 »
0
like any non-fungible, it's worth what someone will pay for it - what's the intrinsic value of an oil-stained canvas? why is it worth more if Picasso applied the oil[paint] to the canvas?

most photos are worth less because they're now commodities in the context of buyers of stock.  it's not that stockagencies are giving artists so little (a different discussion but one that many keep conflating), it's that the worth of photos has declined precipitously - in the 70s-80 agencies sold  images for $300-1000+ for the same purposes they're  used now when they only cost  $1

I think its a bit more than that. While I agree with what you say, I also think that the idea of selling your Picasso for the same price, and in the same place, as my 30 second breakfast eggs photoshoot was and continues to be a contributor to the decline.

I wonder if a hybrid would work? I remember back in the day my ideal agency had tiers, where the better the work (subjective and hard to measure, I know) the higher the sell price. I wonder if some agency will simply have a permanent free section where the vast majority of product is exactly that. All the stuff every shooter starts out with and doesn't cost extra to produce.

It would give artists something to aim for, increasing their quality and creativity to a point where it generates earnings. Much as I love this industry and have for the past 15 plus years, so much of the collections are, in my opinion (and including some of my own stuff), not even worth the 1-10 cents that are charged for them. It could also train buyers into recognizing that quality should cost more, compete with the free agencies already out there, and maybe get some of those talented people onboard to sell work instead of giving it away...

I know, pipe dream..

Edit: Oooh, and do a plan like 10-5-1. Ten freebies, 5 paid, 1 Premium, all for the low low price of xxx. That way you don't have harvesters soaking up all the free stuff.

How about the more an image sells, the higher the price gets?...something in more demand should have more monetary value. There should be an optimal price to make both the agency and the artist the most money.

« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2021, 22:45 »
0

 

I wonder if a hybrid would work? I remember back in the day my ideal agency had tiers, where the better the work (subjective and hard to measure, I know) the higher the sell price. I wonder if some agency will simply have a permanent free section where the vast majority of product is exactly that. All the stuff every shooter starts out with and doesn't cost extra to produce.

it would work but it IS work and there's the rub - even if we could decide what quality is (argued since plato and wrt art since the renaissance) who'll pay for the effort, esp'ly as the buyers don't seem to care

DT has(? had?) a level system where the price of an image went up when it was sold.

Or take the music (spotify) model - image is free (for ltd license), but artist is paid for every DL - could be lucraztive if downloads are as many as the anti-free folk claim

« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2021, 22:50 »
0
;D ;D ;D ;D

Getty is more or less broke. It is completely financed with debt and will be out of business once interest rates rise

 :-X

NOT having debt when interest rates are near 0 is the foolish move & most companies know it's cheaper to pay w other peoples' money,  while your debt 'decreases' thru inflation.  and debt can be hedged against the unlikely event of near term interest rates.  it's one of the reasons capitalism does work


« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2021, 00:27 »
0
Whatever. Getty is two steps away from bankruptcy and we will see this sooner than later. Now tell them why capitalism is strangling their throats and they do the same to their contributors.......


Quote
NOT having debt when interest rates are near 0 is the foolish move & most companies know it's cheaper to pay w other peoples' money,  while your debt 'decreases' thru inflation.  and debt can be hedged against the unlikely event of near term interest rates.  it's one of the reasons capitalism does work


« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2021, 01:52 »
+2
like any non-fungible, it's worth what someone will pay for it - what's the intrinsic value of an oil-stained canvas? why is it worth more if Picasso applied the oil[paint] to the canvas?

most photos are worth less because they're now commodities in the context of buyers of stock.  it's not that stockagencies are giving artists so little (a different discussion but one that many keep conflating), it's that the worth of photos has declined precipitously - in the 70s-80 agencies sold  images for $300-1000+ for the same purposes they're  used now when they only cost  $1


I think its a bit more than that. While I agree with what you say, I also think that the idea of selling your Picasso for the same price, and in the same place, as my 30 second breakfast eggs photoshoot was and continues to be a contributor to the decline.

I wonder if a hybrid would work? I remember back in the day my ideal agency had tiers, where the better the work (subjective and hard to measure, I know) the higher the sell price. I wonder if some agency will simply have a permanent free section where the vast majority of product is exactly that. All the stuff every shooter starts out with and doesn't cost extra to produce.

It would give artists something to aim for, increasing their quality and creativity to a point where it generates earnings. Much as I love this industry and have for the past 15 plus years, so much of the collections are, in my opinion (and including some of my own stuff), not even worth the 1-10 cents that are charged for them. It could also train buyers into recognizing that quality should cost more, compete with the free agencies already out there, and maybe get some of those talented people onboard to sell work instead of giving it away...

I know, pipe dream..

Edit: Oooh, and do a plan like 10-5-1. Ten freebies, 5 paid, 1 Premium, all for the low low price of xxx. That way you don't have harvesters soaking up all the free stuff.
You have a point but its in the hands of artists to choose their sales channels. If you can get your painting in an art gallery you wouldn't be selling others on a street corner as the value would plummet.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2021, 09:06 »
0
How about the more an image sells, the higher the price gets?...something in more demand should have more monetary value. There should be an optimal price to make both the agency and the artist the most money.
What about rarity of supply?
Trouble with that is where it's easy to track sales, it's a bit more difficult to track availablity, within and across sites.
But it should count for something. "This is the exact subject you want, and this is the only one you can get."
Ha! Dream on! Once I happened to have a photo, properly captioned and keyworded, of the exact place a newsworthy incident happened, the only one anywhere of that rather unremarkable location - and the Beeb and other media which covered the event took a 'near enough' image from Google Earth. Ho-hum. Can't compete with 'free'.  :(

In truth, I'm sure I was never 'in' the competition, I'm sure they just went straight to GE and satisficed.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 11:56 by ShadySue »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2021, 11:45 »
+2
Neither SS nor Getty are for sale, and neither has an expected large future growth potential.

Getty Images is the world's leading supplier of imagery for the media, corporate, and advertising sectors. They aren't in trouble just because IS is wasting away. Mark Harris Getty: Net Worth: $500 million: Source of Wealth: Getty Oil / Getty Images. Not as rich as Jon, but he'll scrape by.  ;D

wds

« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2021, 14:43 »
+1
How about the more an image sells, the higher the price gets?...something in more demand should have more monetary value. There should be an optimal price to make both the agency and the artist the most money.
What about rarity of supply?
Trouble with that is where it's easy to track sales, it's a bit more difficult to track availablity, within and across sites.
But it should count for something. "This is the exact subject you want, and this is the only one you can get."
Ha! Dream on! Once I happened to have a photo, properly captioned and keyworded, of the exact place a newsworthy incident happened, the only one anywhere of that rather unremarkable location - and the Beeb and other media which covered the event took a 'near enough' image from Google Earth. Ho-hum. Can't compete with 'free'.  :(

In truth, I'm sure I was never 'in' the competition, I'm sure they just went straight to GE and satisficed.

There seems to be an assumption that customers will continually hunt around for the lowest price for every image they want, but many customers buy into a supplier or two with monthly purchase packages etc.. It would still make sense for them to "pay more" (say spend 5 credits instead of 1 credit for an image) for an image that they really want (and typically that would be an image that demonstrated desirability by its number of downloads).

After all, there are so-called high end stock sites that charge way more that micro-stock prices. They boast "curated collections"....well simple, if an image on a micro-stock site has sold a bunch of times....that would be it's "curation" mechanism and it should fetch a higher price. It would have to be within reason so that the customer won't go to another site and try to find it, but it seems there is a middle ground of pricing where it should work. In addition, the stock site will make more money as well, so that would be their incentive to enact such a mechanism.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 14:46 by wds »

« Reply #46 on: March 29, 2021, 18:46 »
0
Whatever. Getty is two steps away from bankruptcy and we will see this sooner than later. Now tell them why capitalism is strangling their throats and they do the same to their contributors.......


Quote
NOT having debt when interest rates are near 0 is the foolish move & most companies know it's cheaper to pay w other peoples' money,  while your debt 'decreases' thru inflation.  and debt can be hedged against the unlikely event of near term interest rates.  it's one of the reasons capitalism does work

our form of capitalism doesn't care about failing companies - it's baked into the system. unfortunately it's usually the workers rather than shareholders who suffer the most


« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2021, 14:22 »
+1
The question I rarely see these days is, given the over supply of quality images, plus the growing popularity of free sites is this:

What is a photo actually worth these days? And why?

There is an old saying, "If you don't value yourself, no one else will value you either."   I was a used bookseller back in the early days of Amazon.com when all they sold was books.  I had over 30,000 books for sale.  Like microstock today, the competition was fierce.  Most of my books were listed for sale for $0.01 (One Cent). Not because I wanted to sell them for that, but because that was the going price for 90% of the books on Amazon at that time.  The only way to make money was to save on packaging and take your profits out of that standard S&H fee that amazon automatically tacted on the sale of books. Fortunately, I had some equipment and supplies leftover from a  previous failed company, and through some creative thinking, I was able to save some money and make about $0.25 a book.

So what does this have to do with microstock?  I see the same thing happening as what happened on Amazon.  Everybody is trying to cut everyone else's throat by dropping prices so low that it is not profitable to stay in business. This is exactly what happened on Amazon.com, and eBay as well.  People were selling everything so cheap that nobody could make a profit.  But look at those markets today.  You won't find books on amazon for a penny no more these days.  eBay likewise has balanced out and it is hard to find a steal on their anyone as well.  At some point, those markets figured out that trying to kill each other off by undercutting prices, was only hurting themselves.  Those markets eventually balanced out to where people could at least make a living doing them.

I think the same will happen with microstock.  Eventually, these companies will stop trying to undercut each other because it will get to the point that the prices are so low that no one can make a living at it.  Then the market will start to find a balance where it at least make it worth the effort to do it.  Right now, no one is making money.  Not real money.  If you calculate the investment in equipment, and the time spent, 99% of people would earn far more flipping burgers at McDonalds. If your cost plus labor does not equal profitability equal or greater than minimum wage, you are losing money doing it. Plain and simple.

I believe, or at least I hope, the market will balance out, and the people that create the content will start to value their work and refuse to sell it for pennies.  Because if you don't value your work, nobody else will either. Once photographers realize the truth of this statement and band together and say, NO MORE!, things will get better for everyone.




farbled

« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2021, 14:50 »
0
I believe, or at least I hope, the market will balance out, and the people that create the content will start to value their work and refuse to sell it for pennies.  Because if you don't value your work, nobody else will either. Once photographers realize the truth of this statement and band together and say, NO MORE!, things will get better for everyone.

Lol, funny about the Amazon comment (or maybe ironic) since I listed one of my thrillers there today as a free promotion (Flashback, by TR Davis if anyone gets bored). However, I am unsure it will balance out as you say. I think that the future (if there is one) lies with exclusivity and scarcity of specific niches. I think as I've said previously that if there is a tangible and real dollar cost to production, you won't see the images on freebie or discount sites as often.

The bad side is there is a huge collection of these kinds of images that in many cases don't become dated, already available. We've seen that users will choose "free and good enough" as often as they do "expensive and perfect". At least it appears that way.

« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2021, 15:02 »
+1

Lol, funny about the Amazon comment (or maybe ironic) since I listed one of my thrillers there today as a free promotion (Flashback, by TR Davis if anyone gets bored). However, I am unsure it will balance out as you say. I think that the future (if there is one) lies with exclusivity and scarcity of specific niches. I think as I've said previously that if there is a tangible and real dollar cost to production, you won't see the images on freebie or discount sites as often.

The bad side is there is a huge collection of these kinds of images that in many cases don't become dated, already available. We've seen that users will choose "free and good enough" as often as they do "expensive and perfect". At least it appears that way.

As a publisher myself, I know all about the limited free giveaway promotion period that amazon offers. But my point stands that you don't see books selling for a penny anymore, and they are way more books available now than when I was selling over 20 years ago.  So mass supply does not have to equal any value you, as many microstock sellers think.  Just because there is an almost unlimited supply of images, does not make those images worth less.  People bought books for a penny on amazon back when I was selling, NOT because they would not pay more, but because that is what sellers were valuing their books at.  People will pay a lot more for pictures then they are now, but why pay more when they can get them for little or nothing, because that is what people are selling them for.

These free sites are not free.  They are making money on ad revenue, because they can make more money from ads, than trying to sell them outright.  Once the market balances out and people can make decent money from selling images, all that content on the free sites will go away.  Those sites only exist because the stock agencies have made it less profitable to sell images than to give them away for free and make money from ads. 

farbled

« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2021, 16:00 »
0
As a publisher myself, I know all about the limited free giveaway promotion period that amazon offers. But my point stands that you don't see books selling for a penny anymore, and they are way more books available now than when I was selling over 20 years ago.  So mass supply does not have to equal any value you, as many microstock sellers think.  Just because there is an almost unlimited supply of images, does not make those images worth less.  People bought books for a penny on amazon back when I was selling, NOT because they would not pay more, but because that is what sellers were valuing their books at.  People will pay a lot more for pictures then they are now, but why pay more when they can get them for little or nothing, because that is what people are selling them for.

These free sites are not free.  They are making money on ad revenue, because they can make more money from ads, than trying to sell them outright.  Once the market balances out and people can make decent money from selling images, all that content on the free sites will go away.  Those sites only exist because the stock agencies have made it less profitable to sell images than to give them away for free and make money from ads.

Well we disagree on one part. I think mass supply or unlimited supply does mean they are worth less than what they were previously worth. As for Amazon, yes, they don't sell for a penny anymore, but an increase in price across the board is not the same as an increase in sales. As an indie author and part of many groups, I can tell you that it is very similar to micro in that you can set whatever price you wish, but it does not necessarily mean it will sell. The volume of new books nowadays does mean that unless you are lucky or spend the effort on marketing, you won't sell at all. So what is is actually worth? I guess it depends on the perspective of buyer vs. seller.

I have over 12k stock photos just sitting on a hard drive and only 5k or so left online. There is no value to me to put them up somewhere for sale. So, they'll sit there til I need the drive for something else, then I will delete them probably. Am I valuing them higher or lower because I wont sell them for pennies? It's irrelevant if they don't sell. IMHO.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 16:11 by farbled »

« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2021, 16:21 »
0
Well we disagree on one part. I think mass supply or unlimited supply does mean they are worth less than what they were previously worth. As for Amazon, yes, they don't sell for a penny anymore, but an increase in price across the board is not the same as an increase in sales. As an indie author and part of many groups, I can tell you that it is very similar to micro in that you can set whatever price you wish, but it does not necessarily mean it will sell. The volume of new books nowadays does mean that unless you are lucky or spend the effort on marketing, you won't sell at all. So what is is actually worth? I guess it depends on the perspective of buyer vs. seller.

I have over 12k stock photos just sitting on a hard drive and only 5k or so left online. There is no value to me to put them up somewhere for sale. So, they'll sit there til I need the drive for something else, then I will delete them probably. Am I valuing them higher or lower because I wont sell them for pennies?

You are misunderstanding me.  Just because books don't sell for a penny on amazon anymore, does not automatically mean they sell for a hundred bucks.  There is a balance. Rarity does equal high value, but abundance does not have to equal zero value. Demand plays a part, but so does valuing your work. 20 years ago, stock images use to sell for hundreds each. That was because photographers that had the capacity to create and upload images were few and there was a ravenous market demand for content.  Honestly, those images were sold way above their value.  Now they are selling way beneath their value. 

There is a value for stock images.  What that value is, is simple to calculate. It is, Cost+Labor+Profit = Value.  The amount of time, energy, and equipment invested in creating the content is part of the value of the content.  But people cannot work for free, they must have food and shelter too, so profit is part of the value.  In order for something to be worth doing, it must be able to sustain you. 

Right now there are tons of people running around wasting endless amounts of time energy and resources to capture photos and sell them at a loss.  With time, when they see that it is is not worth it, they will stop and this well of free slave labor that stock agencies are taking advantage of will begin to dry up. It is already happening.  You are an example of this in that you have tons of images that are worth nothing and you may delete them.  I too, like you have not uploaded any new images for over a year and have many thousands of images on a drive.  How many more are there like us?  Well, this trend will grow, slowly, but it will grow until the agencies will start to cry out for new content and will have to raise prices to bring back creators. How long in the future will this be?  I do not know.  I may not live long enough to see it.  But regardless, there is a value to images.  That value will never be what it once was, and it is definitely what it is now.  The value of images is greater than the cost and labor to create them, that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this. 

farbled

« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2021, 16:42 »
+1
You are misunderstanding me.  Just because books don't sell for a penny on amazon anymore, does not automatically mean they sell for a hundred bucks.  There is a balance. Rarity does equal high value, but abundance does not have to equal zero value. Demand plays a part, but so does valuing your work. 20 years ago, stock images use to sell for hundreds each. That was because photographers that had the capacity to create and upload images were few and there was a ravenous market demand for content.  Honestly, those images were sold way above their value.  Now they are selling way beneath their value. 

