MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: blvdone on November 04, 2023, 08:55
-
regular photos I shot on cameras. Anybody else feel the same?
I pay $120/month on Midjourney and also bought Gigapixel AI to create those AI photos. So, it's a confirmation that what I'm doing is working for me. That doesn't mean I stop shooting stock photos with my camera, but it's good to see people are actually buying my AI generated photos.
-
:D I confirm,maybe it's because you can create whatever you want,but yes,AI are addictive!
-
It's satisfying, yes. But mixed with other feelings, also. At least in my case.
I, myself, started using Midjourney back in april, when I noticed that the "Recent Top Sellers" section at AS was flooded with AI generated content. I thought I could give it a try to see how it goes. Yes, the generated images are beautiful - as long as you watch them as a thumbnail. When you look at them in full size, especially after being upscaled, they look awful. A photo shot with the camera, or an illustration would never get approved if they looked like this. They are grainy, choppy, the details are off. If I were a buyer, I would be quite unhappy to get this level of quality in exchange for my money. So it took me a while to get the courage to submit the first batch. But I found out soon enough that these images get accepted and sell like crazy. And I thought - hey, who am I to judge? If AS asks for them and the buyers like them and keep buying them, then clearly someone should provide these images. And so I kept generating and uploading.
Yes, it's nice to see the $$ coming in. And it's very profitable - since you spend way less time and money generating an image with MJ than with your camera. And it's very satisfying, since you are only limited by your imagination. But even if you take the time and effort to carefully choose only the ~30% of the generated images that are correct (no extra limbs etc), you still feel (a little) guilty about putting some content on sell that looks like garbage when viewed at 100%.
I'm sure that somewhere in the near future (maybe one or two years from now), the AI based image generators will be able to produce clean and crisp high resolution images. But it's not the case right now.
-
$120/month? What plan is that?
-
I was wondering the same thing :)
-
And I was also wondering why you need the Mega Plan? I am really happy with the $30 Standard Plan. The 15 hours of fast GPU time are enough for me. (But if they're not, it only takes ~10 minutes/day to rate some images and you get 1 extra hour of fast GPU time daily.)
-
:D I confirm,maybe it's because you can create whatever you want,but yes,AI are addictive!
Haha!!
-
$120/month? What plan is that?
That's the professional plan with the highest hours of fast mode. I ran out of fast mode hours in October. So, I upgraded. Also you get private mode so that others can't copy your prompts.
-
I pay $120/month on Midjourney
Are your images selling for at least $120 a month?
-
I pay $120/month on Midjourney
Are your images selling for at least $120 a month?
do you mean per week? :D ;)
-
It's satisfying, yes. But mixed with other feelings, also. At least in my case.
I, myself, started using Midjourney back in april, when I noticed that the "Recent Top Sellers" section at AS was flooded with AI generated content. I thought I could give it a try to see how it goes. Yes, the generated images are beautiful - as long as you watch them as a thumbnail. When you look at them in full size, especially after being upscaled, they look awful. A photo shot with the camera, or an illustration would never get approved if they looked like this. They are grainy, choppy, the details are off. If I were a buyer, I would be quite unhappy to get this level of quality in exchange for my money. So it took me a while to get the courage to submit the first batch. But I found out soon enough that these images get accepted and sell like crazy. And I thought - hey, who am I to judge? If AS asks for them and the buyers like them and keep buying them, then clearly someone should provide these images. And so I kept generating and uploading.
Yes, it's nice to see the $$ coming in. And it's very profitable - since you spend way less time and money generating an image with MJ than with your camera. And it's very satisfying, since you are only limited by your imagination. But even if you take the time and effort to carefully choose only the ~30% of the generated images that are correct (no extra limbs etc), you still feel (a little) guilty about putting some content on sell that looks like garbage when viewed at 100%.
I'm sure that somewhere in the near future (maybe one or two years from now), the AI based image generators will be able to produce clean and crisp high resolution images. But it's not the case right now.
the fact is that the quality is still not excellent,the generations are imperfect,and we need to improve the sharpness,resolution,and therefore they must be worked on in post production,this for the moment in my opinion gives us yet another advantage.
I think they will always continue to be sold,it must also be understood that not all Adobe Stock customers are interested in generating with AI and will always prefer to purchase ready-made content,but I think now is the best time.
when the Adobe Stock collection exceeds 300 million,it will already be different,but I hope I'm obviously wrong!
-
I'm not sure how well people are doing with "AI" images overall, but to me it seems:
(a) Some people may have 1-2 images that "take off" (i.e., maybe make them $100-$200 over the course of several months, if they are really lucky, maybe $200-$300). The rest never really get seen. If you live in a country where $3-$5 USD/hour is a "good wage", then you are ecstatic. (I.e., like an american say getting $700-$800 for an image).
(b) The "ai" stuff is being flooded from people in countries where that is the case. To properly post produce, edit, crop, find good keywords, properly title, etc is a very time consuming process - but I suppose that is why is a number of people just don't do that. (So you see 3 arms, strange titles, or simply the actual prompts, etc). And I've seen a lot of people skipping that process.
(c) I suspect it is a little bit like gambling on slots. If/when you "hit big" (i.e., generate $100 in cumalative sales for a single "ai" image) - then you think EVERY image is going to be like that, and you start going a little nuts (not realizing not every image is going to be like that).
One question - if you are spending $120/month on image generation, are you at the very least seeing that as a return? More specifically - a significant return?
My guess is the majority (i.e., 80%+) are just making say $100-$200/month from the "ai" images, while of course a very small majority making more than that...
-
I'm not sure how well people are doing with "AI" images overall, but to me it seems:
(a) Some people may have 1-2 images that "take off" (i.e., maybe make them $100-$200 over the course of several months, if they are really lucky, maybe $200-$300). The rest never really get seen. If you live in a country where $3-$5 USD/hour is a "good wage", then you are ecstatic. (I.e., like an american say getting $700-$800 for an image).
(b) The "ai" stuff is being flooded from people in countries where that is the case. To properly post produce, edit, crop, find good keywords, properly title, etc is a very time consuming process - but I suppose that is why is a number of people just don't do that. (So you see 3 arms, strange titles, or simply the actual prompts, etc). And I've seen a lot of people skipping that process.
(c) I suspect it is a little bit like gambling on slots. If/when you "hit big" (i.e., generate $100 in cumalative sales for a single "ai" image) - then you think EVERY image is going to be like that, and you start going a little nuts (not realizing not every image is going to be like that).
One question - if you are spending $120/month on image generation, are you at the very least seeing that as a return? More specifically - a significant return?
My guess is the majority (i.e., 80%+) are just making say $100-$200/month from the "ai" images, while of course a very small majority making more than that...
you have to produce a lot of them,over time you start to earn more,you certainly can't arrive and start making 100usd a week from one day to another.
the OP was right in making this investment in my opinion,and is an experienced contributor,who has managed to see what many experienced contributors don't want to see,that times have changed and we need to adapt,those who manage to understand this only have to gain from it.
-
I'm not sure how well people are doing with "AI" images overall, but to me it seems:
(a) Some people may have 1-2 images that "take off" (i.e., maybe make them $100-$200 over the course of several months, if they are really lucky, maybe $200-$300). The rest never really get seen. If you live in a country where $3-$5 USD/hour is a "good wage", then you are ecstatic. (I.e., like an american say getting $700-$800 for an image).
(b) The "ai" stuff is being flooded from people in countries where that is the case. To properly post produce, edit, crop, find good keywords, properly title, etc is a very time consuming process - but I suppose that is why is a number of people just don't do that. (So you see 3 arms, strange titles, or simply the actual prompts, etc). And I've seen a lot of people skipping that process.
(c) I suspect it is a little bit like gambling on slots. If/when you "hit big" (i.e., generate $100 in cumalative sales for a single "ai" image) - then you think EVERY image is going to be like that, and you start going a little nuts (not realizing not every image is going to be like that).
One question - if you are spending $120/month on image generation, are you at the very least seeing that as a return? More specifically - a significant return?
My guess is the majority (i.e., 80%+) are just making say $100-$200/month from the "ai" images, while of course a very small majority making more than that...
you have to produce a lot of them,over time you start to earn more,you certainly can't arrive and start making 100usd a week from one day to another.
the OP was right in making this investment in my opinion,and is an experienced contributor,who has managed to see what many experienced contributors don't want to see,that times have changed and we need to adapt,those who manage to understand this only have to gain from it.
Re: producing a lot - I agree.
What I am asking is if the time invested is worth it. I think if you live in a country where the cost of living is low (not sure how things have changed in recent years, but it used to be places like say the phillipines, ukraine, etc) - where "$3/hour" was "big money" - then I suppose it would be worth it. For higher cost of living countries (i.e., some parts of europe, north america, etc) - not sure whether the time invested is worth it.
Because yes, you'd have to produce A LOT. And have them sell too.
-
I pay $120/month on Midjourney
Are your images selling for at least $120 a month?
Not yet. I just started Using Midjourney like 2 months ago. Due to the slow review process on Adobe Stock, I have like 2,400 AI images in review right now and only like 300 online. I will stop $120/month subscription after a few months of mass producing AI photos till I ran out of my ideas. But hopefully, I'll at least make my money back for Midjourney subscription fee and my labor.
-
I pay $120/month on Midjourney
Are your images selling for at least $120 a month?
Not yet. I just started Using Midjourney like 2 months ago. Due to the slow review process on Adobe Stock, I have like 2,400 AI images in review right now and only like 300 online. I will stop $120/month subscription after a few months of mass producing AI photos till I ran out of my ideas. But hopefully, I'll at least make my money back for Midjourney subscription fee and my labor.
Okay, makes sense.
Out of curiosity, how have you done (sales wise) from the 300 online you have so far? There are some 20,000,000+ "ai" images currently, I would estimate maybe $15-$20?
-
I'm not sure how well people are doing with "AI" images overall, but to me it seems:
(a) Some people may have 1-2 images that "take off" (i.e., maybe make them $100-$200 over the course of several months, if they are really lucky, maybe $200-$300). The rest never really get seen. If you live in a country where $3-$5 USD/hour is a "good wage", then you are ecstatic. (I.e., like an american say getting $700-$800 for an image).
(b) The "ai" stuff is being flooded from people in countries where that is the case. To properly post produce, edit, crop, find good keywords, properly title, etc is a very time consuming process - but I suppose that is why is a number of people just don't do that. (So you see 3 arms, strange titles, or simply the actual prompts, etc). And I've seen a lot of people skipping that process.
(c) I suspect it is a little bit like gambling on slots. If/when you "hit big" (i.e., generate $100 in cumalative sales for a single "ai" image) - then you think EVERY image is going to be like that, and you start going a little nuts (not realizing not every image is going to be like that).
One question - if you are spending $120/month on image generation, are you at the very least seeing that as a return? More specifically - a significant return?
My guess is the majority (i.e., 80%+) are just making say $100-$200/month from the "ai" images, while of course a very small majority making more than that...
I will not keep $120/month Midjourney subscription for over a few months I'm mass producing AI images. So, if I make $200/month for 3 years from those AI generated images, it's a success for me.
-
$120/month? What plan is that?
They (recently) introduced a new "mega" plan, for 60 hours "fast generation" per month. For regular stock producers, not sure that plan is really necessary, unless of course someone wants to mass produce a lot in a short period of time.
-
I pay $120/month on Midjourney
Are your images selling for at least $120 a month?
Not yet. I just started Using Midjourney like 2 months ago. Due to the slow review process on Adobe Stock, I have like 2,400 AI images in review right now and only like 300 online. I will stop $120/month subscription after a few months of mass producing AI photos till I ran out of my ideas. But hopefully, I'll at least make my money back for Midjourney subscription fee and my labor.
Okay, makes sense.
Out of curiosity, how have you done (sales wise) from the 300 online you have so far? There are some 20,000,000+ "ai" images currently, I would estimate maybe $15-$20?
Just started seeing AI photo sales here and there. That's all. Maybe not even $5 so far, but probably selling a little better than if I uploaded new actual photos from cameras. I feel like if I don't make AI photos now, my sales will be cut in half in a year because of buyers buying AI photos. So, I got to fight that.
-
$120/month? What plan is that?
They (recently) introduced a new "mega" plan, for 60 hours "fast generation" per month. For regular stock producers, not sure that plan is really necessary, unless of course someone wants to mass produce a lot in a short period of time.
I think that's the plan I have. My 30hrs ran out in October. So, I upgraded to 60hrs. I'll focus on working on Midjourney for the next few months. And then cancel subscription. Can't keep paying $120/month.
-
I'm not sure how well people are doing with "AI" images overall, but to me it seems:
(a) Some people may have 1-2 images that "take off" (i.e., maybe make them $100-$200 over the course of several months, if they are really lucky, maybe $200-$300). The rest never really get seen. If you live in a country where $3-$5 USD/hour is a "good wage", then you are ecstatic. (I.e., like an american say getting $700-$800 for an image).
(b) The "ai" stuff is being flooded from people in countries where that is the case. To properly post produce, edit, crop, find good keywords, properly title, etc is a very time consuming process - but I suppose that is why is a number of people just don't do that. (So you see 3 arms, strange titles, or simply the actual prompts, etc). And I've seen a lot of people skipping that process.
(c) I suspect it is a little bit like gambling on slots. If/when you "hit big" (i.e., generate $100 in cumalative sales for a single "ai" image) - then you think EVERY image is going to be like that, and you start going a little nuts (not realizing not every image is going to be like that).
One question - if you are spending $120/month on image generation, are you at the very least seeing that as a return? More specifically - a significant return?
My guess is the majority (i.e., 80%+) are just making say $100-$200/month from the "ai" images, while of course a very small majority making more than that...
you have to produce a lot of them,over time you start to earn more,you certainly can't arrive and start making 100usd a week from one day to another.
the OP was right in making this investment in my opinion,and is an experienced contributor,who has managed to see what many experienced contributors don't want to see,that times have changed and we need to adapt,those who manage to understand this only have to gain from it.
Exactly, good point. We just can't keep complaining about AI and do nothing. That's like being a deer in the headlight. We got to adapt and take advantage of our knowledge on stock photos to produce better AI photos than newbies.
-
In fact,not only quantity is important,but quality,that makes the difference,uploading useful and original content is not easy.
producing AI content that sells is not as easy and fast as it seems,and given the long queue you have to try to be selective.
with some experience as contributor is more possible to understand what sells,or what customers are looking for,and you can certainly have better results.
Up to now I have produced around 8,000 AI images,I repeat,produced,they are not all for sale yet,I'm working non-stop,it's going to be a long journey!
-
I'd likely feel happier selling AI generated photos too... if I had all my videos exclusive with Pond5, just so I could see some regular sales again. ;D
-
I'd likely feel happier selling AI generated photos too... if I had all my videos exclusive with Pond5, just so I could see some regular sales again. ;D
I don't know how many videos you have on Pond5, but I still see regular sales on Pond5 despite having the industry wide sales slump since May this year. Just less than last year.
-
While 120 a month is a lot, I am sure you will make your money back. I also think the privacy option is very important.
Still haven't tried midjourney, one day I will.
Happy to see you are enjoying ai.
The sales will come and bring a nice balance to your video sales.
Plus...everything you learn now you will be able to use when ai video comes.
-
While 120 a month is a lot, I am sure you will make your money back. I also think the privacy option is very important.
Still haven't tried midjourney, one day I will.
Happy to see you are enjoying ai.
The sales will come and bring a nice balance to your video sales.
Plus...everything you learn now you will be able to use when ai video comes.
"AI" (sophisiticated theft/pattern re-arrangement) video already exists (not necessarily that great, but does exist).
Creating prompts really doesn't require all that much skill. It's actually pretty simple.
It's just (in some ways) very time consuming - because "everyone" is doing it - so there are a flood of images/content/etc. And for now- the post processing (if one chooses not to skip that - many do) - is also time consuming.
-
While 120 a month is a lot, I am sure you will make your money back. I also think the privacy option is very important.
Still haven't tried midjourney, one day I will.
Happy to see you are enjoying ai.
The sales will come and bring a nice balance to your video sales.
Plus...everything you learn now you will be able to use when ai video comes.
Is there anything else other than Midjourney to generate usable stock photos?
-
While 120 a month is a lot, I am sure you will make your money back. I also think the privacy option is very important.
Still haven't tried midjourney, one day I will.
Happy to see you are enjoying ai.
The sales will come and bring a nice balance to your video sales.
Plus...everything you learn now you will be able to use when ai video comes.
Is there anything else other than Midjourney to generate usable stock photos?
Shutterstock "AI"? :)
-
regular photos I shot on cameras. Anybody else feel the same?
I pay $120/month on Midjourney and also bought Gigapixel AI to create those AI photos. So, it's a confirmation that what I'm doing is working for me. That doesn't mean I stop shooting stock photos with my camera, but it's good to see people are actually buying my AI generated photos.
At AS - how can you see which images sell? I don't think one can see all the individual images one have sold like on other agencies?
-
While 120 a month is a lot, I am sure you will make your money back. I also think the privacy option is very important.
Still haven't tried midjourney, one day I will.
Happy to see you are enjoying ai.
The sales will come and bring a nice balance to your video sales.
Plus...everything you learn now you will be able to use when ai video comes.
Is there anything else other than Midjourney to generate usable stock photos?
adobe firefly, dall-e or stable diffusion. Plus a few others.
There are several apps or websites that uses these engines
But midjourney is by far the best quality.
I am just being very stubborn, at some point I will probably try midjourney.
For illustrations it looks like the new dall e 3 is very good, but it is not yet available for me in my openlabs account.
-
regular photos I shot on cameras. Anybody else feel the same?
I pay $120/month on Midjourney and also bought Gigapixel AI to create those AI photos. So, it's a confirmation that what I'm doing is working for me. That doesn't mean I stop shooting stock photos with my camera, but it's good to see people are actually buying my AI generated photos.
At AS - how can you see which images sell? I don't think one can see all the individual images one have sold like on other agencies?
Type in keywords and sort by downloads.
-
While 120 a month is a lot, I am sure you will make your money back. I also think the privacy option is very important.
Still haven't tried midjourney, one day I will.
Happy to see you are enjoying ai.
The sales will come and bring a nice balance to your video sales.
Plus...everything you learn now you will be able to use when ai video comes.
Is there anything else other than Midjourney to generate usable stock photos?
adobe firefly, dall-e or stable diffusion. Plus a few others.
There are several apps or websites that uses these engines
But midjourney is by far the best quality.
I am just being very stubborn, at some point I will probably try midjourney.
For illustrations it looks like the new dall e 3 is very good, but it is not yet available for me in my openlabs account.
Midjourney is the only usable AI stock photo generator now. I think Adobe should buy Midjourney.
-
While 120 a month is a lot, I am sure you will make your money back. I also think the privacy option is very important.
Still haven't tried midjourney, one day I will.
Happy to see you are enjoying ai.
The sales will come and bring a nice balance to your video sales.
Plus...everything you learn now you will be able to use when ai video comes.
Is there anything else other than Midjourney to generate usable stock photos?
adobe firefly, dall-e or stable diffusion. Plus a few others.
There are several apps or websites that uses these engines
But midjourney is by far the best quality.
I am just being very stubborn, at some point I will probably try midjourney.
For illustrations it looks like the new dall e 3 is very good, but it is not yet available for me in my openlabs account.
before dall-e 3 midjourney had no competition.. but I think "right now" dall-e 3 is a much better option.
pros of using dall-e 3 over midjourney:
- unlike midjourney, your creations are private. (no need to emphasize how important this is)
- dall-e 3 does a pretty good job with text. midjourney has no clue when it comes to text.
the only thing midjourney does better is realistic people images. once dall-e gets that right, midjourney will have trouble staying in business.
-
It does make me happy, but it’s a hobby, just like painting. Results are similar as well: Only about 5% of my images sell at all and I can’t predict which ones.
From my very limited experience, one AI image results in $5 of total downloads , if it sells at all. All of my best sellers are paint-overs or png. I don’t know how customers tell the difference between straight AI and my paint-overs, but somehow they obviously do.
I was quite disappointed in my income and thought I was doing quite terrible until my account was featured on top sellers list. That depressed me even more, since it shows that my images are selling “well”
I would say if you are a student, retired, stay at home mom/dad, or live in low income country - then it’s worth it to play stock lottery. I live in area where studio apartment is $3k per month. I can’t see how making less than $5 per hour is feasible.
One will have to produce a lot of AI output to earn a living. You definitely need a pro subscription for that plus Adobe PS or Lightroom subscription. Don’t spend your money on Topaz, you can upscale in PS now with similar results.
$60 pro subscription comes with a private mode. I don’t find prompting easy. Yes, you can generate easy stuff easy - but there are already millions of similar images out there. I had to pay for MJ academy to learn how to prompt and I still can’t produce upscaled results that are “good” quality. You are right, if you zoom in, they all look like crap, yet customers are buying them… must be downscaling them for web. (After we spend time upscaling them to look like crap 😂)
-
regular photos I shot on cameras. Anybody else feel the same?
I pay $120/month on Midjourney and also bought Gigapixel AI to create those AI photos. So, it's a confirmation that what I'm doing is working for me. That doesn't mean I stop shooting stock photos with my camera, but it's good to see people are actually buying my AI generated photos.
At AS - how can you see which images sell? I don't think one can see all the individual images one have sold like on other agencies?
Type in keywords and sort by downloads.
Thanks - but I ment my own images ... sorry..! I can't watch them on daily or monthly basis ..?
-
Go to Insights > My statistics. You have several types of reports (Activity, Best Sellers etc) and you can choose the period for which to see the stats.
-
also go to Dashboard and then sort by downloads for total # of sales of each image
I do wish when you saw a sale of an image you could click somewhere and see how many times it has sold and how much it made - DT has this, AS not that I know of.
-
regular photos I shot on cameras. Anybody else feel the same?
I pay $120/month on Midjourney and also bought Gigapixel AI to create those AI photos. So, it's a confirmation that what I'm doing is working for me. That doesn't mean I stop shooting stock photos with my camera, but it's good to see people are actually buying my AI generated photos.
At AS - how can you see which images sell? I don't think one can see all the individual images one have sold like on other agencies?
If you click on "View my Statistics" on the far right above your sales graph on the Dashboard page it will show you the amount you've made from each image you've sold during whatever time frame you've entered on the top left (i.e. "this month," "this week," or a date range you've entered. You can't see how many times an image has sold in that time but you can see how much you've made. You can enter up to a year in the time frame and then print/print to pdf pages and pages of what's sold for that year. You can also enter a time frame in the past (only one year at a time) and compare your best sellers from year to year. It's not the most helpful statistical set up but with a little work you can see how you're doing.
Re AI:
When I checked my recent sales, my first AI image sold this past week*. I've uploaded a few dozen in the past 2-3 weeks and have 29 on sale so far, with another 10 awaiting review. Right now my photographs are selling much better than my AI images but I figure it's a skill I should learn.
It's easy to generate thousands of images, but time-consuming to post-process and keyword them. And a lot of what looked good at first glance needs way too much work upon further inspection.
One thing I'm really enjoying is how I start with one concept and it sparks new ideas so I go off in a completely different direction. It also gets me thinking about things I want to set up and shoot with my camera and it's making me think it's time to dig out the easel in my attic and start painting again, or perhaps easier, really learn how to take advantage of the tools in Photoshop and Adobe Fresco. Although I've used a Wacom Bamboo Tablet & now a Xencelabs one for years to post-process photographs and sometimes add digital painting, there is so much more available than the limited tools I was using. It seems weird to be trying out all these new amazing brushes to post-process stuff that started out as AI. I think it might get me back to drawing and painting - from scratch.
*The 99 cents I made won't even buy me a cup of coffee here in NY.
-
You make a good point.
Even if a lot of what I prompt is not usable because it would take too long to process, ai is fantastic for creating moodboards and testing set ups, lightings, color combinations.
I am getting a lot of ideas for my regular stock work.
I still haven't tested uploading my own images to have them modified with ai.
That will be important going forward, to create content with camera that can be modified later.
-
Just got my first higher price AI photo sale today. I got $4.29. Nice!!
-
Good for you, you are happier with that.
For me, working with AI is like
- being limited to stereotypes the AI knows
- digging through thousands of images, repairing and preparing the best, like an Indian on an Accord
- generating someone elses Art
This can't be compared to photography at all. The skill set you need for photography is much broader, and the results are miles ahead of those that come out of midjourney.
-
I still haven't tested uploading my own images to have them modified with ai.
That will be important going forward, to create content with camera that can be modified later.
Yes, but you should first check to see if the images you upload are going to be used for further training. Because if so, you are giving them away for free (or, rather, in exchange for the transformations you get from the software) for training further AI algorithms and services. If this happens or not, depends entirely on the service you are going to use. From what I know about the softwares/services I currently use:
- If you use Stable Diffusion on your local machine, and do inpainting, obviously no one else has acces to your images. I believe this is the safest choice you have right now.
- ChatGPT aka DALL-E aka OpenAI states that user-uploaded content is not utilized to train or refine its models, so this could be a safe choice too.
- Adobe clearly states that they use all user-generated input to train their algorithms, as long as you upload the images on their serves. That is if you use Adobe Firefly, or even if you use Photoshop and save the images in the cloud, and not on your own computer, they will use them for further training. You can opt out of this if you disable Content Analysis from your Adobe Account (which is opted in by default), but in their own words "This setting does not apply in certain limited circumstances". I would stay away from this.
- I'm not sure about Midjourney and how they use the images you provide, but with them you can only upload an image to have it described, not modified. So it's not a valid option for transforming your own images. At least for now.
I'm sure there are a ton of other softwares and services that you could use, but my experience is limitted to the ones above. In any case, read the Terms and Conditions before even considering uploading an image.
-
Good for you, you are happier with that.
For me, working with AI is like
- being limited to stereotypes the AI knows
- digging through thousands of images, repairing and preparing the best, like an Indian on an Accord
- generating someone elses Art
This can't be compared to photography at all. The skill set you need for photography is much broader, and the results are miles ahead of those that come out of midjourney.
Thanks!! Just got my 2nd higher price AI photo sale at $3.30 just now!!
-
...
- Adobe clearly states that they use all user-generated input to train their algorithms, as long as you upload the images on their serves. That is if you use Adobe Firefly, or even if you use Photoshop and save the images in the cloud, and not on your own computer, they will use them for further training. You can opt out of this if you disable Content Analysis from your Adobe Account (which is opted in by default), but in their own words "This setting does not apply in certain limited circumstances". I would stay away from this.
- ...
In any case, read the Terms and Conditions before even considering uploading an image.
Yikes! I've been thinking that when the free Adobe PS/LR I have from Adobe Stock runs out, I might just go for the $20/mo with the 1TB storage to make it easier to move between Fresco & PS - although I can do it with iCloud - but if they can access the stuff I've got in their cloud, no way will I do it since with 1TB I'd obviously use it for non-stock backup too. It's bad enough that they've trained it on my stock photos, but I don't want them using my fine art or of course any personal family photos, which are often mixed in the same folders with photos from travel or hikes that I've taken primarily for stock or fine art and of course are organized in my LR Catalog. My files should be private, bad enough everything that's for sale or to be licensed is already accessible to unscrupulous web scrapers, but stuff I've purposely kept off the web should not be used for AI training. No way can they even argue that's "ethical."
Thanks so much for the head's up!
-
Thanks!! Just got my 2nd higher price AI photo sale at $3.30 just now!!
You will see double digits, for sure. Maybe not very often, but they are so nice to see. I'm still waiting for a triple digits single gen-AI sale...
-
I still haven't tested uploading my own images to have them modified with ai.
That will be important going forward, to create content with camera that can be modified later.
Yes, but you should first check to see if the images you upload are going to be used for further training. Because if so, you are giving them away for free (or, rather, in exchange for the transformations you get from the software) for training further AI algorithms and services. If this happens or not, depends entirely on the service you are going to use. From what I know about the softwares/services I currently use:
- If you use Stable Diffusion on your local machine, and do inpainting, obviously no one else has acces to your images. I believe this is the safest choice you have right now.
- ChatGPT aka DALL-E aka OpenAI states that user-uploaded content is not utilized to train or refine its models, so this could be a safe choice too.
- Adobe clearly states that they use all user-generated input to train their algorithms, as long as you upload the images on their serves. That is if you use Adobe Firefly, or even if you use Photoshop and save the images in the cloud, and not on your own computer, they will use them for further training. You can opt out of this if you disable Content Analysis from your Adobe Account (which is opted in by default), but in their own words "This setting does not apply in certain limited circumstances". I would stay away from this.
- I'm not sure about Midjourney and how they use the images you provide, but with them you can only upload an image to have it described, not modified. So it's not a valid option for transforming your own images. At least for now.
I'm sure there are a ton of other softwares and services that you could use, but my experience is limitted to the ones above. In any case, read the Terms and Conditions before even considering uploading an image.
Very important points, thank you! I hadn‘t thought about that.
Many people modify client images with ai software.
Everybody should pay attention to that.
-
Thanks!! Just got my 2nd higher price AI photo sale at $3.30 just now!!
As long it works, I'm happy with you and the other 500.000+ AI contributors doing now exactly the same.
-
Thanks!! Just got my 2nd higher price AI photo sale at $3.30 just now!!
You will see double digits, for sure. Maybe not very often, but they are so nice to see. I'm still waiting for a triple digits single gen-AI sale...
Wow. That's nice!!
-
Thanks!! Just got my 2nd higher price AI photo sale at $3.30 just now!!
As long it works, I'm happy with you and the other 500.000+ AI contributors doing now exactly the same.
Yes, I think it's working for me. My goal is to double my monthly revenue from Adobe Stock by doubling the number of photos by early next year.
-
I'll think there might be a smol bug in your calculation.
-
It took about 10 years to get 6,500 photos on Adobe Stock, but I already have 1,300 AI photos approved and 2,100 AI photos on review cue in less than 3 months. Efficiency is astonishing. By March or April next year, hopefully I'll have more AI photos on my portfolio than conventional photos.
-
I think what MadMax meant to say was that doubling your portfolio doesn't necessarily mean doubling your income. Which is true – there's no direct correlation between the size of your port and your income. You could double your income with just a couple of AI-gen images, just as well as you could 10x your portfolio and never see a significant improvement in sales.
On the other hand the more images you have, the more chances of making money, of course. But on the condition that you offer content that is varied and sellable. Adding 2000 images of exactly the same subject, probably won't do you any good in terms of sales. Also, adding 2000 images on a topic that the buyers are not interested in, will probably produce the same effect. On the other hand, adding 2000 images of varied content, that are beautifully done and free of errors (like missing or extra limbs) and appeal to buyers' needs, you could see your sales grow nicely and steadily.
But all of the above also apply to non-AI generated images. So there's nothing new here.
Indeed, it's way more efficient to produce AI-generated images than real photos or illustrations. So by generating with AI, you will see your income grow faster than by going the old fashioned way. Except – you are not alone in this. There are a legion of other contributors that are doing exactly same thing: generate images with AI and submit at the same pace as you. So probably the competition stays the same. And this brings us back to the topic of quality and desirability of the images we produce. I think this should be our main focus – even if nowadays all of us are able to produce 1000 images a week (with AI) versus 1000 images a year (which was the case before AI).
-
Another aspect is that, due to the limitations of AI, the spectrum of images that can be produced is limited. This very restricted spectrum is being divided among everyone using AI exclusively. As Mihai mentioned, this will lead to thousands of images representing the same concept/stereotype. Moreover, the market is already heavily oversaturated with stereotypes. An example of this limitation is illustrated by images depicting a person chopping vegetables, a person biking, and so on
-
I’m on pace to more than double sales if I finish adding the same number of AI photos to my existing portfolio. So , it’s all good.
-
With the volume you are uploading you will make a lot more than double. You have a lot of experience and that makes a huge difference to all the newbies just starting out.
-
With the volume you are uploading you will make a lot more than double. You have a lot of experience and that makes a huge difference to all the newbies just starting out.
Thank you and I hope so!!
-
Where are you selling your images? I don't see any sales under blvdone on SS?
-
ss doesn't take ai. he is uploading to adobe. a lot of interesting stuff in there.
https://stock.adobe.com/de/search?creator_id=203855208&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&load_type=page&get_facets=0
-
Where are you selling your images? I don't see any sales under blvdone on SS?
I'm selling them on the streets. Or sometimes I go door to door to sell my AI stock photos. It's not easy though. Cash only.
-
Wow, that is so nice of you. I can understand how hard it is to sell photos on the streets and also door to door where you meet some friendly people and also some, you know.
-
Update.
So, I have added 2,500 AI generated photos to my portfolio. That's a little less than 30% of my photo portfolio on Adobe Stock right now. I'm seeing sales increase especially in the last 2 weeks now. I hope this trend will continue. So far so good with AI photos.
-
You are adding great stuff, especially fantastic people content.
I might have to reconsider my position on midjourney.
-
You are adding great stuff, especially fantastic people content.
I might have to reconsider my position on midjourney.
Thanks!! What do you mean by "position" on midjourney? Subscription plan?
-
Why do these tools seem to have problems with human hands?
-
Why do these tools seem to have problems with human hands?
I agree. The biggest problem in Midjourney is missing or extra fingers. It's annoying to see good image with missing/extra fingers. I don't submit them.
-
I still haven‘t used midjourney, For many reasons, one of them is that it puts out an easy to recognize look and I didn‘t want to have „another midjourney port“.
But I guess if you do interesting creative stuff other people don‘t do, it is less of an issue.
And it is really good with people.
We will see.
-
Why do these tools seem to have problems with human hands?
For the painters is not something new, the most complicated part to recreate of human body are the hands. Looks like for the AI too, lol
-
I still haven‘t used midjourney, For many reasons, one of them is that it puts out an easy to recognize look and I didn‘t want to have „another midjourney port“.
But I guess if you do interesting creative stuff other people don‘t do, it is less of an issue.
And it is really good with people.
We will see.
What do you use if you don't use Midjourney?
-
dall e, stable and firefly
but they are not as good, especially with people.
hoping firefly improves in 2024. would love to use an ethical engine as mymain workhorse.
-
dall e, stable and firefly
but they are not as good, especially with people.
hoping firefly improves in 2024. would love to use an ethical engine as mymain workhorse.
Just tried Firefly using the same prompts I used on Midjourney, but Firefly images are totally unusable. Adobe has a lot of catching up to do on this.
-
In my experience:
- Stable Diffusion can be the same level of realism as Midjourney, but you need to use a good model, you can't rely on the standard ones. There are tons of free models available that give perfect results. It's free, it's private (since you generate on your own computer), and as long as you have a decent GPU, it's really fast.
- DALL-E beats Midjourney in almost every aspect (except realism). For everything other than photorealistic images, it's my first choice. And it has the huge advantage that you can ask it to adjust the generated images (no need for inpainting or using generative fill, just prompt in ChatGPT what needs to be changed). But it's painfully slow, it fails quite often, and it's limited to 50 generations per 3 hours (but given the frequent fails you get way less than this)
- I tried Firefly, but wasn't satisfied with the results so I gave up. I'm waiting for the next update to give it another go
-
- DALL-E beats Midjourney in almost every aspect (except realism). And it has the huge advantage that you can ask it to adjust the generated images (no need for inpainting or using generative fill, just prompt in ChatGPT what needs to be changed).
Midjourney can do that too. You can mark what part of the image you want changed and it will do that.
-
Yes, also Stable Diffusion and Photoshop can do the same thing (inpainting and generative fill). But in DALL-E you don't need to paint / mark the area you need to change, you just tell it "make his hat red" or "make him look to the camera" :)
-
Some people ridiculed me for using $120/month Midjourney plan to create AI images, but I got to say it's worth it so far. I see the sales trend going up. Now about 1/3 of my portfolio is AI generated images. I'm running out of ideas these days to be honest. So, I may need to switch to $60/month plan.
-
So, 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. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
-
I am impressed that you were able to add over 30 images per day, 7 days a week. Trying Adobes AI, seemed much slower than that.
-
So, 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. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
What is that "profit" wise though? Without a reference, it is difficult to make a decision, i.e., a bar chart of $2 is much different from a bar chart of $200 or $2000...
-
So, 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. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
What is that "profit" wise though? Without a reference, it is difficult to make a decision, i.e., a bar chart of $2 is much different from a bar chart of $200 or $2000...
Did you read "I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. "?
-
This sounds motivating although generating over 3000 images, upscaling and retouching are more time consuming than one thinks at the first glance. I would estimate at least between 3 and 5 hours of daily work to get 1000 images a month.
Hopefully the work will also pay off in the longer term and not only cover the Midjourney subscription but also the invested work time.
Since you've got now more experience than other users, would you say that image sales increase over time for the whole AI portfolio or only for some few bestsellers, which climbe the ranking ladder up and are more often shown to the customers?
And can you observe a special pattern in best selling motifs?
For example creative shots like business people with animal heads, which can't be created simple by classical photography?
-
This sounds motivating although generating over 3000 images, upscaling and retouching are more time consuming than one thinks at the first glance. I would estimate at least between 3 and 5 hours of daily work to get 1000 images a month.
Hopefully the work will also pay off in the longer term and not only cover the Midjourney subscription but also the invested work time.
Since you've got now more experience than other users, would you say that image sales increase over time for the whole AI portfolio or only for some few bestsellers, which climbe the ranking ladder up and are more often shown to the customers?
And can you observe a special pattern in best selling motifs?
For example creative shots like business people with animal heads, which can't be created simple by classical photography?
I would say when your photos/videos sell, those will move up the keyword search ladder. So, if an image/clip sell a few times, it's likely to sell well for at least like 3 years unless it's timely subject. So, I think my AI photo sales will only get better as many of them make first sales and show up higher in search. I'm not done adding AI images although the pace has slowed down now. Probably by the end of this year, majority of my photo sales will be from AI images.
-
"waaay more" is relative. for some people, doubling their investment is "waay more". for others, getting like $1k is "waaay more".
if you are in a poor country, maybe making $50 is "waaay more".
that's why I am asking. what do you define as "waaay more"?
So, 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. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
What is that "profit" wise though? Without a reference, it is difficult to make a decision, i.e., a bar chart of $2 is much different from a bar chart of $200 or $2000...
Did you read "I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. "?
-
This sounds motivating although generating over 3000 images, upscaling and retouching are more time consuming than one thinks at the first glance. I would estimate at least between 3 and 5 hours of daily work to get 1000 images a month.
Hopefully the work will also pay off in the longer term and not only cover the Midjourney subscription but also the invested work time.
Since you've got now more experience than other users, would you say that image sales increase over time for the whole AI portfolio or only for some few bestsellers, which climbe the ranking ladder up and are more often shown to the customers?
And can you observe a special pattern in best selling motifs?
For example creative shots like business people with animal heads, which can't be created simple by classical photography?
Educated guess - I'd say a handful of people are doing "very well" (again, a relative term). I would make an educated guess maybe a couple hundred people (out of 10's of thousands of contributors) are doing perhaps maybe $2k+/month from this - although I am assuming they would have regular images/videos/etc that supplement that too. (And then of course, there are a couple "superstars" that I would estimate are making $10k+/month).
I'd guess the majority though of the some (estimating) 10,000+ contributors are "maybe" making $50-$100/month, and every now and then one of them hits what they'd consider a "home run" (i.e., maybe making $100-$200 from a single image).
But if you are doing this properly (i.e., taking time to upscale, remove artifacts, etc) - then for a western country - I do not believe the time required would be worth the investment, unless you have other ways of getting income from your generated assets as well, or doing it out of interest, for fun, etc, etc.
-
I would say when your photos/videos sell, those will move up the keyword search ladder. So, if an image/clip sell a few times, it's likely to sell well for at least like 3 years unless it's timely subject. So, I think my AI photo sales will only get better as many of them make first sales and show up higher in search. I'm not done adding AI images although the pace has slowed down now. Probably by the end of this year, majority of my photo sales will be from AI images.
Yes, it definitely makes sense to reduce the pace. Otherwise, after a few months of piecework, you'll start to just hate it.
I wonder if it makes sense instead to invest some more time creating Lightroom or Photoshop presets that overlay the Midjourney look and create more natural colors for faking real photos, which can stand looking unique out from the mass.
Is there really no adjustment prompt or filter for creating more raw looking images, which you would postprocess in the further step?
-
"waaay more" is relative. for some people, doubling their investment is "waay more". for others, getting like $1k is "waaay more".
if you are in a poor country, maybe making $50 is "waaay more".
that's why I am asking. what do you define as "waaay more"?
So, 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. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
What is that "profit" wise though? Without a reference, it is difficult to make a decision, i.e., a bar chart of $2 is much different from a bar chart of $200 or $2000...
Did you read "I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. "?
I do not disclose my exact revenue. lol
-
This sounds motivating although generating over 3000 images, upscaling and retouching are more time consuming than one thinks at the first glance. I would estimate at least between 3 and 5 hours of daily work to get 1000 images a month.
Hopefully the work will also pay off in the longer term and not only cover the Midjourney subscription but also the invested work time.
Since you've got now more experience than other users, would you say that image sales increase over time for the whole AI portfolio or only for some few bestsellers, which climbe the ranking ladder up and are more often shown to the customers?
And can you observe a special pattern in best selling motifs?
For example creative shots like business people with animal heads, which can't be created simple by classical photography?
Educated guess - I'd say a handful of people are doing "very well" (again, a relative term). I would make an educated guess maybe a couple hundred people (out of 10's of thousands of contributors) are doing perhaps maybe $2k+/month from this - although I am assuming they would have regular images/videos/etc that supplement that too. (And then of course, there are a couple "superstars" that I would estimate are making $10k+/month).
I'd guess the majority though of the some (estimating) 10,000+ contributors are "maybe" making $50-$100/month, and every now and then one of them hits what they'd consider a "home run" (i.e., maybe making $100-$200 from a single image).
But if you are doing this properly (i.e., taking time to upscale, remove artifacts, etc) - then for a western country - I do not believe the time required would be worth the investment, unless you have other ways of getting income from your generated assets as well, or doing it out of interest, for fun, etc, etc.
Absolute agreement.
Only a handful of current AI contributors will be able to make a living from it in western countries.
Most of the pro users will either come from Thailand or Bulgaria, Russia, etc.
Post-processing (upscaling, retouching, downscaling, careful image checking) is currently not economically viable as it takes up most of the time. And you can't even outsource it to poor regions like some contributors did in past for photos or videos, as they can create exactly the same content themselves.
If the resolution of the generated images would be directly high, it would much faster to directly find the smaller artifacts that are only found after upscaling, so you could faster sort out. And if the generating time would be in real time you could generate much faster a perfect selection.
Perhaps at least the last point will change in short future with SDXL Turbo.
I currently do it more just for fun since 1 month. It's currently not enough for more than a few cups of coffee.
-
"waaay more" is relative. for some people, doubling their investment is "waay more". for others, getting like $1k is "waaay more".
if you are in a poor country, maybe making $50 is "waaay more".
that's why I am asking. what do you define as "waaay more"?
So, 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. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
What is that "profit" wise though? Without a reference, it is difficult to make a decision, i.e., a bar chart of $2 is much different from a bar chart of $200 or $2000...
Did you read "I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. "?
I do not disclose my exact revenue. lol
Wondering if somebody will steal "your" AI images, how do you prove are yours, showing the tags you use to generate them? I honestly don't understand why a customer will pay for something that can be generated by anybody, not much skills is needed, just the right tool to do it for you.
-
Why the final client have the right to use the image? Because the designer gives them.
Why the designer have the right to use the image? Because the stock agency gives them.
Why the stock agency have the right to sale the image? Because the stock stock photographer gives them.
Why the stock stock photographer have the right to sale the image? Because the AI image generator gives them.
Why the AI image generator owner have the right to sale the image? Because they have created this tool.
Why they have created this tool? Because they are smart and because we can not escape of the future and AI revolution.
-
Why the final client have the right to use the image? Because the designer gives them.
Why the designer have the right to use the image? Because the stock agency gives them.
Why the stock agency have the right to sale the image? Because the stock stock photographer gives them.
Why the stock stock photographer have the right to sale the image? Because the AI image generator gives them.
Why the AI image generator owner have the right to sale the image? Because they have created this tool.
Why they have created this tool? Because they are smart and because we can not escape of the future and AI revolution.
Last point I strongly disagree with. "They" are not smart - "they" are thieves, using other peoples content, and using your own money (i.e., "taxes"/"inflation"/etc) to fund the theft of your work. Also - you can "escape" it, but that is not the right word either. It is not true "ai" - it is a sophisticated computer algorithm that steals & repackages other people's stolen works.
-
Wondering if somebody will steal "your" AI images, how do you prove are yours, showing the tags you use to generate them? I honestly don't understand why a customer will pay for something that can be generated by anybody, not much skills is needed, just the right tool to do it for you.
Customer would use it because (a) it saves them time (they don't want to try and generate things), (b) it is 'more fun' to browse different concepts/ideas.
-
Not all of AI creators output hundreds of images per day.
I’ve been at it for a year and have only Ai 2,000 images, but I make png and paintovers, then I adjust them in Lightroom. So for me an output of 5-10 images per day is pretty good.I enjoy seeing what will pop out from prompt and I enjoy painting over AI on my iPad. I’ve been selling ok until dozens of copycats after I’ve been featured in “top sellers “ several times. It’s disheartening to see blunt copycats…
I don’t notice that amount of images equals more money, since it’s my bestsellers in unsaturated categories that make majority of my $ and they are unique ideas (well, they were…)
I think Adobe Stock is great output for a hobby, but I’ll have to find a more protected output for my unique ideas. Why waste them to be copied? My average stuff that anyone can do, don’t sell well, may be $5 per month per image. Retouching, etc. as others mentioned takes too much time to make it worth it and it’s not like those images will keep selling. They fade.
I don’t see how it’s possible to make a living on it. I think it will be a game of Stock Survivor who can last longer with little rewards, probably people in countries with less income.
I love prompting though, it’s fun.
-
The copycat factor has always been a problem if you get featured but ai makes copying extremely easy, even for complex people shots.
Might be worth considering giving artists and opt in or out for "promotion".
If topsellers get copied quickly with ai, who will bother working on great concepts?
I got featured last year and it increased my sales around 30% for about 2 weeks. . But I also worry about the copycat issue, because it takes me ages to come up with a good composition for my deceptively simple looking files, but if I can be copied with ai, it will make increasing sales very difficult.
Especially if you don't upload many variations, just the absolute best choice, it is frustrating.
-
"waaay more" is relative. for some people, doubling their investment is "waay more". for others, getting like $1k is "waaay more".
if you are in a poor country, maybe making $50 is "waaay more".
that's why I am asking. what do you define as "waaay more"?
So, 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. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
What is that "profit" wise though? Without a reference, it is difficult to make a decision, i.e., a bar chart of $2 is much different from a bar chart of $200 or $2000...
Did you read "I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. "?
I do not disclose my exact revenue. lol
Wondering if somebody will steal "your" AI images, how do you prove are yours, showing the tags you use to generate them? I honestly don't understand why a customer will pay for something that can be generated by anybody, not much skills is needed, just the right tool to do it for you.
My friend, instead of crying and whining about AI images, you better take advantage of this golden opportunity. Check out this video of an Adobe Stock contributor who had enormous success with her AI images on Adobe Stock.
https://youtu.be/F6fSIbMpri8?si=LVr2tzPTpJ5LiXwX
You never get the same exact image from the same exact AI prompt. Also, you have a record of prompting your own AI images. So, your concern is invalid. Don't worry about it!!! There's no crying in microstock business!!
-
.
-
My friend, instead of crying and whining about AI images, you better take advantage of this golden opportunity. Check out this video of an Adobe Stock contributor who had enormous success with her AI images on Adobe Stock.
https://youtu.be/F6fSIbMpri8?si=LVr2tzPTpJ5LiXwX
You never get the same exact image from the same exact AI prompt. Also, you have a record of prompting your own AI images. So, your concern is invalid. Don't worry about it!!! There's no crying in microstock business!!
Thanks for the video, quickly skipped through it.
I do agree there are people making $$, but to me - in some ways it is like winning a lottery ticket. She had a very seasonal picture first of all (the santa claus), doing a quick search for the gen ai - there are about 425,000 images for santa claus. For whatever reason - "her" santa claus got picked/promoted, and 424,999 other santa clauses did not. Why, I'm not sure (lol otherwise I'd make sure ALL of my images were 'picked' like that :P)...
And as more and more of this "look how I made $1k while watchint t.v. and now I can retire in a vacation villa!" videos come about - more and more other people want to "get rich quick" which floods the market with images like that...
Not saying you "can't" make $$ from it - but... it is very competitive, and does require a bit of luck, timing, desirable assets, etc, etc...
I'm not sure if I would call this a "business model", but I'm not sure if the long term results would be there... While I did get in to stock photography/videography later - people that got into it in 2003/2004 said they would have a "single" picture that made them $1k for a "single" sale... The marketplace has changed significantly - such that people are now chasing $0.25 images... For me, of course I am interested in earning $$$ from it, but I also find it kind of fun/interesting...
I was surprised she also openly said she made a "2nd account" for her, "er, in her husbands name", but then continued to refer to it as her 2nd account... while I know people do that - I was just surprised she was pretty open about that in a public video...
-
Just looked at her portfolio.
https://stock.adobe.com/ch_de/contributor/207612998/anna-schlosser
Should doing currently pretty decent by having sold 20% of her generated images at least once.
Has also many female topics like fashion, etc.
Probably should sell some images as posters on POD suppliers.
But yeah many could probably easily be copied by copycats.
Also somehow depressing to see she just get's 1k / month with such a portfolio.
Would have expected it to be much more.
Well, but we all can agree that the gold rush days in the microstock market are long gone.
Back then, between 2010 and 2014, you could earn several thousand a year with a ridiculous logo vector set.
Before the subscription model started by Shutterstock, vector illustrators were lining their pockets and no one was making videos on Youtube with I make 100k to 200k a year just from illustrations or icons like just they did.
I think it's similar to the stock market. As soon as there's too much talk about something, the market is overcrowded.
Nevertheless, I think that AI opens up many new opportunities.
We have to think outside the box and look for new concepts.
-
My friend, instead of crying and whining about AI images, you better take advantage of this golden opportunity. Check out this video of an Adobe Stock contributor who had enormous success with her AI images on Adobe Stock.
https://youtu.be/F6fSIbMpri8?si=LVr2tzPTpJ5LiXwX
You never get the same exact image from the same exact AI prompt. Also, you have a record of prompting your own AI images. So, your concern is invalid. Don't worry about it!!! There's no crying in microstock business!!
Thanks for the video, quickly skipped through it.
I do agree there are people making $$, but to me - in some ways it is like winning a lottery ticket. She had a very seasonal picture first of all (the santa claus), doing a quick search for the gen ai - there are about 425,000 images for santa claus. For whatever reason - "her" santa claus got picked/promoted, and 424,999 other santa clauses did not. Why, I'm not sure (lol otherwise I'd make sure ALL of my images were 'picked' like that :P)...
And as more and more of this "look how I made $1k while watchint t.v. and now I can retire in a vacation villa!" videos come about - more and more other people want to "get rich quick" which floods the market with images like that...
Not saying you "can't" make $$ from it - but... it is very competitive, and does require a bit of luck, timing, desirable assets, etc, etc...
I'm not sure if I would call this a "business model", but I'm not sure if the long term results would be there... While I did get in to stock photography/videography later - people that got into it in 2003/2004 said they would have a "single" picture that made them $1k for a "single" sale... The marketplace has changed significantly - such that people are now chasing $0.25 images... For me, of course I am interested in earning $$$ from it, but I also find it kind of fun/interesting...
I was surprised she also openly said she made a "2nd account" for her, "er, in her husbands name", but then continued to refer to it as her 2nd account... while I know people do that - I was just surprised she was pretty open about that in a public video...
Her Santa Claus image is not the most downloaded Santa Claus AI image. There are like 14 Santa Claus AI images that were downloaded more than hers. Just sort by "Downloads". It's just the fact that buyers are buying AI generated images. Most buyers seem like having no problem buying and using AI generated images. I don't care if any particular contributor starts making AI images. It's actually better if less people do this. I'm not really doing myself a favor posting those info to inspire other contributors to start making AI images.
-
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
-
My Sony iii7 is collecting dust, AI is definitely much easier than good photography shots. Smart photographers should run their old photos through AI for variations - the easiest way to prompt and to get good quality .
As for giving ideas to more people how to make it in stock - don’t worry, someone will make a YouTube tutorial or Ticktock short anyway - and make more $ on it than on stock itself! Multiple sources of passive income.
It does make me wonder where is the most profitable AI income?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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 didn’t 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 it’s all over the web, like 3 pages, it’ll 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 didn’t 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 can’t 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 don’t show up in search
It’s definitely not based from sales only. I don’t get it how though.
-
@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/. (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!
-
@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: it’s not based on quality or beauty of the image, since one bestseller I almost didn’t upload (I’ve later made similar better ones in a later/better version of MJ and it made $5). I’m probably not the best example, since I’ve 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.
I’ve read that reviewers can give ratings to images and upvote them.
-
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
-
@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:name…etc…
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.
-
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:name…etc…
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/19/technology/artificial-intelligence-image-generators-faces-quiz.html (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)
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/19/technology/artificial-intelligence-image-generators-faces-quiz.html (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)
yes, I did, but it is quite challenging
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/19/technology/artificial-intelligence-image-generators-faces-quiz.html (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.
-
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.