Toggle sidebar

Camera for Product Photography

Sort by date Sort by votes
Nickdavis87 said:
Things i would recommend:

Good Lightbox (and lighting)
Good Camera ;)
Good tripod
Lots of practice.

If you are on a really tight budget there are lots of guides online to making your own lightbox.

(i didnt read the whole thread so this has prob been covered)
Click to expand...

Just curious on your thoughts, of why a good tripod is needed?

As the tripods we used in the Tait cost £12 each from the local photography store and they did the job.

A cheep tripod can be made a lot more sturdy by throwing a sand bag (i use my ruck sack) over the bottom leg horizontal supports to give it weight.
 
Upvote 0
da8iwr said:
Just curious on your thoughts, of why a good tripod is needed?

As the tripods we used in the Tait cost £12 each from the local photography store and they did the job.

A cheep tripod can be made a lot more sturdy by throwing a sand bag (i use my ruck sack) over the bottom leg horizontal supports to give it weight.
Click to expand...

Well by good i mean one that works well, so £12 or £200 if its stable its good :D
 
Upvote 0
da8iwr said:
Come to think of it, for that money i could hire a couple of people to hold the camera steady for me...
Click to expand...

Great information Sir ,nice to know there is a pro photo guy on here.:)

I have an old cannon powershot A60 1 and a half pixels.:|

and gives me far better results than me all singing Fuji 3,000 mile zoom thingy.

Earl
 
Upvote 0
Sorry been busy, I just wanted to say thanks for all the info, I purchase that tripod mentioned above and will save now for the camera:D

I have one more question if anyone has time, if not no worries, I this is listed on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=360131508410

Its a canon 400D with two lenses 18-55 and 55-200, however the camera is dated and looking some of the reviews of lenses they don't seem to be the best, so shall i save for a 450D, or is the one above a good buy?
 
Upvote 0
Hi there
The 400D was/is a good camera, the only real difference is the screen on the back is a little smaller (2.5" rather than 3") and it is of course an 8mp rather than a 12mp (but still overkill for what most people need). The 450D has live view, which allows you to see things through the computer and the back of the camera, personally that doesn't bother me for normal photography as i prefer the view finder anyway.

There will be other minor differences, but to me the biggest one is money.

That 400D is £390, when a 450D with an 18-55mm lens is about £500
But from Jessops if you buy a similar double lens kit, your paying £640

I still think £390 for that eBay item is a good price for the camera, but you need to think, will you need a camera that good if it will be 99% product photography destined for the web at a max of 800 x 600 images.

The lenses are good enough for what anybody reading this thread including 99% of my photography will require. As the difference between these lenses and others that so called pros on photography forums talk about, is so small and almost un-noticeable, that unless your shouting for a fashion shoot, Magazine cover or a huge advertising campaign where it will be blown to bill board size at ultra high res it makes no difference.

So yes if you think you will use it for more than web-work, its a good deal, a good pair of lenses of different types to get you practising and seeing how it works, and also a battery grip which mainly make it look bigger than do anything functional.

I used my camera for time lapse (like this movie i made here) last weekend, i drove all the way from Sunderland to Scarborough and back through the dales with the camera on a support in the car, taking over 8000 images at one per 3 seconds. I used one standard battery that comes with it (I had a spare one but didn't need it), so I'm not sure why people think they need an extra battery pack that holds 2 batteries or more, as you would need some MASSIVE photoshoot to kill a fully charged battery. Battery grips are more to make the camera look more substantial and impressive like the 1Ds MK3 which costs £6000 than anything functional. So next time you see a photographer with one, you now know the reason why, he is using a smaller cheaper end camera and wants it too look more impressive. :cool:

A true photographer plays with different cameras, right the way down to home made pin hole cameras, there are loads of forums and clubs around the Lomo and Holga cameras, which is basically a pin hole box, something like you would find in a cereal box. But some of the images are excellent, better than most people who buy Digital SLR cameras can produce. They have even given it a name, Lomography

Sorry for rambling on, but I'm just trying to show the camera and lens really has very little to do with the photography, despite what a salesman from Jessops will tell you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lesliedocherty
Upvote 0
da8iwr said:
So yes if you think you will use it for more than web-work, its a good deal, a good pair of lenses of different types to get you practising and seeing how it works, and also a battery grip which mainly make it look bigger than do anything functional.
Click to expand...

