I know that AS has a very strict policy on similars. I seem to recall that a change of angle is usually not acceptable when submitting more than one photo of the same subject. Though what if I changed the distance? For example, with a small subject, I stood further back for the first photo and then moved 1 - 3 feet closer for a second photo. Would this be acceptable?

Adobe didn't have a strict policy on similar images, at least I never had a single of my images rejected for that reason for years.

Might be different nowadays, I do not know. I stopped submitting real photos as I suddenly went from a  less that 5% rejection rate to a 60% rejection rate, so maybe their similar rule has become stricter as well.

EDIT: I posted a link to a port with a huge number of similar videos of snowflakes falling but I have decided to remove the link.

Actually, I do have another question regarding similars. Is it okay to submit both a horizontal and a vertical composition (as the main point of difference) of the same subject?

Actually, I do have another question regarding similars. Is it okay to submit both a horizontal and a vertical composition (as the main point of difference) of the same subject?

Generally yes, this is fine. Don't crop from one larger file to make two different compositions however. They should be unique images.

-Mat

Quote from: dragonblade on November 29, 2023, 07:43

Actually, I do have another question regarding similars. Is it okay to submit both a horizontal and a vertical composition (as the main point of difference) of the same subject?

Generally yes, this is fine. Don't crop from one larger file to make two different compositions however. They should be unique images.

-Mat

Thank you Mat for the clarification.

Quote from: MatHayward on November 29, 2023, 09:36

Quote from: Lowls on November 29, 2023, 09:09

Yeah this doesn't apply to autumn leaves. Golden and Red maple leaves are too similar apparently. Rejected.

There are currently more than 6,000,000 results for the search term "Autumn leaves" in Adobe Stock. For images of common subjects such as this, we will accept them, but there needs to be a WOW! factor involved. If the images don't stand out from the millions of others, we may accept one or two, but not likely many in the series as they would be too "similar" to the files already in abundant supply.

I wish you the best of luck with your future submissions,

Mat Hayward

Ladies and gents - the .....  "wow" ..... factor 🤣 🤔  217 files all from the same port.


https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?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%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=see-more&acp=&aco=swimming+pool+water&serie_id=90786165&get_facets=0

Yes to WOW!

Quote from: dragonblade on November 26, 2023, 21:51

I know that AS has a very strict policy on similars. I seem to recall that a change of angle is usually not acceptable when submitting more than one photo of the same subject. Though what if I changed the distance? For example, with a small subject, I stood further back for the first photo and then moved 1 - 3 feet closer for a second photo. Would this be acceptable?

You need to make sure that each asset you submit offers unique value to a potential customer. If the changes you describe in your post could be just as easily accomplished by a customer with a simple crop, then it's likely too similar. If it's a genuine difference in the image that could prompt a customer to buy both variations, then you are fine.

-Mat Hayward

So its all about the money. 6 pages of money all in the same port, calculators and clocks? So similar but not, but near but far enough different ...  okie dokie

I will not ever discuss portfolios of contributors that are not actively involved in a public discussion and are not asking for a critique. Personally, I feel that is a weak way to make an argument about your own portfolio and why your content should be online. I would rather lift others up and encourage, than the opposite. Regardless of the subject you are shooting and submitting, you should be seeking the WOW! factor for each and every image. It's a highly competitive space and you should be doing everything you can to create the best content possible.


Focus on what you can do to improve YOUR own portfolio with unique, sellable content that meets current trends. Autumn leaves sell well every year. That said, there are a LOT of images of Autumn leaves in the collection already. Focus on finding content gaps. Create what isn't there, but should be.

Good luck,

Mat Hayward

It isnt a weak argument at all stop talking nonsense. It is a fact.

 I showed clear rules breaches. Nothing more nothing less. Being the ardent defender of the contributer no doubt you'll be rushing to correct that "rare" anomaly. You misunderstood. I couldn't care less.

1. It bloats Adobe's catalogues.
2. It is against your policy.
3. It hides gems in a sea (no pun intended) of duplicated dross.

I don't care about it, it isnt my money being wasted on storage. Have at it. But the advice you gave is patently false. It couldn't be more false clearly. The portfolios I picked on aren't some list I have ready to throw out there. That was an educated guess. Swimming pool water photos on your platform number in the millions. That is in no way the worst offender. One user had 117 pages or more of just looking at pool water. And your response is "poor show" ... really? That's got a wow out of me. Dirt, clouds, grass, hills, toys, food,  every subject you can think of has users that have at least a whole page of of exactly the same subject. I only showed the yellow swimming pool inflatables. They have other colours in that port alone lol.

I've said this before that the similars rule is rediculous. It doesn't spawn creativity it hampers it. You cannot light things differently to create a sinister look and then a sunny look with happy warmth. You can't do any of that. You can't join in with photos of Autumn leaves because "they need the wow factor" another rediculous generalisation. What is the wow factor with leaves that will "raise them up" ... colour them neon blue and affix a cowboy hat perhaps? It's as if the "new content tab" doesn't even exist or filters for colours.

But we can leap into A.I. and churn out elephobsters, avocinaples, and sunny family BBQ shots with dear gran proudly displaying her extra arm growing out of her nether regions as she holds a glass of wine with her rabbit paw. Flipped. cropped, sunrise, sunset and wearing a different dress.

As has been already stated but obviously too subtly - rules are great. Let's all follow them or don't. It can't be both. Don't try and shame me for pointing out provable facts on a significant scale over a significant time scale.

Many contributors feel directly concerned by unfair competition.
Many contributors struggle to understand that Adobe is not developing Artificial Intelligence to manage submitted content more intelligently. They don't do it because it's simply not in their own best interest.
But the worst competition will be the generation tools directly offered to customers (without any need for skills), which will inevitably arrive and which Adobe is undoubtedly preparing, and which will absolutely no longer need the work of contributors, will no longer suppose a payment of royalties to a third party. Adobe is above all a business, a company that sees its financial interest above all else.

The enthusiastic sheeps, fans of AI image generation, making the �wow� effect accessible to everyone, are just deaf and blind, and not very capable of seeing what is coming. They are just the necessary shoehorn for autonomous AI products in the pipeline.

Many contributors feel directly concerned by unfair competition.

Minor disagreement or at least opinion variation. I don't feel that these people who spam up their portfolio and make it look cheap or like crap are competition or unfair. If I was trying to upload 1,000 images of water or autumn leaves, then we'd all be in the same class of junk images and filler. I don't, so I don't care.

Regardless of the subject you are shooting and submitting, you should be seeking the WOW! factor for each and every image. It's a highly competitive space and you should be doing everything you can to create the best content possible.

Focus on what you can do to improve YOUR own portfolio with unique, sellable content that meets current trends. Autumn leaves sell well every year. That said, there are a LOT of images of Autumn leaves in the collection already. Focus on finding content gaps. Create what isn't there, but should be.

Good luck,

Mat Hayward

Yes I'll take that advice and concentrate on my own, rather than finger pointing at others.

If I was getting rejections for similar, which I don't, maybe I'd be more concerned or question why new AI images are accepted by the hundreds, that are not within the guidelines. I'll guess, that AI is doing some of the reviews?  There's no way that a human could see 100 similar images, uploaded in a batch and not say, these are similar.

My favorite bit of advise and I know a small number of us have hammered this since the start:  Focus on finding content gaps. Create what isn't there, but should be. And when in doubt make something stupid that isn't needed or anywhere on site, it might sell? But either of those are better than duplicating most popular or hundreds of similar new variations of something that's already on the site, by the thousands.

In my opinion, a much better strategy would be to hold reviewers accountable. When other contributors report stuff like that, the best response isn't "we don't discuss other accounts", it's accepting that it was a mistake to let those images slide through, remove them, and interally look at which reviewer let those images get into the public facing database. Then educate the reviewer so they don't make the same mistake again.

If the same reviewer is later found responsible for other errors in the review process, and they were already educated, then it's time to let the reviewer go. They're causing harm to the company, to the contributors, and to the buyers.

But then again, I'm not the CEO of Adobe and I can only cosplay as one on a small internet forum. Too bad tho.