Author Topic: Highest price for a photo on Shutterstock. (Read 35894 times)

cascoly · « **Reply #125 on:** January 20, 2022, 14:25 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 19, 2022, 11:35

The higher sales for me are usually not the best sellers, but surprise sales even of older images. Why customers chose exactly this photo is honestly a mystery to me. Here are 4 example of sales around 100$, the first and second one was made on the side with the iPhone.

same here - you just never know what a buyer needs - which is why the rejections for LCV are rediculous

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #126 on:** January 21, 2022, 14:09 »

Quote from: cascoly on January 20, 2022, 14:25

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 19, 2022, 11:35

The higher sales for me are usually not the best sellers, but surprise sales even of older images. Why customers chose exactly this photo is honestly a mystery to me. Here are 4 example of sales around 100$, the first and second one was made on the side with the iPhone.

same here - you just never know what a buyer needs - which is why the rejections for LCV are rediculous

If anyone is feeling bad about LCV, and I'd agree, let the buyer decide not some reviewers personal opinion, I want to share my first rejection in maybe a year on DT.

Your image might not be suitable as a stock image because of one or more of the following reasons:

We have reviewed your file and this is not quite what we're looking for. Please note that this image is not eligible for resubmission.

Image is not RF stock oriented or its sales potential is too low at this stage. Please note that Stock photography is a commercial type of imagery, so, snapshots are not Stock. It is also very important to understand that Art and Stock are two fundamentally different categories of imagery, that only meet when an artwork can adapt to a wide range of commercial usage.

Lack of concept.

This event is too old and no longer presents interest in the editorial section.

Holy Cow! I should have had a can of this before I uploaded?

I feel like I've gone back in time to grade school.

ps Accepted at Adobe Stock...

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #127 on:** January 21, 2022, 15:15 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 21, 2022, 14:09

Quote from: cascoly on January 20, 2022, 14:25
Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 19, 2022, 11:35

The higher sales for me are usually not the best sellers, but surprise sales even of older images. Why customers chose exactly this photo is honestly a mystery to me. Here are 4 example of sales around 100$, the first and second one was made on the side with the iPhone.

same here - you just never know what a buyer needs - which is why the rejections for LCV are rediculous

If anyone is feeling bad about LCV, and I'd agree, let the buyer decide not some reviewers personal opinion, I want to share my first rejection in maybe a year on DT.

Your image might not be suitable as a stock image because of one or more of the following reasons:

We have reviewed your file and this is not quite what we're looking for. Please note that this image is not eligible for resubmission.

Image is not RF stock oriented or its sales potential is too low at this stage. Please note that Stock photography is a commercial type of imagery, so, snapshots are not Stock. It is also very important to understand that Art and Stock are two fundamentally different categories of imagery, that only meet when an artwork can adapt to a wide range of commercial usage.

Lack of concept.

This event is too old and no longer presents interest in the editorial section.

Holy Cow! I should have had a can of this before I uploaded?

I feel like I've gone back in time to grade school.

ps Accepted at Adobe Stock...

Pete, at Dreamstime I don't even pay attention to the rare reasons for rejection.
But the rejection of german style lager because of lack of sales potential hits me personally.

thijsdegraaf · « **Reply #128 on:** January 21, 2022, 15:23 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 21, 2022, 15:15

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 21, 2022, 14:09
Quote from: cascoly on January 20, 2022, 14:25
Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 19, 2022, 11:35

The higher sales for me are usually not the best sellers, but surprise sales even of older images. Why customers chose exactly this photo is honestly a mystery to me. Here are 4 example of sales around 100$, the first and second one was made on the side with the iPhone.

same here - you just never know what a buyer needs - which is why the rejections for LCV are rediculous

If anyone is feeling bad about LCV, and I'd agree, let the buyer decide not some reviewers personal opinion, I want to share my first rejection in maybe a year on DT.

Your image might not be suitable as a stock image because of one or more of the following reasons:

We have reviewed your file and this is not quite what we're looking for. Please note that this image is not eligible for resubmission.

Image is not RF stock oriented or its sales potential is too low at this stage. Please note that Stock photography is a commercial type of imagery, so, snapshots are not Stock. It is also very important to understand that Art and Stock are two fundamentally different categories of imagery, that only meet when an artwork can adapt to a wide range of commercial usage.

Lack of concept.

This event is too old and no longer presents interest in the editorial section.

Holy Cow! I should have had a can of this before I uploaded?

I feel like I've gone back in time to grade school.

ps Accepted at Adobe Stock...

Pete, at Dreamstime I don't even pay attention to the rare reasons for rejection.
But the rejection of german style lager because of lack of sales potential hits me personally.

As long as it's not our Dutch Heineken, I don't care.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #129 on:** January 21, 2022, 16:09 »

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 15:23

As long as it's not our Dutch Heineken, I don't care.

Thijs, do you know that we in Germany call Heineken "Grachtenpisse" (dutch canal pee)

Seriously, you guys have excellent specialty brews. However, you think in smaller dimensions. While we drink away half liters here, you sip on your 0.2 liter glasses (klein biertje flutje)

thijsdegraaf · « **Reply #130 on:** January 21, 2022, 16:17 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 21, 2022, 16:09

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 15:23

As long as it's not our Dutch Heineken, I don't care.

Thijs, do you know that we in Germany call Heineken "Grachtenpisse" (dutch canal pee)

Seriously, you guys have excellent specialty brews. However, you think in smaller dimensions. While we drink away half liters here, you sip on your 0.2 liter glasses (klein biertje flutje)

Zero Talent · « **Reply #131 on:** January 21, 2022, 17:01 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 21, 2022, 16:09

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 15:23

As long as it's not our Dutch Heineken, I don't care.

Thijs, do you know that we in Germany call Heineken "Grachtenpisse" (dutch canal pee)

Seriously, you guys have excellent specialty brews. However, you think in smaller dimensions. While we drink away half liters here, you sip on your 0.2 liter glasses (klein biertje flutje)

4 brewery CEOs in a bar, after a conference:
The CEO of Heineken: "A Heineken, please!"
The CEO of Amstel: "An Amstel, please!"
The CEO of Grolsch: "A Grolsch, please!"

"And you, Sir?" says the waitress asking the Leffe CEO.
"Same for me, a glass of water, please".

thijsdegraaf · « **Reply #132 on:** January 21, 2022, 17:07 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 21, 2022, 17:01

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 21, 2022, 16:09
Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 15:23

As long as it's not our Dutch Heineken, I don't care.

Thijs, do you know that we in Germany call Heineken "Grachtenpisse" (dutch canal pee)

Seriously, you guys have excellent specialty brews. However, you think in smaller dimensions. While we drink away half liters here, you sip on your 0.2 liter glasses (klein biertje flutje)

4 brewery CEOs in a bar, after a conference:
The CEO of Heineken: "A Heineken, please!"
The CEO of Amstel: "An Amstel, please!"
The CEO of Grolsch: "A Grolsch, please!"

"And you, Sir?" says the waitress asking the Leffe CEO.
"Same for me, a glass of water, please".

You're even worse than Ralf. Fortunately, we also have Hertog Jan.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #133 on:** January 21, 2022, 17:42 »

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 17:07

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 21, 2022, 17:01
Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 21, 2022, 16:09
Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 15:23

As long as it's not our Dutch Heineken, I don't care.

Thijs, do you know that we in Germany call Heineken "Grachtenpisse" (dutch canal pee)

Seriously, you guys have excellent specialty brews. However, you think in smaller dimensions. While we drink away half liters here, you sip on your 0.2 liter glasses (klein biertje flutje)

4 brewery CEOs in a bar, after a conference:
The CEO of Heineken: "A Heineken, please!"
The CEO of Amstel: "An Amstel, please!"
The CEO of Grolsch: "A Grolsch, please!"

"And you, Sir?" says the waitress asking the Leffe CEO.
"Same for me, a glass of water, please".

You're even worse than Ralf.

Why? I don't think he ordered tap water.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #134 on:** January 21, 2022, 17:49 »

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 17:07

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 21, 2022, 17:01
Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 21, 2022, 16:09
Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 15:23

As long as it's not our Dutch Heineken, I don't care.

Thijs, do you know that we in Germany call Heineken "Grachtenpisse" (dutch canal pee)

Seriously, you guys have excellent specialty brews. However, you think in smaller dimensions. While we drink away half liters here, you sip on your 0.2 liter glasses (klein biertje flutje)

4 brewery CEOs in a bar, after a conference:
The CEO of Heineken: "A Heineken, please!"
The CEO of Amstel: "An Amstel, please!"
The CEO of Grolsch: "A Grolsch, please!"

"And you, Sir?" says the waitress asking the Leffe CEO.
"Same for me, a glass of water, please".

You're even worse than Ralf. Fortunately, we also have Hertog Jan.

Thijs, I put you out of your misery. Hertoog Jan has the best wheat beer, even better than bavarian snow mountain pee

Wilm · « **Reply #135 on:** January 21, 2022, 18:18 »

„Waiter, please bring another beer before the misery is starting.“

„Can you pay at all?“

„Okay, there we go: The misery is already starting!“

Milleflore · « **Reply #136 on:** January 21, 2022, 21:08 »

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on January 21, 2022, 15:23

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 21, 2022, 15:15
Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 21, 2022, 14:09
Quote from: cascoly on January 20, 2022, 14:25
Quote from: RalfLiebhold on January 19, 2022, 11:35

The higher sales for me are usually not the best sellers, but surprise sales even of older images. Why customers chose exactly this photo is honestly a mystery to me. Here are 4 example of sales around 100$, the first and second one was made on the side with the iPhone.

same here - you just never know what a buyer needs - which is why the rejections for LCV are rediculous

If anyone is feeling bad about LCV, and I'd agree, let the buyer decide not some reviewers personal opinion, I want to share my first rejection in maybe a year on DT.

Your image might not be suitable as a stock image because of one or more of the following reasons:

We have reviewed your file and this is not quite what we're looking for. Please note that this image is not eligible for resubmission.

Image is not RF stock oriented or its sales potential is too low at this stage. Please note that Stock photography is a commercial type of imagery, so, snapshots are not Stock. It is also very important to understand that Art and Stock are two fundamentally different categories of imagery, that only meet when an artwork can adapt to a wide range of commercial usage.

Lack of concept.

This event is too old and no longer presents interest in the editorial section.

Holy Cow! I should have had a can of this before I uploaded?

I feel like I've gone back in time to grade school.

ps Accepted at Adobe Stock...

Pete, at Dreamstime I don't even pay attention to the rare reasons for rejection.
But the rejection of german style lager because of lack of sales potential hits me personally.

As long as it's not our Dutch Heineken, I don't care.

they make very funny ads

https://youtu.be/yIutgtzwhAc

https://youtu.be/gjAZ5esOBZw

Firn · « **Reply #137 on:** January 22, 2022, 02:14 »

Quote from: Annie on January 19, 2022, 15:45

Quote from: S2D2 on January 19, 2022, 12:37
Just had a look at my photo that has earned me the most in one sale (a swan head macro for $52) and was told by Shutterstock that its popularity is 'high' and that it is 'frequently used'.

LOL. It's only sold 3 times.

It's extraordinary that Sstock hasn't yet seen fit to sort out this misleading information.

Thanks for sharing that. That's interesting about only 3 downloads. I am starting to think now whether the ratings are based on dollars earned?

I just looked through my list and picked out an image that also only sold 3 times, for a total of $41.49. It says popularity "none" and "never used".
Another image that sold 3 times for a total of only 8.60$ has popularity "high" and "high usage".

This rating is all a mistery to me.

Neither download times nor dollars earned seem to be the main factor. Maybe downloads per time? Like an image that sold 3 times within 3 months will get a better rating than an image that sold 3 times within 3 years? Though, if you ask me, no image that only sold 3 times should be labeled with "high usage", regardless of any other factors, just like no image that has ever sold should be labeled "never used". It's both wrong and misleading to the customer.

pancaketom · « **Reply #138 on:** January 22, 2022, 12:31 »

Quote from: Firn on January 22, 2022, 02:14

Quote from: Annie on January 19, 2022, 15:45
Quote from: S2D2 on January 19, 2022, 12:37
Just had a look at my photo that has earned me the most in one sale (a swan head macro for $52) and was told by Shutterstock that its popularity is 'high' and that it is 'frequently used'.

LOL. It's only sold 3 times.

It's extraordinary that Sstock hasn't yet seen fit to sort out this misleading information.

Thanks for sharing that. That's interesting about only 3 downloads. I am starting to think now whether the ratings are based on dollars earned?

I just looked through my list and picked out an image that also only sold 3 times, for a total of $41.49. It says popularity "none" and "never used".
Another image that sold 3 times for a total of only 8.60$ has popularity "high" and "high usage".

This rating is all a mistery to me.

Neither download times nor dollars earned seem to be the main factor. Maybe downloads per time? Like an image that sold 3 times within 3 months will get a better rating than an image that sold 3 times within 3 years? Though, if you ask me, no image that only sold 3 times should be labeled with "high usage", regardless of any other factors, just like no image that has ever sold should be labeled "never used". It's both wrong and misleading to the customer.

for a long time search placement was some combination of sales/time with a boost early on, and perhaps an increasing penalty as time went on. Then they decided as a technology company that was too simple and shook everything up and now it doesn't really make any sense. I wonder if they even really know what is going on with it anymore.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #139 on:** January 22, 2022, 14:33 »

Quote from: pancaketom on January 22, 2022, 12:31

for a long time search placement was some combination of sales/time with a boost early on, and perhaps an increasing penalty as time went on. Then they decided as a technology company that was too simple and shook everything up and now it doesn't really make any sense. I wonder if they even really know what is going on with it anymore.

Yes for a technology company the ratings and some things are terribly screwed up.

IS did that too and you could watch your image rank drop. One DL in the first week and your image would be like Captain Marvelous. By the end of the month, it would slowly get adjusted, down and down. SS did use the same, something about the number of days vs the number of downloads. Then sometime back when there was a big re-rank, all the people who held the top page since 2004 (just a little humor, but close to true) lost their King of the Hill status and dropped down into the depths.

That's where all the rank rumors and complaints started. New algorithm came in. Now we don't know and can only imagine what invisible means is sorting the images. Even with changing every 15 minutes, some watching has shown me, it doesn't actually change very much past the new image boost, while they are on top and then slowly move down the pages.

What do your eyes tell you about how the image positions have changed?

mindoozas · « **Reply #140 on:** January 26, 2022, 15:54 »

Just received.

thijsdegraaf · « **Reply #141 on:** January 26, 2022, 16:07 »

Quote from: mindoozas on January 26, 2022, 15:54

Just received.

Wow! A good start to the year. Congratulations! Highest for me today: 1.21

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #142 on:** January 27, 2022, 11:57 »

I guess everyone who is making claims that sales are controlled by position and uploading and we lose because of the algorithm have decided to ignore my photo evidence to the contrary? Or at least look at it?

The same photos are on the first page, except for a very small number, for years. The same photos move around on the front page.

Also since most of this is simple personal experience and not collected empirical data, I need to add, I upload a bit, on a consistent basis, day to day and week to week, and my sales and income have dropped. That includes images that used to sell more often, year after year. Some of those are still on page one, first few lines.

It's nice to believe that SS "punishes" people for not uploading, but there is also contrary personal observation from people who stopped completely for a couple years, and their downloads are stable.

It's just too easy to see what we want to see and come up with some theory to pass around on the forum. My theory is based more on facts. We don't know.

Wilm · « **Reply #143 on:** January 27, 2022, 12:21 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 27, 2022, 11:57

I guess everyone who is making claims that sales are controlled by position and uploading and we lose because of the algorithm have decided to ignore my photo evidence to the contrary? Or at least look at it?

The same photos are on the first page, except for a very small number, for years. The same photos move around on the front page.

Also since most of this is simple personal experience and not collected empirical data, I need to add, I upload a bit, on a consistent basis, day to day and week to week, and my sales and income have dropped. That includes images that used to sell more often, year after year. Some of those are still on page one, first few lines.

It's nice to believe that SS "punishes" people for not uploading, but there is also contrary personal observation from people who stopped completely for a couple years, and their downloads are stable.

It's just too easy to see what we want to see and come up with some theory to pass around on the forum. My theory is based more on facts. We don't know.

Pete,

your example is interesting. And it's great that you kept the screenshots.

Still, I think you have to distinguish a bit between different subjects.

A tomato does not change. It looked exactly the same 100 years ago as it does today. The same goes for tigers, trees, etc.

But there are other subjects where there are changes over the years. For example, color trends, hairstyles, fashion trends. If someone generates now purposefully mock ups and orients itself thereby at current color trends, it is quite conceivable from my view that the pictures do not slip only therefore, in the ranking, because the buyer taste changed, but because possibly the Algo considers with new uploads whether a picture corresponds to the current trends better, than a comparable picture, which does not meet any longer hundred per cent the current trend.

Just a thesis - I can't prove anything anyway.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #144 on:** January 27, 2022, 13:52 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 27, 2022, 11:57

My theory is based more on facts. We don't know.

Pete, I don't want to offend you, but the only facts you have are that there is not much action on the first page on the subject of tomatoes.

My observation on other topics is quite different. For images that I sell frequently, I always try to track where they land in the ranking. And I actually experience it consistently that there is always a lot of movement on the first site. New images are added, old ones are removed.

Why the image is so static on tomatoes, no idea, but is rather atypical.

How the algo works at Shutterstock, I stay out of it, no idea.

Dumc · « **Reply #145 on:** January 28, 2022, 11:09 »

I disagree that old images are removed. Yes, new images show up on the front page but also dissapear if they are not sold. Older images remain, if they are regulary sold. I have this deer image on the top of the first page for about 2 years for "deer" keyword and it's also selling regulary. I'm also seeing other deer images on the first page, that are there what seems like "forever".

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #146 on:** January 28, 2022, 11:27 »

Quote from: Dumc on January 28, 2022, 11:09

I disagree that old images are removed. Yes, new images show up on the front page but also dissapear if they are not sold. Older images remain, if they are regulary sold. I have this deer image on the top of the first page for about 2 years for "deer" keyword and it's also selling regulary. I'm also seeing other deer images on the first page, that are there what seems like "forever".

Dumc, I think we can discuss this for pages and pages because everyone has their own view on things.

I myself observe more current topics and there is quite a lot of movement in it - perhaps this is the difference in perception.
But the fact is, if e.g. a dozen new pictures on page 1 prove themselves, 12 other pictures must disappear from page 1 for it.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #147 on:** January 28, 2022, 11:48 »

Quote from: Wilm on January 27, 2022, 12:21

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 27, 2022, 11:57
I guess everyone who is making claims that sales are controlled by position and uploading and we lose because of the algorithm have decided to ignore my photo evidence to the contrary? Or at least look at it?

The same photos are on the first page, except for a very small number, for years. The same photos move around on the front page.

Also since most of this is simple personal experience and not collected empirical data, I need to add, I upload a bit, on a consistent basis, day to day and week to week, and my sales and income have dropped. That includes images that used to sell more often, year after year. Some of those are still on page one, first few lines.

It's nice to believe that SS "punishes" people for not uploading, but there is also contrary personal observation from people who stopped completely for a couple years, and their downloads are stable.

It's just too easy to see what we want to see and come up with some theory to pass around on the forum. My theory is based more on facts. We don't know.

Pete,

your example is interesting. And it's great that you kept the screenshots.

Still, I think you have to distinguish a bit between different subjects.

A tomato does not change. It looked exactly the same 100 years ago as it does today. The same goes for tigers, trees, etc.

But there are other subjects where there are changes over the years. For example, color trends, hairstyles, fashion trends. If someone generates now purposefully mock ups and orients itself thereby at current color trends, it is quite conceivable from my view that the pictures do not slip only therefore, in the ranking, because the buyer taste changed, but because possibly the Algo considers with new uploads whether a picture corresponds to the current trends better, than a comparable picture, which does not meet any longer hundred per cent the current trend.

Just a thesis - I can't prove anything anyway.

Yes I'm forced to agree I could have picked a better search. But that one is humorous and doesn't involve any of my images. I have more, but I'm never going to show anyone what I sell or my tracking for those. I think you can understand? I have tracked some of mine on Alamy as well. I have some that are on SS on page one and have been since the day I uploaded them.

I will admit, niche subject, but they do sell. Two word search, I'm on the first page and first lines. Different three word search, none the same, I'm also on page one and first few lines. If the search was biased, it's pretty much in my favor. There are others who can find their images, on the first page and they didn't drop. So I think it's only fair to stop guessing and blaming. We're all equal and equally don't know anything that would make a difference.

Yes trends can change, positions can change and I know you keep saying how important the algorithm is, but included in the screen shots is two that are 15 minutes apart and they are different. There's just too much searching for Bigfoot in trying to decipher how the search works and too much time and effort wasted, because we can't control that?

10 years later, look at that first one. Are we supposed to accept that no one made a better sliced tomato on white, in all that time? Some of the others are also, still on page one, just that the page shows more now. And 55,000 sliced tomatoes has become, 900,000 sliced tomatoes. Many other subjects have the same problem with so much competition.

You are right, Adobe is far different from Shutterstock. And iStock is also different from those. But, the algorithm and the search are not what makes someone buy an image, their needs are what causes them to license something. I think there's too much dwelling on some invisible mystery instead of working on what actually sells?

Another mystery is why do people keep uploading sliced vegetables?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #148 on:** January 28, 2022, 11:56 »

I wanted to make this point separate.

Supposed evidence of the existence of Bigfoot is based on a number of anecdotal sightings, disputed video and blurry photographs. Yet many people believe that Bigfoot is real.

How the agency search algorithm is controlling earnings, is based on anecdotal personal accounts, and open ended claims of how or why the search changes. Yet many people believe the algorithm controls their income and earnings.

What makes both the same is the lack of evidence and proof while many people believe and waste all kinds of time, searching for answers.

I don't think that the quest for the mystical SS search algorithm is as important as some other people do. What I upload and how I make quality or in demand products is what creates downloads and earnings.

GIGO

pancaketom · « **Reply #149 on:** January 30, 2022, 16:53 »

The search placement is almost everything for sales of common easy subjects. Sure, you need a good enough image, but that is within the capabilities of almost every producer. What it takes to get onto the first page, or even the first few lines is a much more complex subject and you can endlessly try to game the system, but you probably don't know what all goes into the sauce and even if you did it might change or be something you can't control or can only somewhat control (like location based parameters).

For about 5 years I had an image almost always on the top line of the search for a common 1 word search on SS. It sold about once a day. One day they changed something in the search and I couldn't find it going back 10 or more pages. Eventually it moved back up to somewhere in the page 5-10 range, but sales were never the same (more like once a month). When I uploaded it SS had an indexing glitch right after it was indexed and no new images were indexed for a few days - so it was on the first line of newest first and got enough sales there to put it on page one where it stayed until it wasn't. Obviously that isn't something I can repeat or count on ever happening again, especially for a subject with over 11,000 pages of results. It certainly would be worth taking pics of all the things that they say not to bother photographing if you could be on page 1 of the search for them though - flowers, sliced foods, pets, sunsets, you name it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Highest price for a photo on Shutterstock. (Read 35894 times)

cascoly

Uncle Pete

RalfLiebhold

thijsdegraaf

RalfLiebhold

thijsdegraaf

Zero Talent

thijsdegraaf

Zero Talent

RalfLiebhold

Wilm

Milleflore

Firn

pancaketom

Uncle Pete

mindoozas

thijsdegraaf

Uncle Pete

Wilm

RalfLiebhold

Dumc

RalfLiebhold

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

pancaketom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors