Quote from: sinandogan on January 07, 2026, 06:45

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on January 06, 2026, 18:03

Quote from: sinandogan on January 06, 2026, 13:25

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on January 06, 2026, 12:20

Quote from: sinandogan on January 06, 2026, 07:35
Despite all the negativity, Adobe is promising for me. Since I started uploading products at the end of 2022, I've seen my sales increase every year.

2023 -> 102 downloads and $134
2024 -> 217 downloads and $226
2025 -> 491 downloads and $599

From the beginning to the present, there are a total of 860 downloads and $1006.


I know these numbers might seem quite low and ridiculous to some, but they offer hope for the future.

My portfolio currently consists of 25,500 photographs and 1,060 videos. It mainly features travel and landscape photography and videos.

My goal now is to make more than $1,000 in sales by 2026.

Your RPI (royalties per image/video) is around $0.023. And you tell that it's worth the time and (eventual) skill?
To earn a very low income of $8/hour, you have to spend maximum 6 seconds/image or video.
I think you are ready (or already) for AI prompting and flooding.

My RPI on Adobe is around 45x more! And I can tell you that I consider it low...

No, there's no income right now that would justify the effort. But I mentioned that it's increasing steadily. I live in Turkey, and the economy here is very bad. Even an extra $300-400 a month is a very good amount. I earn my living from other jobs, and stock websites are a source of extra income for me.

25,500 images in 3 years... Wow. I suppose your images are pieces of art... or maybe you only shoot in burst mode and send tons of these pictures.
Hem, well, maybe you only use a smartphone. Strange world today... Really...

Hey buddy, calm down. I'm not going to learn photography from you. I've traveled the world for 20 years, photographing cities and towns. I have over 100,000 photos in my archive, and each one is valuable. I'm sure you have a valuable archive too, but that doesn't give you the right to look down on others.

I'm pretty sure that Ms Duck not buddy. She's putting down your RPI which doesn't matter for what you get paid. Earnings are important not irrelevant statistics.

I agree with Duck.

The problem isn't that I don't want Sinandogan to sell his images; he can.

The problem is that I don't think he should sell them alongside professional photographers and illustrators and amateurs of medium-to-high quality.

The two markets should be separated, otherwise the noise of the huge volumes uploaded risks making quality work invisible. A good photographer risks being irrelevant to the algorithm.

Call it what you will: enshittification or slopification.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/12/17/pop-culture/ai-slop-meaning-meme-examples-images-word-of-the-year

https://sarah-stumboeck.com/blog/the-great-slopification-why-the-future-belongs-to-human-artists

But this is what's happening on all platforms, especially now with AI, not just stock image platforms, but also music, art, and news platforms. The creative industry is at risk if mid/high-quality work and crap work is mixed.

This is done to lower production costs and pay image creators less and less.

But this way, the web is dying under a tsunami of low-quality content. People are getting tired of scrolling through junk feeds.

I have 6,000 to 7,000 high-quality images created over 15 years, and they generate between $600 and $800 a month on Adobe Stock, while Shutterstock still barely surpasses Adobe. Sinandogan has four times as many images as I do, but he earns in a year what I earn in a month.

There's clearly a quality issue. I suggest Sinandogan submit fewer images and study to improve the quality of his shots.

I don't think it's fair to play in the same game. What do we offer clients? Low-quality images? That keeps clients away! Some say: professionals should go to premium agencies. Unfortunately, premium agencies don't sell anything anymore; even the most prestigious newspapers and magazines and the most famous commercial brands buy stock images from Shutterstock, Adobe, or Istock.

I would be in favor of bringing back an entrance exam for selling through agencies. If you deserve it, you can sell. Otherwise you start studying to improve your images until you reach an acceptable level.

Quote from: Bauman on January 08, 2026, 22:15
I agree with Duck.

The problem isn't that I don't want Sinandogan to sell his images; he can.

The problem is that I don't think he should sell them alongside professional photographers and illustrators and amateurs of medium-to-high quality.

The two markets should be separated, otherwise the noise of the huge volumes uploaded risks making quality work invisible. A good photographer risks being irrelevant to the algorithm.

Call it what you will: enshittification or slopification.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/12/17/pop-culture/ai-slop-meaning-meme-examples-images-word-of-the-year

https://sarah-stumboeck.com/blog/the-great-slopification-why-the-future-belongs-to-human-artists

But this is what's happening on all platforms, especially now with AI, not just stock image platforms, but also music, art, and news platforms. The creative industry is at risk if mid/high-quality work and crap work is mixed.

This is done to lower production costs and pay image creators less and less.

But this way, the web is dying under a tsunami of low-quality content. People are getting tired of scrolling through junk feeds.

I have 6,000 to 7,000 high-quality images created over 15 years, and they generate between $600 and $800 a month on Adobe Stock, while Shutterstock still barely surpasses Adobe. Sinandogan has four times as many images as I do, but he earns in a year what I earn in a month.

There's clearly a quality issue. I suggest Sinandogan submit fewer images and study to improve the quality of his shots.

I don't think it's fair to play in the same game. What do we offer clients? Low-quality images? That keeps clients away! Some say: professionals should go to premium agencies. Unfortunately, premium agencies don't sell anything anymore; even the most prestigious newspapers and magazines and the most famous commercial brands buy stock images from Shutterstock, Adobe, or Istock.

I would be in favor of bringing back an entrance exam for selling through agencies. If you deserve it, you can sell. Otherwise you start studying to improve your images until you reach an acceptable level.

Well said. The two shouldn't be mixed and sold as the same.



How do we know what's real and what's AI? At least this is marked AI.

Hi folks, Adobe contributor sales are on a downward trend. Earnings have halved in the last 2-3 months.

That's not everyone's experience. Many contributors here have had increased earnings on AS. I can't complain.

Quote from: Bauman on January 08, 2026, 22:15
I agree with Duck.

The problem isn't that I don't want Sinandogan to sell his images; he can.

The problem is that I don't think he should sell them alongside professional photographers and illustrators and amateurs of medium-to-high quality.

The two markets should be separated, otherwise the noise of the huge volumes uploaded risks making quality work invisible. A good photographer risks being irrelevant to the algorithm.

Call it what you will: enshittification or slopification.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/12/17/pop-culture/ai-slop-meaning-meme-examples-images-word-of-the-year

https://sarah-stumboeck.com/blog/the-great-slopification-why-the-future-belongs-to-human-artists

But this is what's happening on all platforms, especially now with AI, not just stock image platforms, but also music, art, and news platforms. The creative industry is at risk if mid/high-quality work and crap work is mixed.

This is done to lower production costs and pay image creators less and less.

But this way, the web is dying under a tsunami of low-quality content. People are getting tired of scrolling through junk feeds.

I have 6,000 to 7,000 high-quality images created over 15 years, and they generate between $600 and $800 a month on Adobe Stock, while Shutterstock still barely surpasses Adobe. Sinandogan has four times as many images as I do, but he earns in a year what I earn in a month.

There's clearly a quality issue. I suggest Sinandogan submit fewer images and study to improve the quality of his shots.

I don't think it's fair to play in the same game. What do we offer clients? Low-quality images? That keeps clients away! Some say: professionals should go to premium agencies. Unfortunately, premium agencies don't sell anything anymore; even the most prestigious newspapers and magazines and the most famous commercial brands buy stock images from Shutterstock, Adobe, or Istock.

I would be in favor of bringing back an entrance exam for selling through agencies. If you deserve it, you can sell. Otherwise you start studying to improve your images until you reach an acceptable level.

The problem isn't that agencies are flooded with images. The problem - as you yourself write - lies in the algorithm.

If this algorithm favors masses of images over high-quality images, it's logical and right to do without expensive camera equipment because you can no longer recoup the cost.
What I'm trying to say - this is also directed at DiscreetDuck - is: Why should contributors refrain from flooding the database with potentially second-rate images if it brings them enough money from their point of view? And what's wrong with using a smartphone in that case?

The problem is not the flood of images and the providers who create this flood, but the agencies with their market assessments, which then define the algorithm.

And while we're at it: Who has the right to complain? The one with an RPI of 45 x 0.0023 (which corresponds to an RPI of 0.1)? The one with an RPI of 1? The one with an RPI of 5? It's a question of subjective standards. Because someone with an RPI of 5 could also complain that the one with an RPI of 1 is flooding and clogging up the database.

Generally speaking, I agree – purely subjectively. $600 a year for 26,560 images and videos would be completely out of the question for me. But in Turkey, it might be an incentive. In countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe, the financial situation is completely different, and even $50 a month can make a big difference. And the motivation for these income opportunities may be many times higher than in the US or Europe. In my opinion, this is probably a very important reason for the flood of images at the agencies.

Quote from: Wilm on February 19, 2026, 23:45

Quote from: Bauman on January 08, 2026, 22:15
I agree with Duck.

The problem isn't that I don't want Sinandogan to sell his images; he can.

The problem is that I don't think he should sell them alongside professional photographers and illustrators and amateurs of medium-to-high quality.

The two markets should be separated, otherwise the noise of the huge volumes uploaded risks making quality work invisible. A good photographer risks being irrelevant to the algorithm.

Call it what you will: enshittification or slopification.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/12/17/pop-culture/ai-slop-meaning-meme-examples-images-word-of-the-year

https://sarah-stumboeck.com/blog/the-great-slopification-why-the-future-belongs-to-human-artists

But this is what's happening on all platforms, especially now with AI, not just stock image platforms, but also music, art, and news platforms. The creative industry is at risk if mid/high-quality work and crap work is mixed.

This is done to lower production costs and pay image creators less and less.

But this way, the web is dying under a tsunami of low-quality content. People are getting tired of scrolling through junk feeds.

I have 6,000 to 7,000 high-quality images created over 15 years, and they generate between $600 and $800 a month on Adobe Stock, while Shutterstock still barely surpasses Adobe. Sinandogan has four times as many images as I do, but he earns in a year what I earn in a month.

There's clearly a quality issue. I suggest Sinandogan submit fewer images and study to improve the quality of his shots.

I don't think it's fair to play in the same game. What do we offer clients? Low-quality images? That keeps clients away! Some say: professionals should go to premium agencies. Unfortunately, premium agencies don't sell anything anymore; even the most prestigious newspapers and magazines and the most famous commercial brands buy stock images from Shutterstock, Adobe, or Istock.

I would be in favor of bringing back an entrance exam for selling through agencies. If you deserve it, you can sell. Otherwise you start studying to improve your images until you reach an acceptable level.

The problem isn't that agencies are flooded with images. The problem - as you yourself write - lies in the algorithm.

If this algorithm favors masses of images over high-quality images, it's logical and right to do without expensive camera equipment because you can no longer recoup the cost.
What I'm trying to say - this is also directed at DiscreetDuck - is: Why should contributors refrain from flooding the database with potentially second-rate images if it brings them enough money from their point of view? And what's wrong with using a smartphone in that case?

The problem is not the flood of images and the providers who create this flood, but the agencies with their market assessments, which then define the algorithm.

And while we're at it: Who has the right to complain? The one with an RPI of 45 x 0.0023 (which corresponds to an RPI of 0.1)? The one with an RPI of 1? The one with an RPI of 5? It's a question of subjective standards. Because someone with an RPI of 5 could also complain that the one with an RPI of 1 is flooding and clogging up the database.

Generally speaking, I agree – purely subjectively. $600 a year for 26,560 images and videos would be completely out of the question for me. But in Turkey, it might be an incentive. In countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe, the financial situation is completely different, and even $50 a month can make a big difference. And the motivation for these income opportunities may be many times higher than in the US or Europe. In my opinion, this is probably a very important reason for the flood of images at the agencies.

Finally, the main problem may stem from the fact that there are different markets but only one price for a snapshot or more artistic photo and everything is lumped together, at the same level. Algorithms ignore quality, soul, and authenticity (even some contributors, eheh). Only sales bring the invisible to the surface, but it often takes an incredibly long time. Are you sure that only people who work hard to produce quality or exception can understand what they are exposed to? All have to be equal today? incompetence equals competence? laziness equals effort? beginner equals experimented? I think there is a generational question here.
So, people living in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe are inevitably people who flood collections with second-rate images? Does competence depend on nationality for you? Personally, I don't think so. There are people on this forum who prove that incompetence (or even mediocrity) is not incompatible with being American or European. 

Propose a vision that is exception and authentic emotion is the opposite of AI Machinery.
Nothing could be more fitting than the lyrics of a song to evoke an enlightened consciousness.
Yes, there was so much soul and human creativity in Propaganda's P:Machinery 

It's your turn, Bauman. Sorry for answering before you did, I look forward to hearing from you.

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on February 20, 2026, 05:04

Quote from: Wilm on February 19, 2026, 23:45

Quote from: Bauman on January 08, 2026, 22:15
I agree with Duck.

The problem isn't that I don't want Sinandogan to sell his images; he can.

The problem is that I don't think he should sell them alongside professional photographers and illustrators and amateurs of medium-to-high quality.

The two markets should be separated, otherwise the noise of the huge volumes uploaded risks making quality work invisible. A good photographer risks being irrelevant to the algorithm.

Call it what you will: enshittification or slopification.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/12/17/pop-culture/ai-slop-meaning-meme-examples-images-word-of-the-year

https://sarah-stumboeck.com/blog/the-great-slopification-why-the-future-belongs-to-human-artists

But this is what's happening on all platforms, especially now with AI, not just stock image platforms, but also music, art, and news platforms. The creative industry is at risk if mid/high-quality work and crap work is mixed.

This is done to lower production costs and pay image creators less and less.

But this way, the web is dying under a tsunami of low-quality content. People are getting tired of scrolling through junk feeds.

I have 6,000 to 7,000 high-quality images created over 15 years, and they generate between $600 and $800 a month on Adobe Stock, while Shutterstock still barely surpasses Adobe. Sinandogan has four times as many images as I do, but he earns in a year what I earn in a month.

There's clearly a quality issue. I suggest Sinandogan submit fewer images and study to improve the quality of his shots.

I don't think it's fair to play in the same game. What do we offer clients? Low-quality images? That keeps clients away! Some say: professionals should go to premium agencies. Unfortunately, premium agencies don't sell anything anymore; even the most prestigious newspapers and magazines and the most famous commercial brands buy stock images from Shutterstock, Adobe, or Istock.

I would be in favor of bringing back an entrance exam for selling through agencies. If you deserve it, you can sell. Otherwise you start studying to improve your images until you reach an acceptable level.

The problem isn't that agencies are flooded with images. The problem - as you yourself write - lies in the algorithm.

If this algorithm favors masses of images over high-quality images, it's logical and right to do without expensive camera equipment because you can no longer recoup the cost.
What I'm trying to say - this is also directed at DiscreetDuck - is: Why should contributors refrain from flooding the database with potentially second-rate images if it brings them enough money from their point of view? And what's wrong with using a smartphone in that case?

The problem is not the flood of images and the providers who create this flood, but the agencies with their market assessments, which then define the algorithm.

And while we're at it: Who has the right to complain? The one with an RPI of 45 x 0.0023 (which corresponds to an RPI of 0.1)? The one with an RPI of 1? The one with an RPI of 5? It's a question of subjective standards. Because someone with an RPI of 5 could also complain that the one with an RPI of 1 is flooding and clogging up the database.

Generally speaking, I agree – purely subjectively. $600 a year for 26,560 images and videos would be completely out of the question for me. But in Turkey, it might be an incentive. In countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe, the financial situation is completely different, and even $50 a month can make a big difference. And the motivation for these income opportunities may be many times higher than in the US or Europe. In my opinion, this is probably a very important reason for the flood of images at the agencies.

Finally, the main problem may stem from the fact that there are different markets but only one price for a snapshot or more artistic photo and everything is lumped together, at the same level. Algorithms ignore quality, soul, and authenticity (even some contributors, eheh). Only sales bring the invisible to the surface, but it often takes an incredibly long time. Are you sure that only people who work hard to produce quality or exception can understand what they are exposed to? All have to be equal today? incompetence equals competence? laziness equals effort? beginner equals experimented? I think there is a generational question here.
So, people living in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe are inevitably people who flood collections with second-rate images? Does competence depend on nationality for you? Personally, I don't think so. There are people on this forum who prove that incompetence (or even mediocrity) is not incompatible with being American or European. 

Propose a vision that is exception and authentic emotion is the opposite of AI Machinery.
Nothing could be more fitting than the lyrics of a song to evoke an enlightened consciousness.
Yes, there was so much soul and human creativity in Propaganda's P:Machinery 

It's your turn, Bauman. Sorry for answering before you did, I look forward to hearing from you.

This interpretation of my words is unfair, incorrect, and polemical. I never said that people from poorer countries deliver poor-quality images.

What I wrote was that a contributor with significantly lower living costs is likely to be more motivated in the microstock business, simply because the sale of images accounts for a higher proportion of their total income.
Example: A contributor earns $100 per month.
In Bangladesh, that is almost half the average monthly income ($235).
In Switzerland, the average monthly income is $10,000. You would have to be an outstanding contributor to be able to make a living from microstock in Switzerland. In Bangladesh, on the other hand, this is easily possible. If I can make a living from something, I can invest more time in it—it's not just a hobby on the side.

That's what I meant.

Addendum: Microstock is an international market. The automotive industry, for example, is also an international market. Here in Germany, this industry is currently facing massive problems. Donald Trump's customs policy is only a small part of the problem. A major problem is the Chinese automotive industry. It can produce much more cheaply, the cars are cheaper, and the quality is now beyond doubt. In my view, it is therefore to be expected that the Chinese automotive industry will become the new global leader.

Here in Europe, there is virtually no textile industry left. Production used to take place in Central Europe. When that became too expensive, production shifted to Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Now production takes place in Southeast Asia. This is because local buyers don't want to spend $100 on a T-shirt either. Just as microstock buyers now want to spend less money on average than they used to.

It is also possible that in the future, contributors from poorer countries and emerging markets could become the top dogs in the microstock market, as long as this market is not completely replaced by AI. These are normal market laws. And if customers are now satisfied with lower quality, we have to accept that.

My annual Microstock-RPI used to be $17 (with a simple compact camera and standard software). I remember people whose annual RPI was $220 or much higher at that time. The quality of those contributors' images was probably significantly higher than my own. At that time, however, you were still welcome in the microstock community because every contributor added to the agencies' broader range of offerings and overall sales increased because the agencies still had customer growth. Today, due to the glut of images, it's exactly the opposite.
In any case, I wouldn't invest in expensive equipment today because it's no longer economically viable here in Germany compared to other jobs.

In short and without drama: the core issue isn't contributors or their countries, it's the rules of the game. Agencies like Adobe Stock and Shutterstock designed algorithms that often reward volume over quality. In that environment, it's rational for people to upload a lot, even smartphone content , if it brings income. Metrics like RPI or "professionalism" stop being universal benchmarks when $50-100 a month is meaningless for some and life‑changing for others. Microstock is a global market with a single price level. What's happening isn't bad contributors pushing out good ones, it's a system that can't price quality properly and only reacts to sales signals.

My sales are like 10% of what they were in 2015! I've since left the MS business and work part time at a local grocery store making $30K a year. I've never looked back...