You've made some good comments but I'd like to reply on the above statement.

If you shoot products you should assume that at some point that the pictures taken could be used in print. If you do nothing other than burn onto CD the contents of your memory card, even without renaming files, it will be helpful to you.

I'm sure that I can speak for loads of designers and printers in saying that these files are more use to us than what gets converted to be used on the net. So I'd say get something that can produce something decent at 300dpi on the cover of an A4 magazine.

I've lost count of the number of Great photos that have been dumped from being used in printed publications because the simple task of burning a CD in the original format has been ignored/forgotten. You need to ask yourself, what if this product/company really takes off, national mags, newspapers and specialist companies may need photographs to support what you are selling. They'll spend 10 minutes flipping through an unlabelled CD, they won't arrange a 3 hour photo-shoot in most cases.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Hi Alan
Those are some very valid points, but i think most of them are regarding the process of work rather than the camera.

For example the way i work is i never delete any image, how ever weird or test shotty it is, even a photo of a ceiling as you never know if you may need or could you us it for some strange reason.

If we are talking about lets say A4 print which is 8.3 x 11.7 inches in size, and we want 300 dpi (Dots per inch) then we only need an image 2490 x 3510 pixels in size.

So that is photo quality for a whole magazine front cover, which is going to be very rare in deed to need that kind of size, as most images are for adverts, or parts of the page, not an entire page.

The higher the resolution camera does give you the freedom to zoom in and select specific areas whilst still staying at 300 dpi.

I think (If i read your post correctly) when you say
I've lost count of the number of Great photos that have been dumped from being used in printed publications because the simple task of burning a CD in the original format has been ignored/forgotten.
Click to expand...
That's the process of storing images not process of taking them.

I have 5 x 1TB HDDs on my desk all connected to the PC via USB cases, all my images are backed up and stored, so in theory i always have them.

A 500GB HDD only costs about £50 now, and you can store about 250 photo shoots on one, that means they cost about £2 per shoot, that you just build into your costs. On many occasions the images have been so large i have bought a small self contained Hard Drive of lets say 100mbs that is purely for that shoot only, so it is kept all together and doesn't clutter my work other drives up, and allows me to send or give them to the client if needed.

All the best
Ian
 
Upvote 0
Oops i forgot a bit
da8iwr said:
If we are talking about lets say A4 print which is 8.3 x 11.7 inches in size, and we want 300 dpi (Dots per inch) then we only need an image 2490 x 3510 pixels in size.
Click to expand...

The sizes i said above there, is the size of an A4 page, this is the size from the cameras

3072 x 2048 = 10D
3504 x 2336 = 20D
3888 x 2592 = 400D
4272 x 2848 = 450D

So you can see everything from the 20D (Released in 2004) and over is larger than you need.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Wow, cannot say thank you enough, I was expecting a one line answer, but that is excellent, now to way up, if I will save a little longer for the 450, or buy the 400 and have a play and see where to go next.

Thansk for al the info, can I ask how you setup the camera to take a photo every 3 seconds? is that function built into the camera or do you have to get an extra piece of kits for it?

I know the cameras have the ability to shoot so may frames per second is it just setting that, and can the 400 go as long, as the stats all have caps on the number of images you can take.

8000 images thats one big memory card.
 
Upvote 0
da8iwr said:
Hi Alan
Those are some very valid points, but i think most of them are regarding the process of work rather than the camera.

For example the way i work is i never delete any image, how ever weird or test shotty it is, even a photo of a ceiling as you never know if you may need or could you us it for some strange reason.

If we are talking about lets say A4 print which is 8.3 x 11.7 inches in size, and we want 300 dpi (Dots per inch) then we only need an image 2490 x 3510 pixels in size.

So that is photo quality for a whole magazine front cover, which is going to be very rare in deed to need that kind of size, as most images are for adverts, or parts of the page, not an entire page.

The higher the resolution camera does give you the freedom to zoom in and select specific areas whilst still staying at 300 dpi.

I think (If i read your post correctly) when you say

That's the process of storing images not process of taking them.

I have 5 x 1TB HDDs on my desk all connected to the PC via USB cases, all my images are backed up and stored, so in theory i always have them.

A 500GB HDD only costs about £50 now, and you can store about 250 photo shoots on one, that means they cost about £2 per shoot, that you just build into your costs. On many occasions the images have been so large i have bought a small self contained Hard Drive of lets say 100mbs that is purely for that shoot only, so it is kept all together and doesn't clutter my work other drives up, and allows me to send or give them to the client if needed.

All the best
Ian
Click to expand...

Photo storeage and pixel sizes are lost on most people, the type of drive doesn't really do it for 'em either. Most people understand burn it to a CD (which in most, if not all cases will be playable by anybody)

Going bigger on the size of memory on the camera isn't a bad thing either. How many so called rubbish shots have an interesting part of the picture that with cropping produces a rather nice shot? If the camera you use is capable of doing niffty A3 photos you could still get a decent A5 snap that is print usable, try that with something that's smaller than 2M pixels.
 
Upvote 0
I have just emailed them and asked if they will accept £400, I won't hold my breath.:p;):)

I have decided to save for a couple of months and get the 450D, I don't need it until june, july, and hopefuly get the twin pack.

Thanks agian.
 
Upvote 0
An interesting read guys, some great comments. One thing I'd like to add is that you need to also take into consideration the whole workflow, from the camera to the final layout design package.

A picture taken on a basic point and shoot camera can be made acceptable with a good design; but a picture taken with the best camera in the world can look bad very quickly if the surrounding typography, graphics and layout are poor.

Cheers,
 
Upvote 0
...and to add to Studiowide's remark, you also need to consider the image process from a high quality RAW image in the cameras most people on this thread are talking about to be compacted and reduced to a significantly lesser size in the form of a JPEG or pehaps a PNG. There are issues in web design with both formats.I've been into photography for about 35 years and into web development for about 15 years now, but for web photography, I go with dawi8r's partner in choosing a Nikon - the Nikon Coolpix seems to be a great product at a good price and has served me well for years.I don't do Photoshop for the web - it's over-kill, and, an interesting statistic, most people who harp on about it don't buy it anyway. GIMP is just fine and free.
 
Upvote 0
and, an interesting statistic, most people who harp on about it don't buy it anyway
Click to expand...

How did they measure who was harping on, what constituted harping on, whether they bought PS, or whether they used a copy bought by their employer?

And, an interesting statistic, 87.675% of statistics are made up.:)
 
Upvote 0
Hi Silkline
da8iwr said:
the thing with photography is it usually ends up as a Nikon Vs Canon argument, i personally prefer Canon, but my business partner prefers Nikon and we have spent many hours arguing about which is better over a drink.

Being realistic though, neither is better or worse, they both do the same job, are very close to equal in quality,....
Click to expand...
That was from a few posts ago ( i know its turned out to be a long thread).

I have used GIMP in the past, and yes it is good at simple things, but when you need to do things to a professional level (including using commercial plugins), you cant really compare a bit of software that I "DO" buy and pay for at £400 a pop, against something you can download for free.

Personally the way i look at it, is if i was something like a builder or window cleaner (i was a HGV mechanic for 10+yrs), i would still have to buy a van, tools and equipment, so why should they be forced to buy the tools of their trade for thousands of pounds, when i charge probably more than them, and then use free download or even stolen (pirate) software.

I'm surprised somebody who has been a photographer for 35 years and web designer since 5yrs before Google was even invented cant see the benefits of using a commercial piece of software. The new CS4 suite is incredible, my entire business revolves around it, and it literally more than halves the work time. So for £2400 you can buy the suite, but over a year i probably double my efficiency with it....that's worth 4 times that cost.

But for somebody looking to just take a few photos for their own website, even the software that usually comes with the camera for free will be OK (Its usually a cut down version of Photoshop called Photoshop elements I think).

Raw images are the most amazing way to take images. RAW means it is actually raw data from the sensor itself. On most modern Canon cameras (i don't know about Nikon) you can set it to take a JPG and a RAW at the same time, so you have them both.

Then in Photoshop you can open the raw image and actually change the white balance and other elements with no image loss, as if it was done in the camera at the time of taking the image. This cant be done with JPG. Then once your happy with the RAW image, you export it as a JPG at any size you wish.

DAWG
That's pretty much what i was saying there in a round about sort of way :D

(I forgot to press post this morning when i write this and just found the post still sat here lol)
 
Upvote 0
I think if you use GIMP before using PS or fireworks then you might be OK, but PS and fireworks are so good in comparision, I couldn't use GIMP when I tried.

And I do like the fact you can plug in although most of them used to be free now you have to pay for most of them, and they aint cheap.
 
Upvote 0
While we are on stats and dodgy copies of PS, and with reference to another thread on, yawn, Mac vs PC; Adobe reckon that about 50% of PS copies in this country are hooky. And, a Mac engineer I know told me in December that of the 4000 clients he has seen over the last few years, not one had a kosher copy of PS....
So are PC users dim but honest, and are Mac users a bunch of thieving rascals?
Just sort of thinking aloud...:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stugster
Upvote 0
Here is a small study undertaken about a year ago: http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/03/28/60-of-photoshop-users-are-pirates/

Given that most PS users brag how great the product is, and given this article in amongst hundreds of others supporting the same view, I think my assertion is adequately supported.

da8iwr, I am not a photographer, as in professional. I have been interested in photography, as a hobby, for that long. Subtle difference. I developed my first website in 1994 - the internet has been around since the 70s and www since 1990 - Google is new fangled :-)

A photographer, like yourself, will buy assets like PS and other software and equipment and will expect the assets to generate a return. PS is suited to professionals.

As you mention, your process is to take the image in RAW format (available on most SLRs today) and then, after you have done the artwork in PS and other products, your final step is to transform into a lossy JPG format. In fact, you will also significantly reduce the photo size if you are optimising for the web, perhaps to just 400 pxls width or maybe smaller. For me, that is too lossy. I simply cannot justify, what is it £400 or £600 outlay, for that process.

If I was shooting for magazine covers, large format adverts, etc. - completely different ball-game.

Not trying to have a pop here, but I think it is horses for courses and if people were somehow made to pay, I think the stats for the best product would change as people choose their horse more carefully.
 
Upvote 0
Great stats. If you are going to quote stats sometimes it's useful to have a meaningful survey: 1313 votes from a self selected sample, on a photo hobbyist site is just not that respectable in the stats world...

Still I digress: you seem to have a thing about PS users. You do know that you can get PS Elements for £35? This is basically PS6 without conversion to CMYK, (GIMP anyone?), and a few minor things. Some people might like that. Maybe they should be allowed the choice without been lumped in with thieves, harpies and braggarts?

In much the same way I wish you the very best using GIMP and all the other Freeware you like.
 
Upvote 0
I had a discussion a long time ago about software licencing with my staff, as i also produce my own software for the CMS Joomla/Virtuemart. We have discussed what is the best way forward in licencing and encryption (preventing it working without a license) so we can collect revenue from it.

We all came to the same conclusion, that Microsoft, Adobe and what was macromedia (makers of photoshop) have allowed their software to be fairly easily cracked/pirated by just adding a serial number on installation to even the freely downloadable trial version. Its now slightly harder by using a crack, but not much more.

I am almost sure that a some hacks and serial numbers are given away by the company themselves as before Xmas i found a copy of CS4 studio from adobe on a torrent which came with a crack and serial. it worked perfect for 2 or 3 months, then all of a sudden it said "expired" on all programs when i opened it. I then actually went out and bought the software as i didn't want to go back to my genuine boxed CS2 version and needed to carry on working.

Also allowing software piracy allows students, amateurs, and other types of people to download and use the software quickly and out of the box. This means hopefully when the student graduates and goes for employment, they have the required skills and experience in a commercial pro package and so their employers have no problems buying it as no training is required.....so there is the sale to adobe for "allowing" the piracy to happen earlier on.

This is a simple and easy way to get the product into the market, to be known world wide, and become the market leaders in the industry.

Other software is so difficult to licence that even a real copy is difficult to get working, one is Alias Maya (3D package) and another is Realviz Stitcher.

This means students and others cant get it working, so then use packages they can get working, and once used to that system, never change as they don't want the full learning curve.

So the fact that most people use hooky software is usually a conscious decision by the manufacturers.

Think about it, if it was impossible to crack windows, how many people would move to Apple instead, and once there, they will never go back as it is much better.
(that's not a cue to start an argument about PC vs Mac either ;))

That's my opinion anyway on a lot of piracy :D
 
Upvote 0
Also i just read thewebpage on the link to the "stats" you point out.
A Photography Resource for the Aspiring Hobbyist
Click to expand...
So basically you are using statistics of a vote from the home amateur, not a professional website where people from within the industry use. I would say most design studios have a copy of Photoshop installed on each computer, a real full bought version.

So like i said above, its worth "allowing" a person from home to use a dodgy copy, because Adobe know if they are serious about it, somewhere down the line, they will be using a full paid for version somewhere.

http://forum.netmag.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=39798
I just set this poll up, lets see what happens as to be honest I'm interested myself to know.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dawg, I don't think PS elements is in the league we are talking about here. I have no issue with PS users. I do have an issue with people who assert their views about a product without giving due consideration for other worthy products. And on that note, I am just converting some artwork to CMYK format using GIMP. Good timing.

Picking up on your point da8iwr, it is a strategy of many firms to turn a blind eye to piracy, plus the provision of educational licenses for schools in the interest of building a young army of future users. In adult life no-one gets fired for buying in Adobe or Microsoft. And, therefore, anyone using GIMP or OpenOffice, or any other seemingly lesser product must be stupid because they are not in the big boys gang, right?

Marketing works amazingly well
 
Upvote 0
silklink said:
Dawg, I don't think PS elements is in the league we are talking about here.
Click to expand...

Actually i think it is in the exact league we are talking about, we are trying to separate professionals from people who just use it for home use.

Amateurs can use programs, such as Gimp, Paint.NET, Photo Deluxe, Photoshop essentials, which as DAWG pointed out, only costs £30 or so and sometimes comes for free on magazine covers and in camera boxes.

So it has nothing to do with "boys gangs" or the marketing as you so patronisingly put it, its to do with industry tools powerful enough to do the most demanding jobs that you need when you need it.
 
Upvote 0
da8iwr, this is the question that was posed at the onset and this is a Business forum. What exactly are you suggesting? So far, you have suggested top priced cameras and top priced software. Meanwhile, I am looking at the business problem and have come up with a pragmatic solution that works.


littlebusiness said:
Hi! All,

I'm tring to start a export-import business. I got some response too. But every wants to see the products photo (fashion and crafts related).

I have camera in my mobile. :p :(

But I'm thinking of buying a camera which can take good picture of any products.

Do you think its necessary?

Do you have any suggestion on what type of camera I should buy?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
silklink said:
da8iwr, this is the question that was posed at the onset and this is a Business forum. What exactly are you suggesting? So far, you have suggested top priced cameras and top priced software. Meanwhile, I am looking at the business problem and have come up with a pragmatic solution that works.
Click to expand...

Cobblers. (And what is this sanctimonious drivel about "a business forum"? We know this. Thank you.) The Op posted and has had a great deal of advice ranging from getting a point and shoot, (Sony & TZs), to cheapo Fujis, on to mid/low range Canons and Nikons, with sensible input about getting a pro, (that's professional as in what people do for business), to do it.

Apart from the joke mention of the 'blad and the Gitzo, no really top range gear has been mentioned, and, if you climbed off your high horse, you might realize that the word 'photoshop' is used as a generic term for image editing software as well as a brand name. So PS elements, and all other editing software at all price ranges have been included.

Quite a bit of the advice on this thread; about the necessity for lighting well, having a tripod, using image editing software etc has been acknowledged as very useful, and a lot has been given by da8iwr freely, from his obvious wealth of knowledge and experience.

Your first post, muddying the waters with needless complication about shooting RAW, was further away from the OP as anything else posted. Your 'pragmatic solution' is one of many, and in my opinion not the best. I think most point and shoots are unsuitable for the job when allied with non professional wetware, and a slightly more versatile camera helps the amateur greatly. But that's just me. And I don't have web experience so old that I told Al Gore when to start it, so what do I know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: da8iwr
Upvote 0
At what point was i suggesting buying the most expensive camera or software?

da8iwr said:
if your using it only to make web images, get onto eBay and find a good second hand Canon SLR like the 10D or 20D camera with the standard 18-55mm lens. They are dirt cheep and 3 - 7 yrs ago were counted as professional, so if the images were good enough then, why will they not be a few years later???

(Note - SLR is the type of camera where you can change the lens on the front)

I wouldn't pay anymore than £150-£200 for one, as a new Canon 1000D (The most recent entry level canon SLR camera) is only about £399.
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index.php?target=products&product_id=10818
Click to expand...

What i was jumping on was the remarks you said about photoshop

silklink said:
I don't do Photoshop for the web - it's over-kill, and, an interesting statistic, most people who harp on about it don't buy it anyway. GIMP is just fine and free.
Click to expand...

Photoshop is not just for high end quality, in fact most free products will work with high res work or low res work, so it makes no difference, what does matter though is the enormous range of tools and features Photoshop offers, to produce the results you need.

So my argument was not to tell people to buy any product, but to defend it so others reading this will understand the other side of the coin and why it is so expensive.
 
Upvote 0
Hooky software isn't a great way to provide experience into using their products, they have student versions at reduced costs. Piracy is plain wrong, it deprives those who have invested in its R&D of their rightful ROI. Elements is good for most product images for the web, so CMYK isn't an issue in this respect.

A noviced asked and by and large has gotten the info (and some) to fulfil his aims and expectations, its what they were after. For me, and others I'd guess at, have learnt some very good points and to me, this has been one of the best threads this year.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Dawg, are you trying to slag me off rather than engage in constructive argument? Your words…

"Adobe reckon that about 50% of PS copies in this country are hooky. And, a Mac engineer I know told me in December that of the 4000 clients he has seen over the last few years, not one had a kosher copy of PS"

I provided some stats to support this same view of piracy and you blast me for it.
It's difficult to tell what side of the fence you are arguing from. By the way, Al Gore is said to have created the building blocks for the Internet - once again, a different league from the World Wide Web, upon which, web sites are built.

da8iwr, you stated your claim of being a professional photographer. Your introduction…

"Im a photogrpaher for London Fashion show and have had an exhibition in Tate britain October 2008, and trust me camera price has NOTHING to do with it."

I think it is perfectly appropriate to buy top gear for the demands that your job probably entails. However, a platinum plated trowel does not make a better bricklayer. If all you need to do is take a photo of some products and, perhaps, resolve background issues, some enhancements, and size the images for the web, you do not need an SLR, tripod and special lighting. If you do more and more of this sort of work, then maybe yes, investing in better lighting and other equipment might be beneficial in terms of quality and the speed of the process. But, as I have stated, it is dependant upon the return on your investment.

Put it in this context: Mr A takes satisfactory pictures of his products to put on his web shop with a point-and-shoot compact and typically earns £50,000 per year in revenue. If he buys an SLR, lighting, Photoshop, tripod, etc. will his revenue increase correspondingly to his investment? If the answer is 'no', or 'probably not', the pragmatic business solution is to look to a lesser investment.

No-one is, or probably would even dare, to run down Photoshop. Seriously, it does not need to be defended. My argument is that most of the capabilities that are enjoyed in PS are available in GIMP. I think GIMP needs more air-play. It is an extremely well supported product. Like you said at the onset of cameras, paying more money on software does not mean that the results will be better. GIMP is not entirely free - you still have to learn to use it, and that takes, at least, the investment of time.

Please note that while I might be disagreeing with your views, I am not attacking you with personal accusations or undermining your stated experience.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Marketer Looking to Buy, Build or Partner in a Product-Based Business
Replies
1
Views
2K
General Business Forum
NelaKo
NelaKo
apricot
Where do I go for compliance check?
Replies
10
Views
4K
General Business Forum
apricot
apricot
T
UK Trademark Class 35 for online retailer question.
Replies
23
Views
5K
General Business Forum
Porky
Porky
armoniagems
Any Shopify apps that actually help boost sales for a niche product like gemstones?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Websites & Ecommerce
antropy
antropy
T
  • Ask a Question Ask a Question
How to deal with tricky / slow suppliers? Shopify High ticket dropshipping store
Replies
3
Views
427
Websites & Ecommerce
NickZ
NickZ

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back