There is a value for stock images.  What that value is, is simple to calculate. It is, Cost+Labor+Profit = Value.  The amount of time, energy, and equipment invested in creating the content is part of the value of the content.  But people cannot work for free, they must have food and shelter too, so profit is part of the value.  In order for something to be worth doing, it must be able to sustain you. 

Right now there are tons of people running around wasting endless amounts of time energy and resources to capture photos and sell them at a loss.  With time, when they see that it is is not worth it, they will stop and this well of free slave labor that stock agencies are taking advantage of will begin to dry up. It is already happening.  You are an example of this in that you have tons of images that are worth nothing and you may delete them.  I too, like you have not uploaded any new images for over a year and have many thousands of images on a drive.  How many more are there like us?  Well, this trend will grow, slowly, but it will grow until the agencies will start to cry out for new content and will have to raise prices to bring back creators. How long in the future will this be?  I do not know.  I may not live long enough to see it.  But regardless, there is a value to images.  That value will never be what it once was, and it is definitely what it is now.  The value of images is greater than the cost and labor to create them, that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this.

I think we are coming to the same point from different directions. Yes, there is value in some/many of the images produced and someday we may see the balance you refer to. I highly doubt it, but it is possible, and I don't think anyone around today will see it. I suspect there will be innovations that make the entire pyramid redundant and kill the industry much the same way micro killed off most of the RM market.

How I value my work is exactly how I did in the beginning when I saw the RM Pros jump into the RF market and devalue quality work. I preferred the original MS premise, b-roll or hobby shots sold to an audience that otherwise either could not afford RM or to hire their own photographer. I tailored my entire RF career around that premise. The extras from paid shoots, my 30 second shoots of my meals, a walk outside, all earning me the exact same as the "pros" who took hours to get that special shot. I've travelled the world a few times on my earnings. :)

Anyway, interesting discussion. Thanks.

« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2021, 17:40 »
0
You are misunderstanding me.  Just because books don't sell for a penny on amazon anymore, does not automatically mean they sell for a hundred bucks.  There is a balance. Rarity does equal high value, but abundance does not have to equal zero value. Demand plays a part, but so does valuing your work. 20 years ago, stock images use to sell for hundreds each. That was because photographers that had the capacity to create and upload images were few and there was a ravenous market demand for content.  Honestly, those images were sold way above their value.  Now they are selling way beneath their value. 

There is a value for stock images.  What that value is, is simple to calculate. It is, Cost+Labor+Profit = Value.  The amount of time, energy, and equipment invested in creating the content is part of the value of the content.  But people cannot work for free, they must have food and shelter too, so profit is part of the value.  In order for something to be worth doing, it must be able to sustain you. 

Right now there are tons of people running around wasting endless amounts of time energy and resources to capture photos and sell them at a loss.  With time, when they see that it is is not worth it, they will stop and this well of free slave labor that stock agencies are taking advantage of will begin to dry up. It is already happening.  You are an example of this in that you have tons of images that are worth nothing and you may delete them.  I too, like you have not uploaded any new images for over a year and have many thousands of images on a drive.  How many more are there like us?  Well, this trend will grow, slowly, but it will grow until the agencies will start to cry out for new content and will have to raise prices to bring back creators. How long in the future will this be?  I do not know.  I may not live long enough to see it.  But regardless, there is a value to images.  That value will never be what it once was, and it is definitely what it is now.  The value of images is greater than the cost and labor to create them, that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this.

I think we are coming to the same point from different directions. Yes, there is value in some/many of the images produced and someday we may see the balance you refer to. I highly doubt it, but it is possible, and I don't think anyone around today will see it. I suspect there will be innovations that make the entire pyramid redundant and kill the industry much the same way micro killed off most of the RM market.

How I value my work is exactly how I did in the beginning when I saw the RM Pros jump into the RF market and devalue quality work. I preferred the original MS premise, b-roll or hobby shots sold to an audience that otherwise either could not afford RM or to hire their own photographer. I tailored my entire RF career around that premise. The extras from paid shoots, my 30 second shoots of my meals, a walk outside, all earning me the exact same as the "pros" who took hours to get that special shot. I've travelled the world a few times on my earnings. :)

Anyway, interesting discussion. Thanks.

Liekwise. Good conversation.  I have traveled a lot as well, but was not doing serious photography at that time 40 years ago.  I still take pictures though.  I was out at the lake just yesterday with my 600mm lens shooting pictures of coots. Not the best shots but, I just enjoy doing it.



farbled

« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2021, 17:51 »
0
Liekwise. Good conversation.  I have traveled a lot as well, but was not doing serious photography at that time 40 years ago.  I still take pictures though.  I was out at the lake just yesterday with my 600mm lens shooting pictures of coots. Not the best shots but, I just enjoy doing it.

Nice! I got my first camera in the 80's but never got serious about photography til around 2003 as an add-on to my web design side of things, and fell in love with the camera. I discovered stock later as a nice enhancement to shooting events and industrial gigs. I do miss vacation shooting through.

« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2021, 18:28 »
0

Liekwise. Good conversation.  I have traveled a lot as well, but was not doing serious photography at that time 40 years ago.  I still take pictures though.  I was out at the lake just yesterday with my 600mm lens shooting pictures of coots. Not the best shots but, I just enjoy doing it.

Nice! I got my first camera in the 80's but never got serious about photography til around 2003 as an add-on to my web design side of things, and fell in love with the camera. I discovered stock later as a nice enhancement to shooting events and industrial gigs. I do miss vacation shooting through.

You and I share a lot in common. I also have taken pictures since the 80s,but only family stuff.  It was not until I got into digital photography in 2003 when I got my first serious digital camera, which was the Sony Mavica CD500.  I went with the Mavica CD because, at the time, memory cards were about a dollar a megabit (100MB card = $100).  The Mavicas CD used mini CDs which could hold 200MB and cost about $2 a disc.  I was running a remote Malaria clinic in the Amazon jungle at the time and I needed a camera that I could take hundreds of pictures with, without needing to offload the pictures to free up memory.  The Mavica CD was the only camera that fit that bill, and it was not a bad camera for its time. 5MP and Carl Zeiss lens. Some of my highest-selling pictures today were taken with that lowly camera back then, and I really had no clue what I was doing. But because of the freedom of having unlimited storage with the mini CDs, I could just snap away to my heart's content.  Man, I wish I had the strength and youth to go back and shoot those shots today with my equipment now. I look at those shots often and am just amazed at the opportunities I had back then that I did not appreciate. That is why I continue to take the best shots I can today.  They may be worth nothing to sell, but they are with something to me.

Here is a picture I took in 2003 with that camera.  This is called a Rooster-tailed Cicada.



« Last Edit: March 31, 2021, 19:47 by thenatureguy »

farbled

« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2021, 18:42 »
0
You and I share a lot in common. I also have taken pictures since the 80s,but only family stuff.  It was not until I got into digital photography in 2003 when I got my first serious digital camera, which was the Sony Mavica CD500.  I went with the Mavica CD because, at the time, memory cards were about a dollar a megabit (100MB card = $100).  The Mavicas CD used mini CDs which could hold 200MB and cost about $2 a disc.  I was running a remote Malaria clinic in the Amazon jungle at the time and I needed a camera that I could take hundreds of pictures with, without needing to offload the pictures to free up memory.  The Mavica CD was the only camera that fit that bill, and it was not a bad camera for its time. 5MP and Carl Zeiss lens. Some of my highest-selling pictures today were taken with that lowly camera back then, and I really had no clue what I was doing. But because of the freedom of having unlimited storage with the mini CDs, I could just snap away to my heart's content.  Man, I wish I had the strength and youth to go back and shoot those shots today with my equipment now. I look at those shots often and am just amazed at the opportunities I had back then that I did not appreciate. That is why I continue to take the best shots I can today.  They may be worth nothing to sell, but they are with something to me.

Here is a picture I took in 2003 with that camera.  This is called a Rooster-tailed Cicada.
Very similar! I had a Panasonic something or other and then got serious with an Olympus e-500 when they came out in 2005 (I think). Hands down the single most user friendly camera I ever owned, which was perfect for event shooting. Your clinic sounds fulfilling. I was (am) on the other side of the health spectrum, and took my earnings to see the world while I could. I am happy I did, pandemic notwithstanding.

And yes, I wish I could go back with my "stock brain" and what I know now about shooting, and do it again. I'd be doing things much differently for sure. :)



« Reply #57 on: April 01, 2021, 01:16 »
0
Books are physical entities you can download a lot of kindle books for free and there are other sites that allow the download many "classics". People seek out individual authors or books. This only applies to a tiny number of photographers so I don't think its a very parallel comparison. People also pay to have their books published.

« Reply #58 on: April 02, 2021, 07:30 »
0
Books are physical entities you can download a lot of kindle books for free and there are other sites that allow the download many "classics". People seek out individual authors or books. This only applies to a tiny number of photographers so I don't think its a very parallel comparison. People also pay to have their books published.

Okay, have it your way. There is zero hope and anyone who gives a reason why there might be is wrong because you desire that everything they say to the contrary to be wrong because you want it that way, and will dig as deep as you need to to find a way to argue about it.  Geez! Some people's children! ROFL!

« Reply #59 on: April 03, 2021, 00:59 »
+2
Books are physical entities you can download a lot of kindle books for free and there are other sites that allow the download many "classics". People seek out individual authors or books. This only applies to a tiny number of photographers so I don't think its a very parallel comparison. People also pay to have their books published.

Okay, have it your way. There is zero hope and anyone who gives a reason why there might be is wrong because you desire that everything they say to the contrary to be wrong because you want it that way, and will dig as deep as you need to to find a way to argue about it.  Geez! Some people's children! ROFL!
Wishing the world was different doesn't make it so.

« Reply #60 on: April 04, 2021, 00:55 »
0
Books are physical entities you can download a lot of kindle books for free and there are other sites that allow the download many "classics". People seek out individual authors or books. This only applies to a tiny number of photographers so I don't think its a very parallel comparison. People also pay to have their books published.

Okay, have it your way. There is zero hope and anyone who gives a reason why there might be is wrong because you desire that everything they say to the contrary to be wrong because you want it that way, and will dig as deep as you need to to find a way to argue about it.  Geez! Some people's children! ROFL!

yet another pot calling the kettle....  at least they had actual content rather more blather

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #61 on: April 04, 2021, 09:20 »
+1
  The value of images is greater than the cost and labor to create them, that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this.

Keeping things simple, I don't think so.

We have digital cameras, digital editing, world distribution for anyone who cares to take a picture of something and a world of people who think they can make money with their snapshots, taken with phones.

Folk music is not coming back  ;), printed books are just about dead (ask Borders, B. Dalton, Crown and a long list of others), stock photography is inundated with material that far surpasses any demand.

Maybe people aren't selling books on Amazon or eBay for a tiny profit by over charging for shipping, but they aren't making money and there's not much demand. I see books that are way over valued, that will never sell. Asking price is not selling price. But just like the fallacy of the Internet wisdom, an infinite echo chamber of disinformation, people see someone else has a price of $29 on an old book, so they price theirs at $29.

Resale shops don't even put books out for sale in many places. They just recycle them as paper. You can't sell old books for a quarter and books take up space, low demand, almost no market. Sad because I like and save and collect books, but that's the real world.

Most common books are of virtually no value, no market anymore. Just like the market for the flood of common Microstock images has driven down the price for our work.

Neither is going to make some comeback in value, ever.

ps Getty will not buy Shutterstock, Shutterstock will not buy Getty. Neither is for sale and no one wants either of them as they are not growth businesses right now. All the value has been drained from Getty, for a long time and SS has to find something other than stock images or they will just be flat. Investors want growth. Buyers want untapped resources, that can be turned into profits. Neither Shutterstock nor Getty has either.

farbled

« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2021, 10:35 »
0
Folk music is not coming back  ;), printed books are just about dead (ask Borders, B. Dalton, Crown and a long list of others), stock photography is inundated with material that far surpasses any demand.

Maybe people aren't selling books on Amazon or eBay for a tiny profit by over charging for shipping, but they aren't making money and there's not much demand. I see books that are way over valued, that will never sell. Asking price is not selling price. But just like the fallacy of the Internet wisdom, an infinite echo chamber of disinformation, people see someone else has a price of $29 on an old book, so they price theirs at $29.

Folk music will never die.

As for print books, as an indie-author I can tell you that Amazon charges through the nose for it to be done. For me to make even a few cents I have to start pricing (for a 300 page paperback) at 9.99. They say you get 60% royalty, but first, they do the print cost which is 5 bucks. So I should be making 60% on the other 4.99 bucks right? Nope. I make 70 cents, and the customer still pays shipping on top of that. Why? Because they are a public company and those are all run by accountants who find interesting ways to math things to increase profit. I had it explained to me once but I cannot remember exactly how they justified it. Anyway, wasn't worth the effort so I don't do print anymore.



« Reply #63 on: April 04, 2021, 10:48 »
0
I can't agree about Folk music. Live music as a face to face experience will always have a following I think and Folk music especially as an "authentic" experience. Before lockdown some artists were making a small living by playing private gigs in people's houses. Things that can't be mass replicated on the internet will do well  which is why if I wanted to make a living at photography I'd be looking at workshops/coaching/events rather than web based activities...other than marketing. If you have good interpersonal skills and live in a photogenic location it seems you can charge very good money to "teach" photography which with todays equipment is hardly challenging.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #64 on: April 04, 2021, 11:08 »
0
Folk music is not coming back  ;),
It never went away, and it's thriving, at least here.
E.g. the Celtic Connections festival in Glasgow has been growing by the year and their virtual series this year was hugely popular, and of course attracted a much more international audience than can usually attend physically.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2021, 11:50 by ShadySue »

« Reply #65 on: April 04, 2021, 11:44 »
0
Folk music is not coming back  ;),
It never went away, and it's thriving, at least here.
E.g. the Celtic Connections festival in Gasgow has been growing by the year and their virtual series this year was hugely popular, and of course attracted a much more international audience than can usually attend physically.
As with many towns we have a regular Folk club in normal times....I wouldn't say people are flocking but it has a decent regular following.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #66 on: April 05, 2021, 12:01 »
0
Folk music is not coming back  ;)
Folk music will never die.


There's a positive view. OK everyone calm down... Folk Music is making a comeback was something I heard in the 70s. The some people in the 80s. It was always people who played folk music.  ;D

Sure Bluegrass also has a solid following, so does folk music. But you aren't going to have the Kingston Trio and the wave of fans of the 60s. There will not be a resurgence of Folk Music on the popular scene. (and hopefully not disco either?) Remember coffee houses and the blues? Not the modern blues, the kind of, hmm, Folk Music, blues? The beat generation is gone, replaced by the Hippies and they have been replaced by some other version of the same, with a new name.

A Mighty Wind, if you love folk music and haven't watched it, you "must". I bought a copy after the first time. But it's not going to mean as much to anyone who didn't grow up playing folk music or anyone who didn't live through the era when Folk Music was on top of the charts and a wave of popular music.

When folk icon Irving Steinbloom passed away, he left behind a legacy of music and a family of performers he has shepherded to folk stardom. To celebrate a life spent submerged in folk, Irving's loving son Jonathan has decided to put together a memorial concert featuring some of Steinbloom's best-loved musicians. There's Mitch and Mickey, who were the epitome of young love until their partnership was torn apart by heartbreak; classic troubadours The Folksmen, whose records were endlessly entertaining for anyone able to punch a hole in the center to play them; and The New Main Street Singers, the most meticulously color-coordinated neuftet ever to hit an amusement park. Now for one night only in New York City's Town Hall, these three groups will reunite and gather together to celebrate the music that almost made them famous.

Sorry just like Microstock will not make a big comeback when we start to get paid what we should, and books will not make a comeback in print form, Folk Music will not be making a comeback, along with many other things that people wish would return to popularity, but something, interests and passions, pass into history. Especially when the WWW and internet and digital things have replaced them.

Who here still has a dial phone, or a modem? Who still uses a flip phone (besides people who refuse to accept smart phones?) How many people still shoot film? Where do you find it? Film will always be, but it's not going to make a comeback. Now hula hoops and yoyo's yes they might come back around again?  ::)


Tenebroso

« Reply #67 on: April 05, 2021, 12:10 »
0
 :) :) :) :) :)


I think the hula hoops, I think a study came out that it was not good for the hip. However, perhaps it can be back in fashion. Mad World. It is used in fitness and is sold on Amazon today.

« Reply #68 on: April 05, 2021, 21:39 »
0
.....

A Mighty Wind, if you love folk music and haven't watched it, you "must". I bought a copy after the first time. But it's not going to mean as much to anyone who didn't grow up playing folk music or anyone who didn't live through the era when Folk Music was on top of the charts and a wave of popular music.
 

beyond folk alone there's blues, zydeco etc - the Portland Blues festival was growing every year before covid & will be back eventually - wonderful site on the banks of the Willamette & 2 large stages so no wait between acts for setting up, plus several smaller venues for acoustic, etc

Mighty Wind is great but my favorite is still "Best in Show"  - watch the Westminster RL show before or after for as long as you can stand it & you'll appreciate it even more.  Christopher Guest has a loyal band of brother/sisters who appear in most films.  I used to attend cat shows w friends - one with a cougar, another who raised siamese and Berstbin Show fits that action as well

Waiting for Guffman is a take on community theatre - all are watchable many times. (Guest was also an actor in Spinal Tap)

and Eugene Levy & son just finished a run of their series 'Schitt's Creek', well w/in the Guest tradition

these are all streaming on netflix, and at least some on amazon prime or hulu

« Reply #69 on: April 06, 2021, 01:51 »
0
There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #70 on: April 06, 2021, 10:48 »
0
.....

A Mighty Wind, if you love folk music and haven't watched it, you "must". I bought a copy after the first time. But it's not going to mean as much to anyone who didn't grow up playing folk music or anyone who didn't live through the era when Folk Music was on top of the charts and a wave of popular music.
 

beyond folk alone there's blues, zydeco etc - the Portland Blues festival was growing every year before covid & will be back eventually - wonderful site on the banks of the Willamette & 2 large stages so no wait between acts for setting up, plus several smaller venues for acoustic, etc

Mighty Wind is great but my favorite is still "Best in Show"  - watch the Westminster RL show before or after for as long as you can stand it & you'll appreciate it even more.  Christopher Guest has a loyal band of brother/sisters who appear in most films.  I used to attend cat shows w friends - one with a cougar, another who raised siamese and Berstbin Show fits that action as well

Waiting for Guffman is a take on community theatre - all are watchable many times. (Guest was also an actor in Spinal Tap)

and Eugene Levy & son just finished a run of their series 'Schitt's Creek', well w/in the Guest tradition

these are all streaming on netflix, and at least some on amazon prime or hulu

We never watched "Schitt's Creek" maybe I'll give it a try. Yes, Best in Show is much more popular overall. My personal take on that is, people who played guitar and sang and did the whole folk thing as kids, will have a better appreciation of what it was like, living at the time and the music.

There's a place local that has folk music, open stage Wed. This is actually one of the historic centers for the Blues Trail and Blues recording (who would imagine that, when there are obvious other places like Chicago, Memphis, New Orleans and... more!) What do we have? Country bars, many of them. No make that too many of them.  ;) Blues bar? miles to the closest in the city.

So the obvious, when I win the lottery, is open a Blues BBQ joint. We may have no music business but will have good food. I've always said, and I've been in the business, the only way to have a bar or restaurant, is have so much money, that you can run it, without caring that you'll never make a profit. Nothing but headaches.

Reminds me of Microstock. Some do well, some make it, most are running a losing business, where expenses are greater than profits.

Just going to ad this which won't show as new, but does anyone care? I'm pretty sure, not.

Amazon: Amazon has an extra $1.80 fee per book, and the normal 99 cent per-item charge. That plus shipping, and if you sell a book for $5.78, not including packaging, tape, labels... it would be a loss. There's a big reason why we don't see 1 cent books anymore.  ;D


« Last Edit: April 07, 2021, 09:39 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #71 on: April 07, 2021, 20:57 »
0


Amazon: Amazon has an extra $1.80 fee per book, and the normal 99 cent per-item charge. That plus shipping, and if you sell a book for $5.78, not including packaging, tape, labels... it would be a loss. There's a big reason why we don't see 1 cent books anymore.  ;D

yes, my breakeven point on amazon is $13-15 - i dont have minimum wage folk to fulfill my orders, so i've taken almost all my books off (if you pay a monthly fee, amazon's take fes down to $1/item, and a % still hits - basically you get 75-85% of the listed price + shipping gross  & minimum cost to ship is $3. and to do well you need to subscribe to a non-amazon service that automatic ally reprices your items against the competition  saving many hrs a week.   however, my comics inventory still does well at $20-24 each - just not the volume i'd like to see!

« Reply #72 on: April 07, 2021, 21:00 »
0
There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

yes, the classical music fad is fading after 400+ years (Bach - Glass)!  (i do take your point tho)

as yogi said, "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded"

« Reply #73 on: April 08, 2021, 00:32 »
0
There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

yes, the classical music fad is fading after 400+ years (Bach - Glass)!  (i do take your point tho)

as yogi said, "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded"
Gorecki....symphony no3. Lisztomania.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #74 on: April 08, 2021, 09:12 »
0
There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

yes, the classical music fad is fading after 400+ years (Bach - Glass)!  (i do take your point tho)

as yogi said, "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded"

That's the problem with classical, the songs are too long and the attention span is too short. Just a passing fad...  ;)

Csar Franck: Symphony in D minor

Holst - The Planets

But for a road trip, I always keep some Django Reinhardt with Stphane Grappelli, and the group. Nothing better for heading down the highway.

https://youtu.be/vVsC4UNYOHM


« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2021, 13:54 »
+1
As long as the Boomer generation survives, there will be a hearty market for paper books.  I have a couple of books on Amazon and make some money on them. Many people prefer reading paper over digital, I myself am one.  I used to subscribe to several print magazines.  Once they went all-digital, I stopped reading them.  It is not only reading digital text that bothers me.  Navigation on a digital device cannot beat picking up a real book and flipping through the pages. Some things are just better in real print. 

Real books will NEVER go out of style because of the simple fact that they do not require batteries, and you cannot just click a button and delete a book from the internet because you disagree with what it says, otherwise known as, "Cancel Culture" that is running amuck all over the web.  There has never in the history of books been a law made banning a paper book that was 100% successful.  That may not prove to be true with things on the internet.  Everything online can be tracked digitally and as the world becomes more unified digitally and establishes universally enforced international standards based on the personal ethics of a few elitist (already happening), they day may come in the future where they may decide that this or that book should not exist, and simply delete it from the web (or at least for all common folk).

Despite all the unfounded, opinion-based, protestations to the contrary, what I said about the used book market is 100% factual.  People are making a lot more money off of selling used books these days than they did 20 years ago.  I said it before, and I will say it again.  "If you don't value your product, nobody else will either."   Regardless of how oversaturated the market is with stock photos, there is a base value for them.  That value may not be hundreds of fo dollars each, but it is not zero either.  That value is whatever it is to make it worth people's time and effort to create the content.  If all the people who right now are not valuing their work, were to pull their content down, overnight, prices for content would shoot up.

As long as the slaves are willing to work for free, what incentive do these companies have to pay more?

« Reply #76 on: April 09, 2021, 23:14 »
0
There have always been crazes now more than ever maybe https://www.classical-music.com/features/articles/the-viral-sea-shanty-trend-sweeping-tiktok-we-explain-the-phenomenon/. These are short lived and by the time most people have jumped on the band wagon they are on the way out.

yes, the classical music fad is fading after 400+ years (Bach - Glass)!  (i do take your point tho)

as yogi said, "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded"

That's the problem with classical, the songs are too long and the attention span is too short. Just a passing fad...  ;)

Csar Franck: Symphony in D minor

Holst - The Planets

But for a road trip, I always keep some Django Reinhardt with Stphane Grappelli, and the group. Nothing better for heading down the highway.

https://youtu.be/vVsC4UNYOHM

bach - well tempered clavier - art of the  fugue -- all short pieces, chopin etudes, et al

for highways i rely on the dead - ripple - box of rain ...  or a philip glass opera


« Reply #77 on: April 09, 2021, 23:47 »
0
As long as the Boomer generation survives, there will be a hearty market for paper books.  I have a couple of books on Amazon and make some money on them. Many people prefer reading paper over digital, I myself am one.  I used to subscribe to several print magazines.  Once they went all-digital, I stopped reading them.  It is not only reading digital text that bothers me.  Navigation on a digital device cannot beat picking up a real book and flipping through the pages. Some things are just better in real print.  ....


wrong again -in fact, preferences for print/ebooks are similar across all generations

i read 50/100 books a year (60-70% kindle) plus 10+ print magazines/mo

navigation is easier on kindle - where else can you search an entire book for a name or phrase in seconds? or maintain dozens of notes, comments and bookmarks that are easily retrievable?  in our book club the kindle users are the ones to solve most questions!

kindle is usually cheaper, only regret is i can't give the book to a friend. ebook footnotes are much easier to use (DFW fans take notice!) and there's NO comparison to reading a 800+ page small print paperbook on a kindle!  my arthritic hands much prefer the kindle.

https://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page=2456

https://experteditor.com.au/blog/infographic-surprising-reading-habits-millennials/

https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=Reading-Through-the-Ages-Generational-Reading-Survey

Despite all the unfounded, opinion-based, protestations to the contrary, what I said about the used book market is 100% factual. ....

how can it be factual when you offer no actual evidence? and, anyone who disagrees with your (unsupported) claims is wrong?  one person showing the opposite of your claim makes the 100% statement untrue! maybe you're talking about selling your own books on amazon - but that's a miniscule part of the book market -- i've sold books on ebay / amazon since around 2000 and the market for MOST books has fallen thru the floor, as large booksellers can sell from the basement.  it's difficult to find any book that will bring you more than $5-10 gross and with amazon fees, shipping ($3-4 ), inventory management, anyone w/o low wage workers can't compete.  (my ebay/amazon monthly sales are 1-2 times what images bring in, but i've found my niche and have an inventory of over 1000 items and only a few dozen actual books still online)

« Reply #78 on: April 10, 2021, 00:02 »
0

There is a value for stock images.  What that value is, is simple to calculate. It is, Cost+Labor+Profit = Value.  The amount of time, energy, and equipment invested in creating the content is part of the value of the content.  But people cannot work for free, they must have food and shelter too, so profit is part of the value.  In order for something to be worth doing, it must be able to sustain you. 

no - that only applies if you're producing something in short supply - when you're producing a fungible commodity, the price is set by supply & demand, not intrinsic 'value'.  each artist must decide if the price works for her, but the market price is never  the same as 'value', as many a starving artist has discovered.


...Well, this trend will grow, slowly, but it will grow until the agencies will start to cry out for new content and will have to raise prices to bring back creators... that is what it is, and one day the market will reflect this.

yep, just like those buggywhip makers & ice delivery services who finally saw their markets come back!

there's no reason to believe agencies will raise their prices - basic economics says it won't happen - they already have more images than they need and there will always be even more people hoping to break in - newbies aren't going to quit til after they've submitted their images, so new blood will always be shed.

« Reply #79 on: April 10, 2021, 01:43 »
0
The value of anything is what someone is prepared to pay for it. If someone can't make a profit from that then indeed if its their living they should do something else. It is true that if huge numbers of people stopped submitting to free or microstock sites and withdrew images then the value would increase. There is simply no evidence that this is happening.  Just as with books the market for images has many segments which will fare differently. I can get a copy of Nicholas Nickleby for 1.50. A first edition is several hundred pounds. Microstock is a market for low production cost or mass appeal simple images for emphemeral marketing/blog purposes. If you are producing expensive ultra high quality images that are in demand then selling them on Mstock is the equivalent of selling first edition books in a car boot sale.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3112 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 16:50
by RT
82 Replies
20185 Views
Last post May 05, 2012, 17:35
by luissantos84
72 Replies
15750 Views
Last post December 08, 2013, 00:16
by Uncle Pete
13 Replies
10564 Views
Last post June 14, 2014, 11:28
by onepointfour
6 Replies
4564 Views
Last post September 27, 2019, 06:55
by Lola Ginabrigeta

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle