MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I don't know why, but I feel happier when I sell AI generated photos than  (Read 9617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: January 15, 2024, 15:46 »
+1
The fact that she went from making about $100/month before uploading AI images to $1,000/month in 6 months is mind blowing.  Will she make $10,000/month another 6 months later?  Very unlikely.  But I think she can reach $3,000/month in a year or two if she keeps adding quality AI images like she's been doing.  This kind of stuff never happened.  It's the only positive I've seen in the last 5 years in microstock industry for contributors.

https://youtu.be/F6fSIbMpri8?si=Zj8ag7628oTYYE8w

True, there are probably more santa claus images doing better than hers. My point was - for "santa claus" (while of course not every image is a santa claus), of the 425,000 results - basically you'd need to be in the top 10 or top 20 to see any 'significant' financial results.

Not sure why "her" santa claus was chosen over 425,000 other santa clauses (if I knew that, I could consistently produce a lot of different images that do well) - but I'd say it is a combination of luck, timing, happening to stumble upon the right keywords/etc... in other words - not necessariliy easy to duplicate. (I made some santa claus images that I thought were quite good, and for the 3-4 hours involved in coming up with concepts, making them, titling, keywording, upscaling, editing, cropping, fixing, categorizing, submitting, - I think I made... let me check... looks like about $5 (about $1/hour)... Of course, $5 is better than nothing, and of course there is the possibility for future residual income - so I am of course grateful for that... but... there are certainly a lot of santa clauses...

Plus - when she (and not just her) makes videos of "OMFG! look how I made SOOOO much money doing VERY little work, like and subscribe my video channel so I can make MORE money!!!" - it gets lazy people coming out of the woodwork to try and get rich quick...

If things stayed the same - then yes, maybe she'd get to $3k/month... I highly doubt it though - because quite possibly there will be 10x the contributors a year from now "inspired" by her get rich quick videos, + also competing platforms/sites/tech/etc...

It's "possible", but not sure if it is likely...

But again, go for it if you wish. I find it interesting, just saying it may not necessarily be 'easy' or the 'get rich quick' path you are looking for. Certainly is possible though, obviously other people have done it.

You're right in that respect.
You need almost everything to be successful today.
Timing, market analysis, good keywording, skill and luck and perhaps even online promotion / advertising via Instagram, etc.

If you follow her channel, you'll see that she really invests a lot of time. She either works as a graphic designer or is employed part-time, where she can do this even work at (face time job) or has time from midday until the evening.

If you do this alongside your main job, you have to concentrate extremely hard on the essentials. You hardly have time to "practice" what sells well on the market.
I'm currently first trying to read up on the technical side of things to get the most out of it (chaiNNer, ControlNet Tiles, etc.) and then find market niches or at least to pick out motifs that are in demand and cover a very wide range of buyers.



« Reply #101 on: January 15, 2024, 16:49 »
0
The fact that she went from making about $100/month before uploading AI images to $1,000/month in 6 months is mind blowing.  Will she make $10,000/month another 6 months later?  Very unlikely.  But I think she can reach $3,000/month in a year or two if she keeps adding quality AI images like she's been doing.  This kind of stuff never happened.  It's the only positive I've seen in the last 5 years in microstock industry for contributors.

https://youtu.be/F6fSIbMpri8?si=Zj8ag7628oTYYE8w

True, there are probably more santa claus images doing better than hers. My point was - for "santa claus" (while of course not every image is a santa claus), of the 425,000 results - basically you'd need to be in the top 10 or top 20 to see any 'significant' financial results.

Not sure why "her" santa claus was chosen over 425,000 other santa clauses (if I knew that, I could consistently produce a lot of different images that do well) - but I'd say it is a combination of luck, timing, happening to stumble upon the right keywords/etc... in other words - not necessariliy easy to duplicate. (I made some santa claus images that I thought were quite good, and for the 3-4 hours involved in coming up with concepts, making them, titling, keywording, upscaling, editing, cropping, fixing, categorizing, submitting, - I think I made... let me check... looks like about $5 (about $1/hour)... Of course, $5 is better than nothing, and of course there is the possibility for future residual income - so I am of course grateful for that... but... there are certainly a lot of santa clauses...

Plus - when she (and not just her) makes videos of "OMFG! look how I made SOOOO much money doing VERY little work, like and subscribe my video channel so I can make MORE money!!!" - it gets lazy people coming out of the woodwork to try and get rich quick...

If things stayed the same - then yes, maybe she'd get to $3k/month... I highly doubt it though - because quite possibly there will be 10x the contributors a year from now "inspired" by her get rich quick videos, + also competing platforms/sites/tech/etc...

It's "possible", but not sure if it is likely...

But again, go for it if you wish. I find it interesting, just saying it may not necessarily be 'easy' or the 'get rich quick' path you are looking for. Certainly is possible though, obviously other people have done it.

You're right in that respect.
You need almost everything to be successful today.
Timing, market analysis, good keywording, skill and luck and perhaps even online promotion / advertising via Instagram, etc.

If you follow her channel, you'll see that she really invests a lot of time. She either works as a graphic designer or is employed part-time, where she can do this even work at (face time job) or has time from midday until the evening.

If you do this alongside your main job, you have to concentrate extremely hard on the essentials. You hardly have time to "practice" what sells well on the market.
I'm currently first trying to read up on the technical side of things to get the most out of it (chaiNNer, ControlNet Tiles, etc.) and then find market niches or at least to pick out motifs that are in demand and cover a very wide range of buyers.

Not only everything has to be perfect, you have to pray everyday every hour to be successful nowadays.  So, it's almost impossible.  Good luck!!

« Reply #102 on: January 16, 2024, 00:30 »
+1
The fact that she went from making about $100/month before uploading AI images to $1,000/month in 6 months is mind blowing.  Will she make $10,000/month another 6 months later?  Very unlikely.  But I think she can reach $3,000/month in a year or two if she keeps adding quality AI images like she's been doing.  This kind of stuff never happened.  It's the only positive I've seen in the last 5 years in microstock industry for contributors.

https://youtu.be/F6fSIbMpri8?si=Zj8ag7628oTYYE8w

True, there are probably more santa claus images doing better than hers. My point was - for "santa claus" (while of course not every image is a santa claus), of the 425,000 results - basically you'd need to be in the top 10 or top 20 to see any 'significant' financial results.

Not sure why "her" santa claus was chosen over 425,000 other santa clauses (if I knew that, I could consistently produce a lot of different images that do well) - but I'd say it is a combination of luck, timing, happening to stumble upon the right keywords/etc... in other words - not necessariliy easy to duplicate. (I made some santa claus images that I thought were quite good, and for the 3-4 hours involved in coming up with concepts, making them, titling, keywording, upscaling, editing, cropping, fixing, categorizing, submitting, - I think I made... let me check... looks like about $5 (about $1/hour)... Of course, $5 is better than nothing, and of course there is the possibility for future residual income - so I am of course grateful for that... but... there are certainly a lot of santa clauses...

Plus - when she (and not just her) makes videos of "OMFG! look how I made SOOOO much money doing VERY little work, like and subscribe my video channel so I can make MORE money!!!" - it gets lazy people coming out of the woodwork to try and get rich quick...

If things stayed the same - then yes, maybe she'd get to $3k/month... I highly doubt it though - because quite possibly there will be 10x the contributors a year from now "inspired" by her get rich quick videos, + also competing platforms/sites/tech/etc...

It's "possible", but not sure if it is likely...

But again, go for it if you wish. I find it interesting, just saying it may not necessarily be 'easy' or the 'get rich quick' path you are looking for. Certainly is possible though, obviously other people have done it.

It's chosen by buyers along with many other best selling Santa images.  You upload, have one sale, have 2nd sale and your ranking on keyword search keeps going up.  That's how it works.

I have to disagree: I was lucky enough to stumble on right everything and one of my images started to sell big. So I made variations of that image, hoping for more sales nada, I didnt sell any variations. I desided to change it a bit more and even make it better by more detailed paint-over $5!
At Adobe, seems that images are being chosen to be sold at websites outside Adobe and those will sell well. You can even search for your image on Google  and if its all over the web, like 3 pages,  itll sell.
I have no idea what images will take off. For example one of my Halloween images keeps selling 2-5 times per day even now (???) I have variations of it that didnt sell even once. My guess is that someone handpicked that particular image and put a link to it on their re-sale website and customers cant see other variations ?

Some of my images are on the top of popular searches with only a few sales while my  best seller that sells a dozen times per day is buried on page 7 Some of my best looking images sell very little and dont show up in search

Its definitely not based from sales only. I dont get it how though.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2024, 23:58 by Mifornia »

« Reply #103 on: January 16, 2024, 04:30 »
+2
@Mifornia

Sounds pretty sobering.

How do you search for your own images on Google?
Do you search for your image title or some of the most important keywords in the image search?
Have you tried using Google inverse image search to look for your best sellers, who used them? Maybe you can get a little hint here.

Does anyone know exactly how Adobe's sorting algorithms work? Sorting by downloads is clear.
But how are "Relevance" and "Selected" sorted?
Does the influence of the overall portfolio also have an impact on the individual picture?
I will ask for further details in this thread https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-when-will-sales-return/.

Although I have to say that I have the feeling that Adobe also includes the aesthetics of the images in the sorting algorithm.
With my new batches I always find the best ones in the first 1 to 3 pages of the search results. Often the preview just fits very well between the other images or they are striking enough to have an eye catch. So probably Adobe uses also an AI algorithm to sort images by simalarity.

The other ones, where I personally would say, nah they fell behind are not listed on the first 10 pages.
So it's pretty sure that they will get lost in infinity and never find a buyer. I wonder if it makes even sense directly to delete them, if the total portfolio performance has an influence on the new images.

@blvdone
Thanks! Wish you continuing success with your port!

« Reply #104 on: January 16, 2024, 12:55 »
+1
@Andrej.S. I click on the image and search Google for this image the results includes a few of how people use it, but surprisingly not many. My bestsellers, and I only had 4 so far, appear in various applications from social apps, FB, YouTube, LinkedIn, webpages for schools and churches, to government pdf presentations. I noticed that bestsellers take a couple of months to take off. To me it really seems random:  its not based on quality or beauty of the image, since one bestseller I almost didnt upload (Ive later made similar better ones in a later/better version of MJ and it made $5). Im probably not the best example, since Ive been at it only for about a year.

May be someone with more experience can guess how Adobe search works and how Adobe decides what becomes a bestseller.
Ive read that reviewers can give ratings to images and upvote them.

« Reply #105 on: January 16, 2024, 13:16 »
0
it took 10 years to get 6,500 photos on Adobe Stock, but took only 3 months to add 3,000 AI generated photos on Adobe Stock

I'm sure you spend less time and money on generating AI photos than the real life photos

« Reply #106 on: January 16, 2024, 14:29 »
0
@andrej

I often just google my name in quotation marks in google under images, or especially in the news section because images are used to illustrate news articles.

or photo/name or credit/name, photo:nameetc

On amazon I search my name in quotation marks in the book section. Many books use stock images, sometimes hundreds. Somewhere in those books is one of my pictures. Sometimes it is the cover image.

Also check youtube or other social media or blog sites.

« Reply #107 on: January 17, 2024, 00:01 »
+1

I often just google my name in quotation marks in google under images, or especially in the news section because images are used to illustrate news articles.

or photo/name or credit/name, photo:nameetc

On amazon I search my name in quotation marks in the book section. Many books use stock images, sometimes hundreds. Somewhere in those books is one of my pictures. Sometimes it is the cover image.

Also check youtube or other social media or blog sites.
@Cobalt That is awesome that your work is featured on so many different products
« Last Edit: January 21, 2024, 10:12 by Mifornia »

« Reply #108 on: January 18, 2024, 11:38 »
+1
it took 10 years to get 6,500 photos on Adobe Stock, but took only 3 months to add 3,000 AI generated photos on Adobe Stock

I'm sure you spend less time and money on generating AI photos than the real life photos

Much much less.  And I don't need to spend any money to create images in all over the world, or beyond earth too.  So, it's a game changer.  I don't even need to hire/pay my stock models anymore.  That's bad for them.

« Reply #109 on: January 18, 2024, 16:39 »
+1
it took 10 years to get 6,500 photos on Adobe Stock, but took only 3 months to add 3,000 AI generated photos on Adobe Stock

I'm sure you spend less time and money on generating AI photos than the real life photos

Much much less.  And I don't need to spend any money to create images in all over the world, or beyond earth too.  So, it's a game changer.  I don't even need to hire/pay my stock models anymore.  That's bad for them.

This is really crazy for people photography.

But I'm pretty sure that for experienced professionals, in the near future, DSLR processors with AI will soon be announced that will perform real-time image enhancements and, for example, pore reduction, digital make-up, etc. for portraits.
In combination with the high native resolution, they would still have a chance on the market.

Otherwise they will be left behind extremely quickly.

« Reply #110 on: January 19, 2024, 13:40 »
0

« Reply #111 on: January 19, 2024, 14:12 »
+1

MZP

« Reply #112 on: January 19, 2024, 16:51 »
0
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/19/technology/artificial-intelligence-image-generators-faces-quiz.html

can you at least make 50%? (i got only 2 of 10 correct)

6 / 10. It's pretty scary, given that I know what clues to look for in a face to distinguish Ai from real photos. I guess that someone who has no experience with generating images with AI is much more likely to be fooled.

« Reply #113 on: January 20, 2024, 04:07 »
0
80%

Yeah, currently you can try to spot small details.
On frames blurry logos or blurry earrings.
Sometimes minimal blurry teeth or look for sharp reflections in the eyes, which can't be generated as good as real ones.

But sometimes it is even missleading.
The brunette woman for example had blurry and I guess different earrings. I would say it is AI generated but they say it's a real photo.
Perhaps it's a mistake.

In the near future, we will no longer have any chance of distinguishing between AI images and real photos without AI help.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2024, 04:10 by Andrej.S. »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
7114 Views
Last post May 16, 2023, 14:10
by gameover
3 Replies
3715 Views
Last post September 20, 2023, 21:40
by blvdone
5 Replies
1199 Views
Last post November 21, 2023, 04:40
by Deyan Georgiev Photography
4 Replies
558 Views
Last post February 26, 2024, 13:47
by cascoly
2 Replies
480 Views
Last post March 09, 2024, 14:31
by SuperPhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors