Author Topic: I think AI generated photo sales will tank eventually (Read 4852 times)

blvdone · « **on:** September 21, 2023, 08:27 »

and many buyers will avoid buying AI generated images of people especially.

AI generated photos of people have certain "fake" look to them. In recent years, stock photo/video agencies urged us creators to create "authentic images of real people", but there's nothing authentic about AI generated images of fake imaginary people. While it's kinda fun creating those fake people images on Midjourney, I think buyers will soon be fed up with those not authentic at all people images generated by AI and filter out AI images.

yuriy · « **Reply #1 on:** September 21, 2023, 08:58 »

ai images are barely out of beta. they will improve exponentially in a short amount of time especially because everyone knows and sees the issues with fingers and "realistic" faces. the trend of usuing AI images might subside a bit though.

cobalt · « **Reply #2 on:** September 21, 2023, 09:39 »

The "fake" look is only in the newbie ports. Look at the more experienced prompters or ports that come from people who are professional graphic artists.

They have top level quality that you cannot distinguish from a photo. You can adjust the lighting, add flawed skin, "documentary style" editorial type of images and many other things.

Ai will not go away in the same way stock agencies did not disappear because mobile phones take phantastic pictures and you don't need a pro photographer to get pro looking images.

And it will all come to video.

Soon you will have very small creative teams churning out fantastic level indie movies. All done with a skript and dialogue cowritten with chatgpt, virtual actors with the help of video avatars and professional level lighting and 3d effects and music for the most sophisticated look.

The quality 10 years from now will be mind blowing.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #3 on:** September 21, 2023, 10:37 »

They will tank when buyers realise they don't need to use stock photos or illustrations and they can just whack a prompt in to get something "unique". The rest of our sales will tank along with them.

cobalt · « **Reply #4 on:** September 21, 2023, 11:14 »

If downloading totally free images from free stock photo sites and billions of free files with a cc license did not kill our sales, why should prompting do it?

How many prompts will it take to get the „right“ unique image??

Most people have no clue what kind of images they really want for a project. They look at thousands of images in a few secons on agencies to clarify what they need.

You cannot do that with a prompt.

Customers have no time.

That will always be out advantage.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #5 on:** September 21, 2023, 11:48 »

Quote from: cobalt on September 21, 2023, 11:14

How many prompts will it take to get the „right“ unique image??

When a customer searches for a photo in a microstock agency, what do you think how many images/pages he or she has to click through to 'get the „right“ image'?
The very fact that images on the top of a serach for a particular keyword get sold so so so much more often than an image on page 3 or page 30 clearly shows that the majority of customers is not searching for that one ominous "right" image. They serach for something that's good enough to fit their need and they are not willing to spend hours browsing microstock agencies for that one special image, but will take the first that is good enough for their needs.
And getting something that is 'good enough' with an AI generator takes me about one prompt and 5 seconds.
And the customers who are willing to spend hours searching in a microstock database for that one "right" image will not mind spending the same time promting AI images.

cobalt · « **Reply #6 on:** September 21, 2023, 12:02 »

With all the free images, what is your explanation that we still have sales?

Why do my new images get sales?

According to you stock should be over and done for years ago.

Yet here we are.

And why are there such huge, huge gaps in content in all agency collections?

If customers never need more than the first 100 images a stock agency spits out, why are we still making money???

But to each his own. Sounds like exiting the stock industry at light speed will be the best solution for many.

eta

Time is not turning back. The evolution of ai will be exponential. A year from now ai will create things unbelievable now.

3D visors, metaverse headsets are coming.

They will need all kinds of new, 3D style and intricate content.

Also 3D video will finally become real, when the visors and headsets are fully ready for it.

Realtime interaction between normal world and metaverse overlay…

It will be a lot more than just pictures and clips.

pancaketom · « **Reply #7 on:** September 21, 2023, 14:12 »

I think that like most trends demand will drop a bit for the images that look AI generated. Sort of like the overdone HDR images when they first came out - for a while they were everywhere, now not so much - but they are still out there and still sold. In a bit AI looking images won't be very popular, but they won't be what AI is churning out at that point.

AI generated images are just starting to get to the point where you can't really identify them, and things are moving fast. When you can't tell (and lets face it - when you can't tell, they will end up in nearly all the stock libraries whether they are allowed or not) then there will be no way to avoid them.

I think what will spell the end of stock sales will be when the AI programs that the people are using to create content just make the images to go along with that content. There will still be sales, but way less than now.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #8 on:** September 22, 2023, 03:51 »

Quote from: cobalt on September 21, 2023, 11:14

If downloading totally free images from free stock photo sites and billions of free files with a cc license did not kill our sales, why should prompting do it?

How many prompts will it take to get the „right“ unique image??

Most people have no clue what kind of images they really want for a project. They look at thousands of images in a few secons on agencies to clarify what they need.

You cannot do that with a prompt.

Customers have no time.

That will always be out advantage.

Do you regularly licence images? I used to when I did more graphic design. You can spend hours digging around for the right image.

As a buyer I'd rather spend a fraction of that time with a prompt. Getting an image no competitor has used, and I don't have to worry about models consent forms. I also get to have that nice fuzzy feeling that I am a creative all of a sudden because I wrote a sentence.

Kel · « **Reply #9 on:** September 22, 2023, 05:28 »

Hi all. new here.

I just wanted to ask one question: will the stock sites do AI theirselves in the future? If that is the case maybe stock-photo selling is doomed. For now, clients with deadlines of yesterday will pay for generated images if it's what they need.

I'm a one year user of AI generation and it takes a lot of practice to make the prompts well and understand how the AI models work. It's (the majority of the time) not as easy as pushing a button, I'm a traditional artist who embraces technology or tools, but I still have to do 4 or 5 hours for editing things in AI, for example I do paint a lot of hand corrections and feet, eyes, etc. AIs are not perfect yet, but they improve fast.

Regards, AL.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #10 on:** September 22, 2023, 06:36 »

in my opinion you are all right and wrong at the same time.
Each customer is different from the other with different time or needs.
My conclusion is that AI content will simply be another branch of stock,and has its own style.
I absolutely do not believe that AIs are the end of microstock.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #11 on:** September 22, 2023, 12:01 »

Quote from: Kel on September 22, 2023, 05:28

Hi all. new here.

I just wanted to ask one question: will the stock sites do AI theirselves in the future? If that is the case maybe stock-photo selling is doomed. For now, clients with deadlines of yesterday will pay for generated images if it's what they need.

I'm a one year user of AI generation and it takes a lot of practice to make the prompts well and understand how the AI models work. It's (the majority of the time) not as easy as pushing a button, I'm a traditional artist who embraces technology or tools, but I still have to do 4 or 5 hours for editing things in AI, for example I do paint a lot of hand corrections and feet, eyes, etc. AIs are not perfect yet, but they improve fast.

Regards, AL.

hi welcome,there are already agencies that make AI available to customers,and also that produce images themselves.
But precisely as you have already seen for yourself,it requires time and attempts with AI.

Anything that takes time is money.

I plant basil,dry it,package it and sell it,it's something that anyone can do,but I sell it anyway because it takes time!

Mantis · « **Reply #12 on:** September 22, 2023, 16:47 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 21, 2023, 10:37

They will tank when buyers realise they don't need to use stock photos or illustrations and they can just whack a prompt in to get something "unique". The rest of our sales will tank along with them.

Right. Ultimately, even having a database of AI, it's going in the direction that the new way to find your image is to create it yourself. Right now you have Midjourney, but those type of AI generators will replace a large part of classic stock photography. Many customers won't need to browse a collection at Adobe or other agencies, they can just create their own. And buyers will become accustomed to the art of keywording to generate content they need. At least that is how I see it going. I think AI in a large sense obsoletes the stock agencies to a large degree.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #13 on:** September 23, 2023, 06:06 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 22, 2023, 16:47

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 21, 2023, 10:37
They will tank when buyers realise they don't need to use stock photos or illustrations and they can just whack a prompt in to get something "unique". The rest of our sales will tank along with them.

Right. Ultimately, even having a database of AI, it's going in the direction that the new way to find your image is to create it yourself. Right now you have Midjourney, but those type of AI generators will replace a large part of classic stock photography. Many customers won't need to browse a collection at Adobe or other agencies, they can just create their own. And buyers will become accustomed to the art of keywording to generate content they need. At least that is how I see it going. I think AI in a large sense obsoletes the stock agencies to a large degree.

I hope you're wrong,and we probably all hope you're wrong,including you!

Instead,in case you are right,I believe that this is why it is important to start creating content that AI can't do now or ever.

Personally,I already started in February to try to create content that AI will never be able to do,and this is also why in my opinion,creating AI content is good now,and maybe it will be good for another couple of years,but I don't think it can be useful for a long time,because AI contents can be copied by everyone.

Then there is always the time factor,not all customers are interested or have time to waste with an AI,and will continue to prefer to browse a library,because buying something already made is always different from creating it yourself.

Mantis · « **Reply #14 on:** September 23, 2023, 06:59 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on September 23, 2023, 06:06

Quote from: Mantis on September 22, 2023, 16:47
Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 21, 2023, 10:37
They will tank when buyers realise they don't need to use stock photos or illustrations and they can just whack a prompt in to get something "unique". The rest of our sales will tank along with them.

Right. Ultimately, even having a database of AI, it's going in the direction that the new way to find your image is to create it yourself. Right now you have Midjourney, but those type of AI generators will replace a large part of classic stock photography. Many customers won't need to browse a collection at Adobe or other agencies, they can just create their own. And buyers will become accustomed to the art of keywording to generate content they need. At least that is how I see it going. I think AI in a large sense obsoletes the stock agencies to a large degree.

I hope you're wrong,and we probably all hope you're wrong,including you!

Instead,in case you are right,I believe that this is why it is important to start creating content that AI can't do now or ever.

Personally,I already started in February to try to create content that AI will never be able to do,and this is also why in my opinion,creating AI content is good now,and maybe it will be good for another couple of years,but I don't think it can be useful for a long time,because AI contents can be copied by everyone.

Then there is always the time factor,not all customers are interested or have time to waste with an AI,and will continue to prefer to browse a library,because buying something already made is always different from creating it yourself.

Indeed, I hope I am wrong. But as I watch our marketing department create their brochure images from Midjourney and rarely use Shutterstock anymore, it's at least a data point of one. A few weeks ago the designer was showing me what and how she creates these beautiful images (architectural) and then pointing them out in our brochures. The resolution Midjourney outputs is enough for their use. The keyboarding was where she was really good. She put in a robin (bird), spring, tree and Nikon 300 MM prime lens. I was stunned at the quality. The first pass was without the lens and the image had some background detail. Then she asked what lens I like to shoot with. I told her Nikon 300 prime. So she then inserted those keywords. The bokeh as amazing. The software seemed to have recognized the lens type and dropped out the background into a smooth, creamy bokeh. I just shrugged in disbelief. Some of my imagery is on the walls there, unbeknownst to me how they acquired them until I asked. We have an Adobe and SS account and they theme name our conference rooms and hang photos of that theme in them. Since they are located in the same area for which I shoot they name their room with locations and animals of local popularity. Her comment was that last time we used SS was to purchase the conference room images, not to produce marketing material. That was maybe six months ago. Take it for what it's worth, but my gut tells me this is where AI is headed, at least in part anyhow. My point is they their use of the stock platforms has eroded significantly.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #15 on:** September 23, 2023, 08:55 »

@Mantis, anecdotal, but very interesting.

My crystal ball is broken, but my guess is that two things will keep stock agencies in business (though volume might not grow, so investors won't find it "hot" any more).

1] Images where the specifics matter - you mentioned a robin, but I have a collection of genAI bird and animal images from Adobe Stock where they're not even close to the real thing; same with places, machinery, wheelchairs, stairs, ladders, etc.

2] The "Midjourney look" has become so ubiquitous that in a little while it will be overexposed and viewed as tired - been-there-done-that - and the trend will shift to something else. It's not about extra/missing limbs or digits, but I get an overwhelming sense that the photo-realistic people photos are from some vast clone factory and that you're seeing the same few people everywhere.

Back when microstock was a baby, some buyers were happy to see what they viewed as more realistic people and settings than the traditional stock images. That was because by and large the models were friends and family and not professionals. As microstock wanted to grow, it tried to look more like the the stuff they were replacing - and some stock photographers from the earlier generation came to the micros. Midjourney images are a refreshing thing, for a little while (if you ignore the origins of their data training; I'm guessing your company isn't worried about being sued over use of Midjourney images?).

And I have to add, for the bazillionth time, that I keep hearing how much better things are getting with the "oops" images, but that's not what I see looking at new approvals in Adobe Stock's 16.8+ million genAI collection.

If you wanted a saxophone player, neither of these would be "close enough". Nice lighting and engaging look, but the details are effed up. These were new this morning.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #16 on:** September 23, 2023, 09:07 »

these images are really funny,the saxophonist is probably a Jedi who uses the force to play the sax

dragonblade · « **Reply #17 on:** September 23, 2023, 12:26 »

There will always be a market for editorial images. That's something that shouldn't be 'faked' or 'created.'

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** September 23, 2023, 15:46 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 23, 2023, 08:55

@Mantis, anecdotal, but very interesting.

My crystal ball is broken, but my guess is that two things will keep stock agencies in business (though volume might not grow, so investors won't find it "hot" any more).

1] Images where the specifics matter - you mentioned a robin, but I have a collection of genAI bird and animal images from Adobe Stock where they're not even close to the real thing; same with places, machinery, wheelchairs, stairs, ladders, etc.

2] The "Midjourney look" has become so ubiquitous that in a little while it will be overexposed and viewed as tired - been-there-done-that - and the trend will shift to something else. It's not about extra/missing limbs or digits, but I get an overwhelming sense that the photo-realistic people photos are from some vast clone factory and that you're seeing the same few people everywhere.

Back when microstock was a baby, some buyers were happy to see what they viewed as more realistic people and settings than the traditional stock images. That was because by and large the models were friends and family and not professionals. As microstock wanted to grow, it tried to look more like the the stuff they were replacing - and some stock photographers from the earlier generation came to the micros. Midjourney images are a refreshing thing, for a little while (if you ignore the origins of their data training; I'm guessing your company isn't worried about being sued over use of Midjourney images?).

And I have to add, for the bazillionth time, that I keep hearing how much better things are getting with the "oops" images, but that's not what I see looking at new approvals in Adobe Stock's 16.8+ million genAI collection.

If you wanted a saxophone player, neither of these would be "close enough". Nice lighting and engaging look, but the details are effed up. These were new this morning.

I wouldn't say completely anecdotal as the company I work for, a $3B company, uses AI almost exclusively....and it's a huge marketing driven company. I was able to pluck the robin image she did for me. It looks pretty good. Here is the link to the full Rez image she built. I mean honestly, nobody can predict what pivots AI will take, but since I'm seeing current state with a pretty big graphically driven company, it's at least an indicator of what's happening, or beginning to happen. I do think much of your post has merit. I'm just seeing someone who is very good with keywords and A.I. create many incredible interior designs, exterior home scapes , etc. I can't believe she'd be the only one doing this as a means to support an annual marketing budget of $20 million. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zylpx3ikxdh3gonmb2p14/MicrosoftTeams-image.png?rlkey=l4mrpfv626ewwsy5sg4t6a1br&dl=0

Big Toe · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2023, 18:20 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 23, 2023, 15:46

I wouldn't say completely anecdotal as the company I work for, a $3B company, uses AI almost exclusively....and it's a huge marketing driven company. I was able to pluck the robin image she did for me. It looks pretty good. Here is the link to the full Rez image she built. I mean honestly, nobody can predict what pivots AI will take, but since I'm seeing current state with a pretty big graphically driven company, it's at least an indicator of what's happening, or beginning to happen. I do think much of your post has merit. I'm just seeing someone who is very good with keywords and A.I. create many incredible interior designs, exterior home scapes , etc. I can't believe she'd be the only one doing this as a means to support an annual marketing budget of $20 million. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zylpx3ikxdh3gonmb2p14/MicrosoftTeams-image.png?rlkey=l4mrpfv626ewwsy5sg4t6a1br&dl=0

The picture is aesthetically pleasing and most people will recognize it as a robin, but a lot of the details are wrong.

Here is how it should look like:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Erithacus_rubecula_with_cocked_head.jpg

Note for example that the beak of the real thing is blackish or dark grey, rather than partly orange. On the other hand, the lower part of the forehead should be orange. And so on.

So it comes down to the question whether customers are fine with using images of birds that have some resemblance to the real thing, but are really fantasy products.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2023, 19:45 »

Quote from: Big Toe on September 23, 2023, 18:20

...The picture is aesthetically pleasing and most people will recognize it as a robin, but a lot of the details are wrong.

Here is how it should look like:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Erithacus_rubecula_with_cocked_head.jpg
...

I'm not an ornithologist, but I've attached what Google shows for the American Robin and the European Robin (what you were showing). The AI robin isn't either of them, although as you say it's a pretty bird on a pretty branch.

That's (IMO) a type of visual pollution that AI has created - all sorts of things that are kind of like something you recognize, but not really. I think the difference matters when it comes to photo-realistic content. For fantasy creations, anything goes.

In time, the cynic in me says that many will argue that any differences between reality and genAI representations of it aren't important anyway. I've already seen some of Adobe Stock's AI images show up in Google searches for real places - and the Capo San Marco lighthouse looks nothing at all like the AI version of it.

For now, the pollution level is small enough to know which is which, but the volume of pretty-but-misleading images is growing rapidly.

When someone points a camera at something real, even if the person taking the image isn't an expert in the thing they're photographing, what is captured is something that actually exists. Bad keywording is obviously an issue, and that can be misleading too, but that can at least be fixed (should an agency decide it needs to do something about it). The rabbit hole of labeling AI "hallucinations" as real places, real animals, real birds, etc. can't be fixed.

Adobe's rule that specific place or property names shouldn't be used when labeling genAI images is a good one. It just isn't enforced. I think it should extend to species names for plants, birds, animals as well unless it's an illustration.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #21 on:** September 24, 2023, 06:17 »

yes,that's right,AIs shouldn't have the proper names of real subjects because they are not real,they may resemble something real,but they are not.

AIs are good for science fiction and fantasy,even interior designs can be considered fantasy when created by AI.

then frankly to me these AI images all seem to have the same visual impact,which I would define as "plasticized"

I'm sure that the technology will improve,but AI content is and will remain a branch of stock,a separate thing that can be useful,but can never completely replace reality.

HalfFull · « **Reply #22 on:** September 27, 2023, 03:12 »

Quote from: Big Toe on September 23, 2023, 18:20

Quote from: Mantis on September 23, 2023, 15:46
I wouldn't say completely anecdotal as the company I work for, a $3B company, uses AI almost exclusively....and it's a huge marketing driven company. I was able to pluck the robin image she did for me. It looks pretty good. Here is the link to the full Rez image she built. I mean honestly, nobody can predict what pivots AI will take, but since I'm seeing current state with a pretty big graphically driven company, it's at least an indicator of what's happening, or beginning to happen. I do think much of your post has merit. I'm just seeing someone who is very good with keywords and A.I. create many incredible interior designs, exterior home scapes , etc. I can't believe she'd be the only one doing this as a means to support an annual marketing budget of $20 million. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zylpx3ikxdh3gonmb2p14/MicrosoftTeams-image.png?rlkey=l4mrpfv626ewwsy5sg4t6a1br&dl=0

The picture is aesthetically pleasing and most people will recognize it as a robin, but a lot of the details are wrong.

Here is how it should look like:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Erithacus_rubecula_with_cocked_head.jpg

Note for example that the beak of the real thing is blackish or dark grey, rather than partly orange. On the other hand, the lower part of the forehead should be orange. And so on.

So it comes down to the question whether customers are fine with using images of birds that have some resemblance to the real thing, but are really fantasy products.

I could be wrong but the wing of that AI Robin is closer to that of a female Chaffinch. It certainly doesn't look like an any robin I've seen in the garden. The feathers below the red breast are also too white.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I think AI generated photo sales will tank eventually (Read 4852 times)

blvdone

yuriy

cobalt

Justanotherphotographer

cobalt

Her Ugliness

cobalt

pancaketom

Justanotherphotographer

Kel

Injustice for all

Injustice for all

Mantis

Injustice for all

Mantis

Jo Ann Snover

Injustice for all

dragonblade

Mantis

Big Toe

Jo Ann Snover

Injustice for all

HalfFull

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors