login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
first25262728293031last
Photographer
Gibson Photo Art
Posts: 7,990
Phoenix, Arizona, US


I still stand by my assessment of the situation from a duplicate thread. Harrington made this personal by posting information about Robert Lam and tried to belittle him and in turn photographers on MM who shoot with models.

Anyone with credentials like Harrington shouldn't be threatened by someone getting lucky, but looks like that is exactly what happened. I guess the sky is falling.
Jul 30 09 05:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

I agree with what I bolded.  The rest really isn't in your ability to control other than to become their agent.  So perhaps that is what you need to do.  Instead of complaining, become a photographer agent and start getting photographers higher paying jobs so they don't sell out to microstock.

It isn't about control, but it is about educating and the like.

You really don't understand...

Jul 30 09 05:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Gregg Zaun  wrote:

Bubba's aren't allowed in SoCal.  The correct terminology would be dude or Bro...

It's a San Francisco thing....

Jul 30 09 05:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JaimeVedres Photography
Posts: 2
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada


WOW. just caught wind of this story... so shocked.
Jul 30 09 06:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

Why don't you address Stephen Eastwood.  He seems to be someone that is direct and current experience with ad agencies, designers, and direct companies for his work.

Then again, he does use Canon products so he might be a hack. big_smile ducks and runs.

Call Stephen a hack? Not likely for someone who's a working Pro in the sense of the word, not to mention knowing he "brings something to the party" and places a value on that for which he charges his fee.

Jul 30 09 06:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Thanks Stephen, I guess I knew what it meant, just not with that label since I hadn't heard it before.

You learn something every day!(If you keep your ears open!)

Jul 30 09 06:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Fedora el Morro
Posts: 818
Seattle, Washington, US


Congratulations.
Jul 30 09 06:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

That's supply and demand economics with a bit of good enough tossed in vs quality.

You mean over supply and demand vs quality.

Jul 30 09 06:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Michael Donovan Rulezz wrote:

OK. Keep thinking that way. But I prefer to think progressively and realistically.

Look- we all have sex but porn stars make a lot more money from it than you or me. And we all eat but hotdog-eating champs make more money from sponsors than you and I do. Every woman pops out eggs from her vagina once a month but some women will put in a little work so they can pop out a few dozen and collect $8,000 from a fertility clinic. And we all talk but Larry King seems to get more and more rich as he opens his mouth more and more. We all tell jokes but Conan O'Brian and Carson Daley get paid more for it. Most teenagers sing in the shower or in the car but Hannah Montana seems to make a little more than most kids her age. We all put on acts but I haven't seem Brad Pitt's net worth plummet because a 14 year old kid acted in a school play. EVERYONE has taken photos of their family but portrait and wedding photographers have been in business and are staying in business!

PEOPLE and their TALENTS are not commodities unless people sell them as commodities.

In the end, I shoot fashion. I see a TON of people who also shoot fashion photography and none of us are shaking in our boots because someone rolled out a $30 jar of coins. As much as some people will claim that "shooting fashion is easy," I'll tell you it is much harder than shooting a jar of coins and collecting 15 minutes of fame.

Seriously, man, get real and do something productive rather than freak out over one stupid sale to one client that you have never even worked with. This sale actually will STIMULATE the economy since no sale=no transaction whereas a $30 sale for one month is going to help a struggling company (Time) get through a month while they work on new/more customers (advertisers that DO pay the real money) while providing $30 to someone who will pass it on to some waiter at The Olive Garden who will invest it with some other savings to buy some rims for his Civic by some guy that will... you get the point.

And, if you STILL do not get it... well keep doing what you are doing so I can take your clients while you are pissing your shorts.

You're not going to take my clients since I don't shoot fashion and don't claim to though I have done projects for the old Hartmarx.

Time's paying $30(it was actually more, $30 what what the photographer got paid) isn't going to stimulate squat. All it does is be part of setting bad precident.

You ought to think outside your fashion world and think of the photo business in a whole, about folks who shoot what you don't. About beginners trying to make a buck when photos like what they do are being sold for $30, which gives them real incentive to work hard and try to get published on Time, or other national publications if their expectation is to get $30 in their pocket. A lot of this argument, that is the thread, is about what perception that $30 fee to the photographer creates in expectations. Who in their right mind would want to do stock photos if the expectation is $30 from Time? How many would you have to sell to make any kind of living?

IOW, I see it as an issue that's far bigger than you, me or the folks on MM.

Jul 30 09 06:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Robert Randall wrote:

Jesus Jim, you look like your begging for a pat on the back. To tell you the truth, I barely remember what happened then. If you had something to do with a repeal or whatever happened, congratulations.

In business, I've always been a loner. I've never found that my practices run in tandem with the concerns of others. All the tax bullcrap that has come and gone seems to be mitigated by operating a full fledged C corp. I doubt whether her bill or anyone else's would have affected me. I doubt Sotomeyer's $7.00 per image assessment will ever affect me either.

I don't want any pats on the back bob for unlike you I'm not a loaner and I wasn't sitting on the sidelines or in the stands.

The tax started as a tax on "the products of photoprocessing" and started with the help of a lobbiest to get the tax on Walgreens, labs and so on. It was in trade for the photoprocessors being able to write-off their equipment and capital purchases in a shorter period.
Then someone at the Illinoid DOR thought of the fact that photgraphers have darkrooms and process film, prints, etc., and so the DOR instituted a tax on the bottom line of YOURS and Mine invoice for work we did. Hence the meeting with Ms. Netsch.

The outcome was that, while it was never committed to writing, Ms.Netsch took back and it was later instituted with the DOR that if you sold your image(s) you were "transferring personal property" and it was subject to a tax(you had to get a tax number, keep track of what you purcahsed with the tax number and YOU were responsible for "charging, collecting and paying" that tax to the State of Illinois.
However, if you "licensed the images" then there was "...no transfer of personal property" and there was no tax.If you sold the work to someone out of state, it also didn't matter.
I've also not heard of any changes from that point of view and I don't know how being a C corporation would affect that in any way since sales tax is sales tax. It was also going to affect the film industry big time since they sold the negative as standard practice.
in fact, Rich Foster asked if he had the negative transferred to video, and he kept the negative, and since video wasn't taxed(It wasn't a product of photoprocessing) would that avoid the tax? Ms. Netsch got quite stern and feisty with Rich and in the end said, "we'll get that next.."

I'm only the messenger bob, nothing more.

Jul 30 09 06:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

This is not true.

If I was filthy stinkin' rich, I'd still buy a Ford Mustang.  Because I LIKE Mustangs.  But, Mustangs are no where near what a Ferrari F430 is.  But, they'll both do what I need them to do.  Get me to work.  Get me to the store.

But, if I want to really make myself shit my pants, I should get the Ferrari F430 as I'm sure a Ford Mustang GT would never be able to keep up with the Ferrari F430.

Ferrari doesn't sell nearly as many F430s as Ford sells Mustangs.  The market isn't there for Ferrari and there is no way they can compete with Mustangs.  Mustangs are just too inexpensive/affordable for the mass consumer.

I wonder if Ferrari has meetings about what to do about Ford Mustangs.

So by your logic, no manufacturer has any worries, or discussions over what their competition does, or doesn't do in similar market segments?

(Btw, your thing about Ferrari and Mustang's is just way out of any reality in comparison as to be quite silly)

Jul 30 09 06:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Digital Czar wrote:
Time's paying $30(it was actually more, $30 what what the photographer got paid) isn't going to stimulate squat. All it does is be part of setting bad precident.

You ought to think outside your fashion world and think of the photo business in a whole, about folks who shoot what you don't. About beginners trying to make a buck when photos like what they do are being sold for $30, which gives them real incentive to work hard and try to get published on Time, or other national publications if their expectation is to get $30 in their pocket. A lot of this argument, that is the thread, is about what perception that $30 fee to the photographer creates in expectations. Who in their right mind would want to do stock photos if the expectation is $30 from Time? How many would you have to sell to make any kind of living?

you could say something similar when McDonalds offers burgers for 0.99 (where is the cent sign on a keyboard?) and peter lugers offers them for 25.95, only McDonalds can only sell that burger once, where as a stock photographer can sell their image as often as there is demand.  a 30$ image becomes a 300.00 image after 10 people buy it, and over the life of an image that can go up.  If someone said to a person who just bought a digital rebel to shoot for a hobby, or take pictures of their newborn "hey can you shoot me a picture of a jar with change in it for 30.00? "  many would be thrilled, if they said "hey can you shoot me a picture of a jar with change in it for 300.00? " they may be intimidated since they are not a pro, if someone said to them "hey can you shoot me a picture of a jar with change in it for 3000.00? " they would be scared, but likely still say yes.  So why not sell that image for stock for 30 and hope that 100 people buy it by the time the 5D3 is out so you can upgrade to that on what that rebel earned you?  Can it hurt the industry?  Yes, but its not the sale of that image, its the marketing of better and better digital cameras that could hurt the industry, yet no one wants to put the camera companies and all the employees out of work by making them stop.

How much do you have to shoot to make a living?  well assuming you start with simple things around the house that you already own, and can do it in a few minutes, every shot you take, that is marketable, can earn you more than what most stores are paying for minimum wage.  As the market becomes more saturated that "marketable" clause becomes more and more elusive, unless you improve and become better at finding what is marketable, which may mean spending more on what you shoot.  At that point you may find that raising the asking price is needed, or you may be selling enough volume to leave it low and still make a profit.

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 06:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Digital Czar wrote:

So by your logic, no manufacturer has any worries, or discussions over what their competition does, or doesn't do in similar market segments?

(Btw, your thing about Ferrari and Mustang's is just way out of any reality in comparison as to be quite silly)

yes, honda civic vs honda accord, or maybe even an entry level Acura is more like it.  big_smile

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 07:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


Digital Czar wrote:

It isn't about control, but it is about educating and the like.

You really don't understand...

No, I DO understand.  It all boils down to supply, demand, and competition.  You're wanting to eliminate low cost competition/supply.

You have no actual control over this so you try to influence it by belittling people and crying about the industry being ruined.  You're the mom and pop shop that sells a screw driver for $10 and are upset that Walmart is selling a cheap one for $2.50 and people are buying it instead of yours.

Economics.

Jul 30 09 07:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


Digital Czar wrote:

You mean over supply and demand vs quality.

whatever you want to call it, but don't forget good enough.  I know from personal experience that some people don't necessarily care about having the best...for them, they look for good enough.

Jul 30 09 07:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

No, I DO understand.  It all boils down to supply, demand, and competition.  You're wanting to eliminate low cost competition/supply.

You have no actual control over this so you try to influence it by belittling people and crying about the industry being ruined.  You're the mom and pop shop that sells a screw driver for $10 and are upset that Walmart is selling a cheap one for $2.50 and people are buying it instead of yours.

Economics.

he does not want to eliminate it, he wants to cause people to price higher for the "overall good of the industry"  problem is, that never works as there is always someone undercutting unless its regulated by law.

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 07:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


this whole thing almost makes me want to hire someone to go through all my old shots over the years of things that can sell as stock, and start marketing them.  Its only costings me storage space now, any money it brought in would be fine.  I could probably pull an easy 500 shots that are worth money from all those years of playing around with things from water drops to sunsets to glasses and microphones.  hmm

 

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
Jul 30 09 07:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gibson Photo Art
Posts: 7,990
Phoenix, Arizona, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

he does not want to eliminate it, he wants to cause people to price higher for the "overall good of the industry"  problem is, that never works as there is always someone undercutting unless its regulated by law.

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Isn't this called "Price Gouging" and illegal for the most part?

Jul 30 09 07:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Gibson Photo Art wrote:

Isn't this called "Price Gouging" and illegal for the most part?

or a union  tongue

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 07:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gibson Photo Art
Posts: 7,990
Phoenix, Arizona, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

or a union  tongue

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

So that's what these guys want? A union so we can fix prices?

Jul 30 09 07:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Gibson Photo Art wrote:

So that's what these guys want? A union so we can fix prices?

isn't that what they do?  or do they just cause projects to take way longer than needed and cause overtime instead?

tongue

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 07:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,652
Detroit, Michigan, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
this whole thing almost makes me want to hire someone to go through all my old shots over the years of things that can sell as stock, and start marketing them.  Its only costings me storage space now, any money it brought in would be fine.  I could probably pull an easy 500 shots that are worth money from all those years of playing around with things from water drops to sunsets to glasses and microphones.  hmm

 

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I bet you'd make money on it.

Jul 30 09 07:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Lumigraphics wrote:

I bet you'd make money on it.

I have some nice water drops  smile

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 07:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

he does not want to eliminate it, he wants to cause people to price higher for the "overall good of the industry"  problem is, that never works as there is always someone undercutting unless its regulated by law.

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

The result is the same.  Right now I charge $600 for a beach session.  Let's say some guy doing the same thing as I do but is better is charging $3,000.  He convinces me I'm ruining his the industry so I should charge more.  I start charging $3,000.  Now I get NO work because everyone figures that since we're charging the same they might as well hire the other guy.

Jul 30 09 07:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gibson Photo Art
Posts: 7,990
Phoenix, Arizona, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

isn't that what they do?  or do they just cause projects to take way longer than needed and cause overtime instead?

tongue

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Not really. I was a Teamster for several years, but I see your point.

Jul 30 09 07:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

The result is the same.  Right now I charge $600 for a beach session.  Let's say some guy doing the same thing as I do but is better is charging $3,000.  He convinces me I'm ruining his the industry so I should charge more.  I start charging $3,000.  Now I get NO work because everyone figures that since we're charging the same they might as well hire the other guy.

no, they will hire the guy who comes in and charges 800 cause he is the lower priced one in the area  tongue

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 07:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gibson Photo Art
Posts: 7,990
Phoenix, Arizona, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
this whole thing almost makes me want to hire someone to go through all my old shots over the years of things that can sell as stock, and start marketing them.  Its only costings me storage space now, any money it brought in would be fine.  I could probably pull an easy 500 shots that are worth money from all those years of playing around with things from water drops to sunsets to glasses and microphones.  hmm

 

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I won't touch it for less then $500.00/hour and 120 hours min

Jul 30 09 07:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Gibson Photo Art wrote:
I won't touch it for less then $500.00/hour and 120 hours min

it might take that long, I shoot a lot and always have for fun, when no one was around I shot macro stuff, you name it....

and would you also need someone there to watch that you get breaks on time and all  wink


-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 07:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

no, they will hire the guy who comes in and charges 800 cause he is the lower priced one in the area  tongue

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Why I oughta!!! POW, to the moon!

Jul 30 09 07:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gibson Photo Art
Posts: 7,990
Phoenix, Arizona, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

it might take that long, I shoot a lot and always have for fun, when no one was around I shot macro stuff, you name it....

and would you also need someone there to watch that you get breaks on time and all  wink


-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I like macro. I can look at those all day. Esp if I'm getting paid to do it.

Jul 30 09 07:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

it might take that long, I shoot a lot and always have for fun, when no one was around I shot macro stuff, you name it....

and would you also need someone there to watch that you get breaks on time and all  wink


-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

me please!

Jul 30 09 07:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gregg Zaun
Posts: 1,084
San Diego, California, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

or a union  tongue

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I think it would fall under collusion  ( in this case attempting to set an artificially high price).  The reason that most attempts to fix prices fail is because everyone has an incentive to try and cheat.  OPEC is really the only group that comes to mind that has been able to do it over time.  Even then there is a lot of members who don't exactly follow the price structure as much as they lead the other countries to believe.

Jul 30 09 07:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


Lumigraphics wrote:

I bet you'd make money on it.

Doubt it.  Most of the old shots that "pros" pull out of the closet aren't worth much.

Jul 30 09 07:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Monito -- Alan
Posts: 16,524
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


Christopher Hartman wrote:
The result is the same.  Right now I charge $600 for a beach session.  Let's say some guy doing the same thing as I do but is better is charging $3,000.  He convinces me I'm ruining his the industry so I should charge more.  I start charging $3,000.  Now I get NO work because everyone figures that since we're charging the same they might as well hire the other guy.

Or worse, they don't know how to choose, or don't know about the other guy, and hire you.  (No animosity, just rolling with your example.)  Then when they get the results they are disappointed and vow to never hire a photographer again.

That's an example of how artificially raising prices can also ruin the industry, too.

Russia under the Czars had a feudal economy where photography prices were artificially high in relation to average standard of living (my surmise).  After the Czars it had a command economy (communist, planned economy).  I don't think photographers thrived under either kind of economy.

I am glad the photography industry is relatively free of Czars and Commisars.  Let's hope it stays that way.

Jul 30 09 07:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Digital Planet Design wrote:

Doubt it.  Most of the old shots that "pros" pull out of the closet aren't worth much.

if I made 30 from them its more than I am making off them now  wink

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 07:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gibson Photo Art
Posts: 7,990
Phoenix, Arizona, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

if I made 30 from them its more than I am making off them now  wink

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Yeah. I think that's why microstock is so popular. You throw images on there that are basicly throw aways. Yeah you might get a lighting strike like the Time cover, but that is far from the norm.

Jul 30 09 08:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Thornton Harris
Posts: 1,684
San Francisco, California, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
if I made 30 from them its more than I am making off them now  wink

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Yeah, but after you get that $30, all of your lucrative contracts will disappear.

Jul 30 09 08:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Thornton Harris wrote:
Yeah, but after you get that $30, all of your lucrative contracts will disappear.

so you put it up under a company name not associated, and thats if you think that would actually happen.  We are not talking about shots that were shot for clients, I am talking jar on the table, match lighting, boats on a sunset.  Maybe a piggy bank being shattered open with change flying all over, hey wait, that might make a great Time cover for the end of the recession!!!  big_smile

If I needed more money this and stock Video (which I do already shoot for certain clients) may be a decent way to bring some in, maybe not a lot, but if its from old stuff why would I  care?  wink

I shot a macro shot of me lighting a cigar tip today, what a pain it is to focus and be shot at the same time lighting a cigar end.  I had to set the lighter up in a super clamp so I know where the tip needs to be, (was shooting at 2.0 at 100mm with extension tubes, no DOF)


-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 30 09 08:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jared Holder
Posts: 1,608
Speightstown, Saint Peter, Barbados


Well at least all of the people who read this thread who have stock photos available double checked that the same can't happen to them.

I hope.

+ for usage in medium with < 1000 viewers.
Jul 30 09 08:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Thornton Harris
Posts: 1,684
San Francisco, California, US


NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

so you put it up under a company name not associated, and thats if you think that would actually happen.  We are not talking about shots that were shot for clients, I am talking jar on the table, match lighting, boats on a sunset.  Maybe a piggy bank being shattered open with change flying all over, hey wait, that might make a great Time cover for the end of the recession!!!  big_smile


-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Do you actually think I believe any of the crap in this thread? Sounds like a bunch of whiny little boys.

The only post I believe is the one by me up above where I demanded $10,000 from Mr Harrington. He still hasn't paid me. Take a look, it's pretty amusing.

Jul 30 09 08:23 pm  Link  Quote 
first25262728293031last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers