Author Topic: I don't know why, but I feel happier when I sell AI generated photos than (Read 17495 times)

wds · « **Reply #75 on:** January 13, 2024, 10:17 »

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.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #76 on:** January 13, 2024, 11:43 »

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 09:28

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...

blvdone · « **Reply #77 on:** January 13, 2024, 12:12 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 11:43

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 09:28
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. "?

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #78 on:** January 13, 2024, 14:08 »

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?

blvdone · « **Reply #79 on:** January 13, 2024, 14:32 »

Quote from: Andrej.S. on January 13, 2024, 14:08

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.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #80 on:** January 13, 2024, 16:34 »

"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"?

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 12:12

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 11:43
Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 09:28
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. "?

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #81 on:** January 13, 2024, 16:39 »

Quote from: Andrej.S. on January 13, 2024, 14:08

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.

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #82 on:** January 13, 2024, 17:41 »

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 14:32

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?

blvdone · « **Reply #83 on:** January 13, 2024, 18:14 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 16:34

"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"?

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 12:12
Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 11:43
Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 09:28
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

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #84 on:** January 13, 2024, 18:50 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 16:39

Quote from: Andrej.S. on January 13, 2024, 14:08
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.

DaLiu · « **Reply #85 on:** January 13, 2024, 19:37 »

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 18:14

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 16:34
"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"?

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 12:12
Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 11:43
Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 09:28
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.

Deyan Georgiev Photography · « **Reply #86 on:** January 13, 2024, 23:44 »

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.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #87 on:** January 14, 2024, 00:28 »

Quote from: Deyan Georgiev Photography on January 13, 2024, 23:44

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.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #88 on:** January 14, 2024, 00:29 »

Quote

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.

Mifornia · « **Reply #89 on:** January 14, 2024, 07:13 »

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #90 on:** January 14, 2024, 07:40 »

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.

blvdone · « **Reply #91 on:** January 14, 2024, 10:42 »

Quote from: DaLiu on January 13, 2024, 19:37

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 18:14
Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 16:34
"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"?

Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 12:12
Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 13, 2024, 11:43
Quote from: blvdone on January 13, 2024, 09:28
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!!

blvdone · « **Reply #92 on:** January 14, 2024, 10:46 »

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #93 on:** January 14, 2024, 12:09 »

Quote

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

)...

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...

Andrej.S. · « **Reply #94 on:** January 14, 2024, 17:52 »

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.

blvdone · « **Reply #95 on:** January 14, 2024, 22:51 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 14, 2024, 12:09

Quote
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 )...

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.

blvdone · « **Reply #96 on:** January 14, 2024, 23:04 »

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

Mifornia · « **Reply #97 on:** January 15, 2024, 04:45 »

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?

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #98 on:** January 15, 2024, 11:58 »

Quote from: blvdone on January 14, 2024, 23:04

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.

blvdone · « **Reply #99 on:** January 15, 2024, 13:20 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on January 15, 2024, 11:58

Quote from: blvdone on January 14, 2024, 23:04
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I don't know why, but I feel happier when I sell AI generated photos than (Read 17495 times)

wds

SuperPhoto

blvdone

Andrej.S.

blvdone

SuperPhoto

SuperPhoto

Andrej.S.

blvdone

Andrej.S.

DaLiu

Deyan Georgiev Photography

SuperPhoto

SuperPhoto

Mifornia

cobalt

blvdone

blvdone

SuperPhoto

Andrej.S.

blvdone

blvdone

Mifornia

SuperPhoto

blvdone

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors