Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kaywelsh

Image Acceptance - getting ridiculous

Recommended Posts

What I've noticed over the last few months is: I ex/suspect SS wants 'flat' photos where the actual designer/customer can add his or her flavor. Like adding yellow for a morning sun before a bright day or red end yellow for a morning sun when a rain shower is expected.

red, yellow and purple for an evening sun.

 

Everything in Focus with a Scheimflug Tilt setting so the designer can decide where he wants the focus to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not really aggree. I always think that there are so many images coming in per day and reviewed by different reviewers that it is impossible to track them all individual. So it is a human thing to make this kind of errors. Nobody will remember image 4 after receiving thousands of images after. Photography is a very special case. The tolerance of what could be an technical error can really be small.

 

Shutterstock is not demanding exclusivity so we can still upload the rejected images somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had it. I've got over a hundred active images accepted, so I must be able to shoot photos up to Shutterstock's standards. But lately submitting has just been a total crap shoot. I had a bunch of stuff rejected in December, so after reading here about things getting crazy at the end of the year I just tweaked all the highlights of the rejected photos a 1/3 of stop up or down randomly just so the file would be legitimately different, and they accepted most of them. So there's something going on that they are not telling us about.

 

With that success, I submitted another round of new photos, and then my "submit images" area froze (on their system, not mine) and it took them two weeks to fix it. And then, when I finally was able to submit they bounced everything within 24 hours with same old crap: "poor focus", "incorrect white balance", etc. These are technical issues that simply were not true.

 

And it's not just me, another friend who used to make a fair amount of money on Shutterstock just got 100% rejected on like 30 images, again for bogus technical reasons.

 

It's fine if they have two many images, or mine don't have commercial value, or whatever. But they need to be honest about what's going on and stop rejecting for reasons that simply are not true. It's to the point now that it's just not even worth my time to clean up and tag stuff because it just seems like a total crap shoot if they will accept it or not. Maybe that's SS's objective? If so, they should tell us.

 

Just be honest, shutterstock. I know someone from the company monitors these forums and they need to be honest and tell us what's really going on. Why the hell should it be a guessing game? I won't likely submit anything else; my only question now is do I take it all down in protest or leave everything up there to continue making 29 cents a day.

 

John

(end rant!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've had it. I've got over a hundred active images accepted, so I must be able to shoot photos up to Shutterstock's standards. But lately submitting has just been a total crap shoot. I had a bunch of stuff rejected in December, so after reading here about things getting crazy at the end of the year I just tweaked all the highlights of the rejected photos a 1/3 of stop up or down randomly just so the file would be legitimately different, and they accepted most of them. So there's something going on that they are not telling us about.

 

With that success, I submitted another round of new photos, and then my "submit images" area froze (on their system, not mine) and it took them two weeks to fix it. And then, when I finally was able to submit they bounced everything within 24 hours with same old crap: "poor focus", "incorrect white balance", etc. These are technical issues that simply were not true.

 

And it's not just me, another friend who used to make a fair amount of money on Shutterstock just got 100% rejected on like 30 images, again for bogus technical reasons.

 

It's fine if they have two many images, or mine don't have commercial value, or whatever. But they need to be honest about what's going on and stop rejecting for reasons that simply are not true. It's to the point now that it's just not even worth my time to clean up and tag stuff because it just seems like a total crap shoot if they will accept it or not. Maybe that's SS's objective? If so, they should tell us.

 

Just be honest, shutterstock. I know someone from the company monitors these forums and they need to be honest and tell us what's really going on. Why the hell should it be a guessing game? I won't likely submit anything else; my only question now is do I take it all down in protest or leave everything up there to continue making 29 cents a day.

 

John

(end rant!)

 

Different reviewers see things differently even with the company training of the reviewing process. It will never change as long as there are humans involved and they retain their current standards.

 

It is not that they no longer want images because they are consistently adding about 250,000 image per week.

 

It can be frustrating and it is basically which reviewer do you get. Others have had the same thing happen to them. I have had a few complete batches rejected in my almost 7 years here (most later accepted) but for the most part I am satisfied with the occasional upset.

 

If you would like another opinion we always suggest posting some of the rejected images in the critique forum so we can take a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different reviewers see things differently even with the company training of the reviewing process. It will never change as long as there are humans involved and they retain their current standards.

 

I guess this is the crux of the matter for me. If reviewer variability is the sole cause of whole batch rejections of work by competent photographers that is similar in quality to what was accepted previously, then SS is doing a truly horrendous job of training and they need to try harder. It's not fair to contributors.

 

Aesthetics, of course, is subjective. But the rejections I was complaining about have been based (supposedly) on objective criteria. Either my image is in focus or not. I'd be perfectly fine if they told me they don't like my image or need it or it won't sell, but don't tell me the white balance isn't correct when it is. Daylight degrees K is an objectively measurable thing.

 

Also, they have accepted nearly every editorial image I've submitted, including some that actually do have technical problems (like focus) and I expected to be rejected. Either they have criteria for focus or they don't. Maybe they're trying to build their editorial library so they have looser standards? That's fine, what I'm complaining about is that none of this should be a mystery--just tell us.

 

At the very least they could give the reviewers a unique ID number and put that in the rejections. If this is going to be a game, then level the playing field and make it fair. If we see on the forum 20 block rejections from reviewer 123 then we can identify it and just know we got a bad reviewer and we need to try again and hope for a different one.

 

As for submitting my images for critique by the forum, what's the point? As I said I had images rejected, and then I resubmitted the same images they were later accepted.

 

I know I will be replaced so they don't care, but right now I'm only selling microstock on Shutterstock, and unless something changes I'm not submitting anything else. I'm not wasting my time playing a game with secret rules set by someone else.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different reviewers see things differently even with the company training of the reviewing process. It will never change as long as there are humans involved and they retain their current standards.

 

I guess this is the crux of the matter for me. If reviewer variability is the sole cause of whole batch rejections of work by competent photographers that is similar in quality to what was accepted previously, then SS is doing a truly horrendous job of training and they need to try harder. It's not fair to contributors.

 

Aesthetics, of course, is subjective. But the rejections I was complaining about have been based (supposedly) on objective criteria. Either my image is in focus or not. I'd be perfectly fine if they told me they don't like my image or need it or it won't sell, but don't tell me the white balance isn't correct when it is. Daylight degrees K is an objectively measurable thing.

 

Also, they have accepted nearly every editorial image I've submitted, including some that actually do have technical problems (like focus) and I expected to be rejected. Either they have criteria for focus or they don't. Maybe they're trying to build their editorial library so they have looser standards? That's fine, what I'm complaining about is that none of this should be a mystery--just tell us.

 

At the very least they could give the reviewers a unique ID number and put that in the rejections. If this is going to be a game, then level the playing field and make it fair. If we see on the forum 20 block rejections from reviewer 123 then we can identify it and just know we got a bad reviewer and we need to try again and hope for a different one.

 

As for submitting my images for critique by the forum, what's the point? As I said I had images rejected, and then I resubmitted the same images they were later accepted.

 

I know I will be replaced so they don't care, but right now I'm only selling microstock on Shutterstock, and unless something changes I'm not submitting anything else. I'm not wasting my time playing a game with secret rules set by someone else.

 

John

 

Just to address a couple of the points that you made. First in regards to editorial shots. The editorial guidelines specify that they are not judged in the same manner as a regular stock shot. Things such as focus, composition, exposure are not judged as critically. They do not want shots that have had fixes put on them because they are editorial.

 

To the point of the reviewers should have a unique ID # all I can say is that every reviewer I have ever talked to has said that the images they review are identified by them specifically. I have written to Admin about one batch of mine that was rejected and they told me that they were already aware of the mistake by the reviewer and for me to resubmit them.

 

How many and which images are reviewed by a specific reviewer have to have their unique ID to them because most stock sites pay reviewers by the number of images they review. It is not a matter of not knowing which reviewer did the review but rather following up with a reviewer when it is determined that there have been too many mistakes.

 

I do agree with you that there have been several times and several threads about the reviewing process so you are not alone in that. I can say that the number of these complaints has fallen lately so it seems like there has been some changes for the good in that area.

 

Again we cannot confirm or disagree with what the reviewer said without seeing the images. But whether or not to post them is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to address a couple of the points that you made. First in regards to editorial shots. The editorial guidelines specify that they are not judged in the same manner as a regular stock shot. Things such as focus, composition, exposure are not judged as critically. They do not want shots that have had fixes put on them because they are editorial.

 

Interesting, thanks for that info. Where is that stated? I don't see it here: https://submit.shutterstock.com/guidelines.mhtml.

 

To the point of the reviewers should have a unique ID # all I can say is that every reviewer I have ever talked to has said that the images they review are identified by them specifically.

 

Oh I'm sure they are identified internally, I'm saying that information should be shared with contributors. I would just say "Reviewer 123 rejected your images for the following reasons".

 

I have written to Admin about one batch of mine that was rejected and they told me that they were already aware of the mistake by the reviewer and for me to resubmit them.

 

If they were "already aware" of the mistake, I'd like to have seen them retro-actively approve them.

 

I do agree with you that there have been several times and several threads about the reviewing process so you are not alone in that. I can say that the number of these complaints has fallen lately so it seems like there has been some changes for the good in that area.

 

Interesting, thanks for that perspective. I was pretty dejected late last year when I had a whole batch denied (the same batch later accepted). When you put your heart and soul into photography it's hard not to take it personally, so consistency and openness is all I can ask from them.

 

Thanks! And they just sold one of my editorial images today. Another 84 cents for me. It seems the only way to make any money would be to have hundreds or thousands of approved images, and it's awfully hard to get there when there's effectively a random barrier to approval.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to address a couple of the points that you made. First in regards to editorial shots. The editorial guidelines specify that they are not judged in the same manner as a regular stock shot. Things such as focus, composition, exposure are not judged as critically. They do not want shots that have had fixes put on them because they are editorial.

 

Interesting, thanks for that info. Where is that stated? I don't see it here: https://submit.shutterstock.com/guidelines.mhtml.

 

To the point of the reviewers should have a unique ID # all I can say is that every reviewer I have ever talked to has said that the images they review are identified by them specifically.

 

Oh I'm sure they are identified internally, I'm saying that information should be shared with contributors. I would just say "Reviewer 123 rejected your images for the following reasons".

 

I have written to Admin about one batch of mine that was rejected and they told me that they were already aware of the mistake by the reviewer and for me to resubmit them.

 

If they were "already aware" of the mistake, I'd like to have seen them retro-actively approve them.

 

I do agree with you that there have been several times and several threads about the reviewing process so you are not alone in that. I can say that the number of these complaints has fallen lately so it seems like there has been some changes for the good in that area.

 

Interesting, thanks for that perspective. I was pretty dejected late last year when I had a whole batch denied (the same batch later accepted). When you put your heart and soul into photography it's hard not to take it personally, so consistency and openness is all I can ask from them.

 

Thanks! And they just sold one of my editorial images today. Another 84 cents for me. It seems the only way to make any money would be to have hundreds or thousands of approved images, and it's awfully hard to get there when there's effectively a random barrier to approval.

 

John

 

To answer your first question don't get me wrong in thinking that editorial images do not have to have acceptable focus. They do but there is a type of editorial image that falls into the news category that wants the image to accurately depict the scene. Minor adjustments can be made but they are not to have any major editing.

 

Recently a new type of editorial image has been added. This is the illustrative editorial image and those need to have the same standards as a regular license image. This is due to the nature of that type of editorial.

 

Here is a link to the editorial area that better spells things out.

 

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/announcing-shutterstocks-new-editorial-guidelines

 

As to why they did not automatically approve my images that I wrote them about I am sure that it is just a matter of protocol.

 

You do not need hundreds of thousands of images to make money doing this. I have about 2300 images and I do pretty darn well. It is a matter of knowing and understanding stock, knowing what to submit and when and having images that are varied and have a wide commercial value.

 

I know people with 500 images who are making very good money. I also know people with 10,000 images who do not make anything near that. Stock is a business and needs to be treated as such. You have to have a thick skin and not fall in love with your images. It is a business and nothing more.

 

I looked at your portfolio and you have some nice images. One thing that I see is that you have a good deal of editorial images. Keep in mind that most editorial images do not sell as often as a standard license image. Many of them are time sensitive and event specific. This means they do not have the commercial value of a regular image.

 

Having variety is good if they are done well. If you specialize then they need to be really good to make good money because you do not have the wide variety.

 

So you can make good money at this if you know how to. The trick is having both quality and quantity of high commercial value images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to the editorial area that better spells things out.

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/announcing-shutterstocks-new-editorial-guidelines

 

Oh yeah, I read that when it came out, but I still don't see anything in there that says they are less stringent on editorial images. Again, my only complaint is the lack of transparency.

 

As to why they did not automatically approve my images that I wrote them about I am sure that it is just a matter of protocol.

 

It's also that we are not the customers, and we are pretty much expendable to SS, so why should they make any effort to retain people?

 

You do not need hundreds of thousands of images to make money doing this. I have about 2300 images

 

Right, I said hundreds >or< thousands :-) Which you have....

 

I looked at your portfolio and you have some nice images.

 

Thanks! And I checked out yours too; very nice stuff. But I see what you mean about focusing on the commercial aspect. For me, this is a sideline, a way to try to make some money off stuff I would shoot anyway. It's a niche market for some of my stuff, which is fine with me. Again if Shutterstock doesn't want niche market stuff, that's fine with me, but just tell me that instead of saying an image of a thunderstorm has "poor lighting". Especially when they previously approved dozens of my storm images shot before I even owned a full frame camera.

 

One thing that I see is that you have a good deal of editorial images. Keep in mind that most editorial images do not sell as often as a standard license image. Many of them are time sensitive and event specific. This means they do not have the commercial value of a regular image.

 

Oh absolutely, and that's fine with me. Many of my editorial images (especially from hurricane Sandy) have sold some time after the event (usually a few months in advance of the anniversary of the event).

 

Thanks for spending so much time discussing this with me, it's been fascinating!

 

I guess I'm going to try another stock company (Alamy, most likely) and see if I find their submission process as frustrating. Most of all, though, I wish SS would just open up about their process more and I'd be happy to stay here.

 

John

p.s. Many of my favorite images were rejected by SS (or are not appropriate for stock) but I just put them online via Smugmug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best not to use other stock sites full names on the forums. We just use initials and people will know who we are talking about.

 

As far as the site you mentioned they have a very frustrating acceptance method. Once you get in they are very accommodating but very picky in the beginning. Their upload process is a bit taxing as well.

 

It does give you the ability to manage your images gearing toward RM work. Sales are not as regular as they are here but when you do make a sale it can be a big one. Good luck to you in whatever direction you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am finding it more and more difficult to get images accepted, despite having been a contributor for 4 years. More and more are coming back rejected because of 'white balance incorrect' and I am getting so frustrated I am seriously thinking of withdrawing from SS. I think as the photographer (shooting in RAW so can be precise) that I know when the white balance is correct for my image, not whoever happens to be reviewing it. Unless it is crazily off (and I have seen some images with skies coloured impossible colours) they should trust our judgement on what is correct. What with that and other issues with releases getting more and more complicated, editorials on images of aeroplanes, etc., it is getting to the point where I can't be bothered when the return is so small for the effort involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rejection rates are terrible! Very discouraging, especially with token reasons like "Composition". What's more, I don't find any pattern. It's RANDOM.

 

Come on, I have 16 thousand images and feel treated like a special needs 3-year-old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rejection rates are terrible! Very discouraging, especially with token reasons like "Composition". What's more, I don't find any pattern. It's RANDOM.

 

Come on, I have 16 thousand images and feel treated like a special needs 3-year-old.

 

One thing I wish they would institute is a rating system. Combine acceptance rate with length of time here and when you reach a certain point submitted images are just spot checked to make sure that the standards remain and good images are being submitted. If problems are seen and the quality drops then the submitter goes back to a regular review.

 

To me it just seems that with some of the amazing shooters and illustrators we have hear that the same review procedures are being used.

 

It also serves as an incentive to new comers to submit good quality images and to stick around so they can move to this more liberal review system.

 

From what I know about reviewing they already see how long the submitter has been here and their approval rating so instituting this should not be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, all 36 images rejected for poor lighting. Ranging from shooting models in and outside, shooting food in a tent and some macro shots.

 

I used my Sekonic 758 light meter to ensure that the lighting was dead on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main that really throws me off if you search for Lanswa there is no matches...

 

We can provide what SS is missing and yet gets denied.

 

There are well over 100 Philippine dishes I can do, but if they are getting rejected I'll move on and just give up here all togehter.

 

I'm sorry, but if I only have at the moment 36 images available and making money I'm doing something right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, all 36 images rejected for poor lighting. Ranging from shooting models in and outside, shooting food in a tent and some macro shots.

 

I used my Sekonic 758 light meter to ensure that the lighting was dead on.

 

Post some of them over in the critique forum and we will take a look to see if we can see what may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, all 36 images rejected for poor lighting. Ranging from shooting models in and outside, shooting food in a tent and some macro shots.

 

I used my Sekonic 758 light meter to ensure that the lighting was dead on.

 

Post some of them over in the critique forum and we will take a look to see if we can see what may be wrong.

 

Dave I'll do that in a few days once I get back home and thanks as always

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read all these comments from this thread and the other thread with great interest.

I have to admit I am quite astonished that long term members like so many here are all getting the same rampant rejections with the same repeated reasons.

 

A long time ago, my colleague used to complain that IStock reviewers (many exclusives there review newbies) give this sort of :absurd: rejection patterns.

 

With so much noise (bad pun) going on these days about Getty, *(Istock)... I wonder if Shutterstock made the awful error of hiring ex-Istock reviewers who also used to be exclusives there.

 

If so, this could explain the sudden insults/insurge

of these new pattern of rejections . It would be enlightening to have perharps an internal audit to see if majority of these rejections comes from a certain reveiwer, or a new reviewer who is trigger happy in pushing the rejection button. Or worse, is this being done by some computer program.

 

Just my tuppence worth of input here. I am more or less exclusively Shutterstock (ie. I have not submitted any new work to any other sites since ... well, a long time ago).

But reading what is happening to my long-term colleagues here, it may make me re-think that perharps I should not put all my eggs in one basket, ...

just in case the bottom should fall out... due to the act of a certain RENEGADE reviewer(s)...parachuted from Istock (scream here =:o)

 

Hope something gets done to look into this matter, as I feel it can fester.

Cheers. Have a good weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read all these comments from this thread and the other thread with great interest.

I have to admit I am quite astonished that long term members like so many here are all getting the same rampant rejections with the same repeated reasons.

 

A long time ago, my colleague used to complain that IStock reviewers (many exclusives there review newbies) give this sort of :absurd: rejection patterns.

 

With so much noise (bad pun) going on these days about Getty, *(Istock)... I wonder if Shutterstock made the awful error of hiring ex-Istock reviewers who also used to be exclusives there.

 

If so, this could explain the sudden insults/insurge

of these new pattern of rejections . It would be enlightening to have perharps an internal audit to see if majority of these rejections comes from a certain reveiwer, or a new reviewer who is trigger happy in pushing the rejection button. Or worse, is this being done by some computer program.

 

Just my tuppence worth of input here. I am more or less exclusively Shutterstock (ie. I have not submitted any new work to any other sites since ... well, a long time ago).

But reading what is happening to my long-term colleagues here, it may make me re-think that perharps I should not put all my eggs in one basket, ...

just in case the bottom should fall out... due to the act of a certain RENEGADE reviewer(s)...parachuted from Istock (scream here =:o)

 

Hope something gets done to look into this matter, as I feel it can fester.

Cheers. Have a good weekend.

I think we are quite a lot experiencing this bad change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all going in wrong direction. I've been here since 2005, but the way we the contributors, especially experienced oldtimers (me included) are treated by the reviewers (be it one Atilla or several ones or automated review robot), means Shutterstock is either out of control of the review process, or simply don't care, because anyway there is plethore of images feeding the beast.

 

With my first trusty Minolta Dimage A2 I managed to build a strong portfolio since 2005 that passed the review more than the HQ images from new equipment I posses now. And those old images still sell quite well,much better than the new ones. But overall I cannot build my portfolio anymore the way I did before since 90% of my new images get rejected! No matter you shoot raw in studio with proper lighing setup todays SS standard is to reject images for incorrect WB, bad exposure or wrong focus point or bad cropping, any excuse is good just to not the images let go in. Did I forget how to take good stock images? I don't think so. On the contrary I have learnt a lot since 2005. I have invested a lot of money into my photo gear and skills and I started to make a living out of it. Why are we kept punished for our creativity, effords, time and passion when the rewiewers stay virtually unpunished for their insain wrong decisions? Hey, we built this city, together, don't you remember it. We and our work require more respect, for what it's worth 25 or 38c. Otherwise we will be witnessing other major contributors leaving the game, seeking motivation and profits elswhere, and the buyers will follow them resulting in even more decline in our micro profits. We are all in the same boat. I hope it's not too late for change of attitude.

 

Sorry for the longish post. But I had to throw this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been here since 2005, but the way we the contributors, especially experienced oldtimers (me included) are treated by the reviewers (be it one Atilla or several ones or automated review robot),

...90% of my new images get rejected! No matter you shoot raw in studio with proper lighing setup todays SS standard is to reject images for incorrect WB, bad exposure or wrong focus point or bad cropping, any excuse is good just to not the images let go in. Did I forget how to take good stock images? I don't think so. EDITED FOR BREVITY

 

Atilla !!! LOL, that's an appropriate name. slash and burn, ... not funny, really.. but how apt !

back to topic..

yes, it's quite surprising. i am sure not everyone of you old-timers since 2005,etc.. (me, i am still new but my approval ratio was very high too)..

suddenly all develop some optical disease to not know how to WB or even more odd, that all of our monitors suddenly became uncalibrated.

 

Lastly, I don't think it is because Shutterstock "DOES NOT CARE" (quote/unquote). I trust SS, thus as i said, have more or less been exclusive by choice.

I think it is more a case of SS "NOT BEING INFORMED".

Maybe if every "old timer" voice their concern, it might make some noise (no pun intended).

Only just let's not have SS go the same way as IStock where everyone just got so messed-up.

Have a good weekend all. I still have faith that majority of the reviewers are proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all going in wrong direction. I've been here since 2005, but the way we the contributors, especially experienced oldtimers (me included) are treated by the reviewers (be it one Atilla or several ones or automated review robot), means Shutterstock is either out of control of the review process, or simply don't care, because anyway there is plethore of images feeding the beast.

 

With my first trusty Minolta Dimage A2 I managed to build a strong portfolio since 2005 that passed the review more than the HQ images from new equipment I posses now. And those old images still sell quite well,much better than the new ones. But overall I cannot build my portfolio anymore the way I did before since 90% of my new images get rejected! No matter you shoot raw in studio with proper lighing setup todays SS standard is to reject images for incorrect WB, bad exposure or wrong focus point or bad cropping, any excuse is good just to not the images let go in. Did I forget how to take good stock images? I don't think so. On the contrary I have learnt a lot since 2005. I have invested a lot of money into my photo gear and skills and I started to make a living out of it. Why are we kept punished for our creativity, effords, time and passion when the rewiewers stay virtually unpunished for their insain wrong decisions? Hey, we built this city, together, don't you remember it. We and our work require more respect, for what it's worth 25 or 38c. Otherwise we will be witnessing other major contributors leaving the game, seeking motivation and profits elswhere, and the buyers will follow them resulting in even more decline in our micro profits. We are all in the same boat. I hope it's not too late for change of attitude.

 

Sorry for the longish post. But I had to throw this out.

 

Absolutely true in what you said. I'd been around for a while and recently found the reviewers' reasons for rejection ridiculous. I have no mood to upload any new images this past two months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...