Author Topic: won't be long now (Read 6499 times)

yuriy · « **on:** July 23, 2024, 21:48 »

can't possibly be much longer

Injustice for all · « **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2024, 04:29 »

Can I ask you how much approved content you have had so far this year?

yuriy · « **Reply #2 on:** July 24, 2024, 08:20 »

quite a lot. it was going well until 2 months ago when they stopped reviewing commercial images. i also have 12 images like the screenshot that are 4 and 5 months in the black hole.

Erin Cadigan · « **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2024, 11:58 »

Quote from: yuriy on July 23, 2024, 21:48

can't possibly be much longer

This is scaring me! I just started submitting again last week after a few years and was wondering when my commercial work would get reviewed. Are they just backed up or are they not accepting anymore?

JustAnImage · « **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2024, 12:32 »

Quote from: yuriy on July 23, 2024, 21:48

can't possibly be much longer

I now do it in such a way that I simply delete the pictures that slip through AS and have been in the queue for 3 or more months and upload them again.

This shouldn't really be the case, but it's simply quicker.

Why some of the images (currently 4 of mine with more than 4 months) have been stuck in the review queue at AS for a while is also a mystery to me - probably a bug in the assignment of “images still to be reviewed” to the reviewers.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2024, 14:24 »

Quote from: yuriy on July 24, 2024, 08:20

quite a lot. it was going well until 2 months ago when they stopped reviewing commercial images. i also have 12 images like the screenshot that are 4 and 5 months in the black hole.

this could be the reason,since you have already probably had,I assume,several thousand content approved this year,your review are slowing down to give way to others who work less on quantity,who work differently,not better or worse,differently.

considering the limit that new accounts have and also the limit on files in the queue,which I think is 3000,also considering that those who generally complain about extremely long waiting times have already had 4-5000 contents approved during the current year.

it may be that there is some kind of policy on annual uploads.

I clearly don't know if that's the case,but if that's the case,in my opinion they're doing well and it's the right choice,because uploading 5000 contents in a year seems like a reasonable limit to me,for various reasons.

another reason could be if you have too much similar content queued up.

as far as I'm concerned,up to now I have all the reviews below the regular times,but I'm still far from 5000 contents in a year.

but I repeat, I absolutely don't know if this is the case, I'm only making hypotheses based on collected data.

Pacesetter · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2024, 20:54 »

cobalt · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2024, 21:40 »

these long wait times for regular photos makes me wonder how much better ai is selling versus traditional stock.

Or maybe they want to reach a certain number, like 100 million ai files, for marketing purposes.

It is content other places don‘t have.

At some point they will have to finde a better review balance.

They are a huge software house, not a small mom and pop store.

Madede · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2024, 00:19 »

Holiday season + AI "photo" spammers.

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2024, 00:46 »

Quote from: JustAnImage on July 24, 2024, 12:32

I now do it in such a way that I simply delete the pictures that slip through AS and have been in the queue for 3 or more months and upload them again.

I also have images that aren't getting reviewed, waiting 4 months now, resubmitted them about a month ago - Again not getting reviewed, while all other images submitted around that time have been reviewed long ago, so that solution does not seem to work for everyone.

lappland_sun · « **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2024, 01:36 »

the review time makes me sometimes crazy - I have had some videos uploaded yesterday (similar drone shots) - woken up today half of them already accepted. the other half still waiting.

At the same time - I have few videos that are almost the same - waiting in the review since May.

Deleting and re-uploading in the past didn't help me much.

Same with AI - I made a habbit of uploading at least one real photo and one AI photo per day - and it doesn't matter the theme or hashtags, the review time is just a lottery to me.

MicroVet · « **Reply #11 on:** July 25, 2024, 02:27 »

Never have a problem. Mine are always approved on the same day or the following day maximum.

Erin Cadigan · « **Reply #12 on:** July 25, 2024, 07:11 »

Interesting...

I just started playing around with AI, submitted two images yesterday, and they are already accepted and in my port.

Editorial takes a day tops. Commercial work is still sitting for over a week.

cobalt · « **Reply #13 on:** July 25, 2024, 07:21 »

You submitted them as ai illustrations?

Today I had one file accepted in 5 minutes, the others are still waiting. Same yesterday.

Some illustrations go very, very fast others take much longer.

Also had 6 ai photos accepted much faster while others are now at 12 days.

I can‘t really see that there is anything special about the ones that go through faster. They also don‘t sell better than the rest.

But I am grateful for everything that goes through quickly.

Videos also have a very reasonable turnaround.

pngs are over 1 month.

Haven‘t tried uploading regular photos, have a huge backlog there.

Maybe there is some ai running in the background based on customer searches. And perhaps the files are in some needed category?

But I really don‘t know, a lot of my content is very generic.

Erin Cadigan · « **Reply #14 on:** July 25, 2024, 08:24 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 25, 2024, 07:21

You submitted them as ai illustrations?

Today I had one file accepted in 5 minutes, the others are still waiting. Same yesterday.

Some illustrations go very, very fast others take much longer.

Also had 6 ai photos accepted much faster while others are now at 12 days.

I can‘t really see that there is anything special about the ones that go through faster. They also don‘t sell better than the rest.

But I am grateful for everything that goes through quickly.

Videos also have a very reasonable turnaround.

pngs are over 1 month.

Haven‘t tried uploading regular photos, have a huge backlog there.

Maybe there is some ai running in the background based on customer searches. And perhaps the files are in some needed category?

But I really don‘t know, a lot of my content is very generic.

I submitted them as AI photos. I've had a few random commercial photo images rejected recently, but the rest of the creative work is just sitting there. I'm not sure if the rejected ones were automatically rejected for some reason or if a human reviewer did it!

cobalt · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2024, 08:49 »

They keep stressing in their discord that all declines have human oversight. So it is not a machine making the decision.

But I am sure they have fantastic inspection software and maybe a prefilter system to speed things up.

If your ai photos get accepted so quickly I would take that as a good sign that it is something they want.

Hope you get good sales soon.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2024, 15:39 »

Since 2015, artists have been uploading their work to Adobe with great commitment and expertise and have contributed to Adobe Stock becoming one of the largest agencies.

Many make a living from it or at least depend on the income.

Now we have AI. Any fool with a computer can now upload their work.

It's certainly not wrong to jump on this bandwagon from the adobe perspective.

Personally, I find the current review times completely unacceptable and disrespectful to those who made Adobe Stock great in the past.
Communication in this regard also seems to have fallen completely asleep.

I can't see anything positive about this development.

I would have expected at least equal treatment here, which is obviously not the case.

Adobe is really kicking its loyal and former useful contributors in the ass here.

yuriy · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2024, 17:08 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on July 25, 2024, 15:39

Since 2015, artists have been uploading their work to Adobe with great commitment and expertise and have contributed to Adobe Stock becoming one of the largest agencies.

Many make a living from it or at least depend on the income.

Now we have AI. Any fool with a computer can now upload their work.

It's certainly not wrong to jump on this bandwagon from the adobe perspective.

Personally, I find the current review times completely unacceptable and disrespectful to those who made Adobe Stock great in the past.
Communication in this regard also seems to have fallen completely asleep.

I can't see anything positive about this development.

I would have expected at least equal treatment here, which is obviously not the case.

Adobe is really kicking its loyal and former useful contributors in the ass here.

i'm convinced they will rectify the situation right away... by updating the banner to "reviews will take up to 16 weeks"

Injustice for all · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2024, 08:22 »

in my opinion,with all due respect to everyone,obviously,but in my opinion there could be reasons behind it and we simply don't have the general picture.

but it could be that I'm wrong or that I'm just a stupid idiot of course!

however one thing is certain,having content under review for a long time can be irritating and stressful,because the work is done but the content is not yet for sale.

I believe that the quantity already uploaded in the current year,affects the review time,I don't know if Adobe will be able to access this data during review with the new terms,as far as I know,with the old terms it was not possible in the review to have access to this data.

but the answer to long waiting times could also be simpler,perhaps it simply depends on whether the content is useful or not.

as I said,I have no problem,as far as I'm concerned,all the reviews are done well below the current established times.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2024, 13:57 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on July 26, 2024, 08:22

..... but the answer to long waiting times could also be simpler,perhaps it simply depends on whether the content is useful or not.

as I said,I have no problem,as far as I'm concerned,all the reviews are done well below the current established times.

First of all, you deserve credit for being a very positive person. But somehow love seems to make you blind

How can the reviewer assess the sales value of a picture right away? The value of a picture is made up of various aspects.

Just 2 concrete examples.

It took Adobe 2 - 3 months to review my images on the subject of fungal contamination in indoor air. The images were probably of little interest to the reviewers. Not so for the buyers. After activation, I had regular sales and Adobe lost me 3 months of revenue.

From my area, quite simple landscape images are doing very well with all agencies - and some of them have been waiting in the queue since May. For the reviewer, it's probably another forest, river or lake. For the buyer, these are images to represent a specific landscape that is popular with tourists.

The review times are disrespectful and there is no excuse for this. The problem has existed since the acceptance of AI images. A company like Adobe should actually have solutions for this.

PigsInSpace · « **Reply #20 on:** July 26, 2024, 18:21 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on July 26, 2024, 08:22

in my opinion,with all due respect to everyone,obviously,but in my opinion there could be reasons behind it and we simply don't have the general picture.

We don’t have the full picture, but Adobe is reviewing AI images and illustrative editorial images very quickly, so they’re able to. It’s only conventional photos that sit on the sidelines for weeks and weeks and weeks. The whole thing doesn’t make sense.

zeljkok · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2024, 21:32 »

Quote from: PigsInSpace on July 26, 2024, 18:21

Quote from: Injustice for all on July 26, 2024, 08:22
in my opinion,with all due respect to everyone,obviously,but in my opinion there could be reasons behind it and we simply don't have the general picture.

We don’t have the full picture, but Adobe is reviewing AI images and illustrative editorial images very quickly, so they’re able to. It’s only conventional photos that sit on the sidelines for weeks and weeks and weeks. The whole thing doesn’t make sense.

Agreed. Little transparency would be helpful, i.e. "This is what's going on" - not just "It could take 8 weeks.." My only guess is that AI pre-processing decides based on who-knows-what criteria to push certain content at the bottom of the pit, but that criteria has not been (yet) applied to AI submissions while illustrative editorial go straight into human reviewer inbox.

Yesterday I uploaded single RF image, related to these horrible Canadian Rockies wildfires most have probably heard about. It got accepted overnight on SS and Alamy; it will be interesting to see how long is it going to take on Adobe.

cobalt · « **Reply #22 on:** July 26, 2024, 23:16 »

Adobe is one of the largest software companies in the world.

If they felt the long queue was a real problem, they would have changed it by now.

It is very easy to adjust a queue by adjusting upload limits.

But they don‘t seem to feel it is affecting sales overall and there must be reason to accept ai so much faster.

My guess is they want to have the largest and best ai collection, to really distinguish themselves from other agencies.

They otherwise don‘t have exclusive content, but ai content really sets them apart.

Even if Shutterstock and istock start taking ai files, it will take a while to catch up with Adobe.

Might take two years to reach similar levels, because they will have to inspect it all and will be swamped if they open the gates.

zeljkok · « **Reply #23 on:** July 27, 2024, 03:24 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 26, 2024, 23:16

Adobe is one of the largest software companies in the world.

If they felt the long queue was a real problem, they would have changed it by now.

Right on. This got me thinking a bit. I worked 30yrs in software industry and am familiar both with world of algorithms and world of people that work with them. Here's possible scenario:

We all know about accepted content promotion. Images that sell more appear higher in searches. Some agencies promote newer content (some don't). There are many other possible criteria, part of company intellectual property. Bottom line is that each library item has certain "value" token that determines place in customer searches.

----------------------
What if Adobe is using AI to assign "review" token that determines place in review queue? That token could be composite of technical aspects -i.e. Histogram to left/right = image might be under/over exposed --> negative value to the token. Or too much noise --> negative value to the token. Brief run through contributor port - similar? Negative value to the token. Etc etc. Maybe even contributor rank comes into play. Each week that passes would add some positive value to the token to push it higher in the queue, but as fresh content keeps arriving, anything with bad initial rating needs to wait a long time to swim out - or even never swims out - as newer content keeps getting inserted above.
------------------------
To keep it short - AI pre-processing decides review order. Why not for Illustrative Editorial or AI Content? Editorial might be news related so let's not keep it waiting. AI Content - sounds silly to use AI to review AI? I don't know

All this is pure speculation to which I have no proof. But it would explain why some content waits few days, some few weeks, some few months and fits very well with high-tech agency profile. It would also align with cobalt thinking how they are interested in quality and see no damage if content determined "not worthy" can wait.

Obviously Adobe would never disclose such details as it goes deep into inner workings. But keeping contributors in dark IMHO is not good either. Simple statement "Perceived Image quality determines Review order" would be better even if it would likely raise all other kinds of questions.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #24 on:** July 27, 2024, 03:43 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on July 26, 2024, 13:57

Quote from: Injustice for all on July 26, 2024, 08:22

..... but the answer to long waiting times could also be simpler,perhaps it simply depends on whether the content is useful or not.

as I said,I have no problem,as far as I'm concerned,all the reviews are done well below the current established times.

First of all, you deserve credit for being a very positive person. But somehow love seems to make you blind

How can the reviewer assess the sales value of a picture right away? The value of a picture is made up of various aspects.

Just 2 concrete examples.

It took Adobe 2 - 3 months to review my images on the subject of fungal contamination in indoor air. The images were probably of little interest to the reviewers. Not so for the buyers. After activation, I had regular sales and Adobe lost me 3 months of revenue.

From my area, quite simple landscape images are doing very well with all agencies - and some of them have been waiting in the queue since May. For the reviewer, it's probably another forest, river or lake. For the buyer, these are images to represent a specific landscape that is popular with tourists.

The review times are disrespectful and there is no excuse for this. The problem has existed since the acceptance of AI images. A company like Adobe should actually have solutions for this.

first of all thank you!

what you say certainly has its truth,certainly long waiting times can cause "damage" because the content is not for sale and potential sales can be lost.

but the point is that there may be reasons behind these excessively long times and we simply don't have the big picture to judge.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #25 on:** July 27, 2024, 04:01 »

Quote from: PigsInSpace on July 26, 2024, 18:21

Quote from: Injustice for all on July 26, 2024, 08:22
in my opinion,with all due respect to everyone,obviously,but in my opinion there could be reasons behind it and we simply don't have the general picture.

We don’t have the full picture, but Adobe is reviewing AI images and illustrative editorial images very quickly, so they’re able to. It’s only conventional photos that sit on the sidelines for weeks and weeks and weeks. The whole thing doesn’t make sense.

here,this shows that there may be reasons behind these long waiting times in fact illustrative editorials are reviewed within 24 hours,and this is so for a very specific reason.

In any case,for me it's exactly the opposite,real content takes less time to review,while AI content takes a little longer,but as I was saying,all my content is reviewed well below the established times,i.e. 8 weeks.

I really don't rule out that there are very specific reasons for more or less long review times.

for example recently I had a batch of real content rejected,looking at the contents again I noticed that they were a little too overexposed,and therefore in my opinion the reviewer got it right,but the point is that some of this content from this series remained pending.

So why has some content in this real content series not been reviewed yet while the rest of this series has already been rejected?in my opinion because the quality wasn't the best,because they are slightly too overexposed.

so in conclusion,there may be a reason,and we can't say anything for sure because we don't have the big picture.

mike123 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 27, 2024, 06:08 »

You guys get your content reviewed?

My review time is around 8 weeks. Lately I got an email from Adobe saying my content was accepted, I couldn't even remember I sent something for review. It's really getting ridiculous

wds · « **Reply #27 on:** July 27, 2024, 07:16 »

No contributor should have to wait months to get photos reviewed. What happens if it goes to 6 months?...if it goes to 1 year?

cobalt · « **Reply #28 on:** July 27, 2024, 08:01 »

It would be logical that review order is "enhanced" with the help of ai.

Personally I would think it would mostly be based on what customers are searching for/lightboxing. So content that is being rapidly lightboxed at the moment, would get a base push in the queue.

I doubt reviewers assign any kind of sellability rating. It would be impossible to predict for them, because they cannot know all markets and trends of the planet.

But overall I think somebody is simply deciding from a very large perspective the overall percentages they want to have in the database.

Woudln't be surprised if they want to go for "We have 100 million, 200 million ai files" for marketing because that is content others don't have.

They will not compromise on quality, but normal photos might take a back seat.

However, instead making normal content wait 5 months, why not just limit the upload levels for that content, so people make smarter selections and at least then the content goes live in a week.

Oversupply and too many similars is always bogging down all queues.

Erin Cadigan · « **Reply #29 on:** July 27, 2024, 10:02 »

No official word on this, I guess?

I've been with Adobestock/Fotolia since 2007 and I don't recall it ever taking this long. Like I've said before, no issue with editorials/AI being approved.

I hope they don't stop accepting new content like Bigstock did.

cascoly · « **Reply #30 on:** July 27, 2024, 13:38 »

Quote from: zeljkok on July 27, 2024, 03:24

...
What if Adobe is using AI to assign "review" token that determines place in review queue? That token could be composite of technical aspects -i.e. Histogram to left/right = image might be under/over exposed --> negative value to the token. Or too much noise --> negative value to the token. Brief run through contributor port - similar? Negative value to the token. Etc etc. Maybe even contributor rank comes into play. Each week that passes would add some positive value to the token to push it higher in the queue, but as fresh content keeps arriving, anything with bad initial rating needs to wait a long time to swim out - or even never swims out - as newer content keeps getting inserted above....

very interesting & reasonable idea, but it doesn't track with my review times - i have over 300 images waiting for 2 month s, then about 150 in last 2 weeks - nothing in between. subjects extremely variable

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #31 on:** July 27, 2024, 16:59 »

I am a little surprised at how many people here are talking down and bagetlizing a serious problem or even looking for explanations and excuses from an Adobe perspective. If another agency were to make such a mess, we would already have dozens of pages of ranting here.

If Adobe can establish world peace with the long review times - then I'm happy to join in.

And just to put a question in the room.

Why is it generally assumed that AI images are the future and will always be preferred by buyers?

zeljkok · « **Reply #32 on:** July 27, 2024, 18:07 »

Quote from: cascoly on July 27, 2024, 13:38

Quote from: zeljkok on July 27, 2024, 03:24
...
What if Adobe is using AI to assign "review" token that determines place in review queue? That token could be composite of technical aspects -i.e. Histogram to left/right = image might be under/over exposed --> negative value to the token. Or too much noise --> negative value to the token. Brief run through contributor port - similar? Negative value to the token. Etc etc. Maybe even contributor rank comes into play. Each week that passes would add some positive value to the token to push it higher in the queue, but as fresh content keeps arriving, anything with bad initial rating needs to wait a long time to swim out - or even never swims out - as newer content keeps getting inserted above....

very interesting & reasonable idea, but it doesn't track with my review times - i have over 300 images waiting for 2 month s, then about 150 in last 2 weeks - nothing in between. subjects extremely variable

I know. We can only keep guessing and that was one possible scenario. AI is involved in some degree I am quite certain. Whatever the case, it's not good like this; people in general just don't want to be kept in dark. Bit of transparency please.

cobalt · « **Reply #33 on:** July 27, 2024, 20:15 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on July 27, 2024, 16:59

Why is it generally assumed that AI images are the future and will always be preferred by buyers?

Because the technology is developing rapidly and will soon produce content that will really not be distinguishable from normal photos.

It allows total newbies to produce content in upscale studio production level.

So it is reasonable to assume that in a few years the majority of content produced will be ai.

With the best content produced by the most experienced stock producers.

I don‘t think customers will explicitly prefer ai, I thimk it will simply be the dominant content type coming into creative stock.

wds · « **Reply #34 on:** July 27, 2024, 21:33 »

It wasn't all that long ago that "authentic" content was the big thing.
In some sense, AI content is about as inauthentic as you can get. I guess things change.

cobalt · « **Reply #35 on:** July 28, 2024, 04:49 »

You can do "authentic" with ai, it is just a style

A lot of the "authentic" content is heavily photoshopped.

Nobody wants real authentic, it will mostly get declined.

Pacesetter · « **Reply #36 on:** July 28, 2024, 05:46 »

I uploaded a panorama photo today as editorial that could of passed for commercial but I couldn't let this one wait as it is more time sensitive.

It was reviewed and accepted in just a few hours.

lappland_sun · « **Reply #37 on:** July 28, 2024, 08:43 »

Same happened to me - had few panoramas from last trip - uploaded one as editorial, was accepted in few hours. Uploaded one as commercial - still waiting to be accepted... Both are from the same city, same spot, just different perspective, different view.

Funny, that few Christmas AI photos were accepted in a blink of an eye as well.

mike123 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 28, 2024, 08:57 »

AI images are the future of stock industry, but I wouldn't count on prices staying the same as they are now. AI content is just too easy to create and ever more buyers will resort to creating their own AI images. To counter buyer loss, Adobe will have to drastically reduce the prices, either only for AI content or for everything. In any case all contributors lose, no matter AI or not. So in my opinion there is no long term value in creating/submitting AI content.

That could even be the current Adobe's strategy behind the shorter review times for AI content: accept as many AI images as possible before they drop the prices, thus removing the incentive for contributors to submit AI content.

Wilm · « **Reply #39 on:** July 28, 2024, 13:54 »

Quote from: Pacesetter on July 28, 2024, 05:46

I uploaded a panorama photo today as editorial that could of passed for commercial but I couldn't let this one wait as it is more time sensitive.

It was reviewed and accepted in just a few hours.

Sorry, but that's not how it works!

You can't just take a photo of me and put it online without a model release and my permission! I didn't even notice that you had a camera in your hand. That's stalking!

What's more, the photo isn't even recent - it must have been several months ago! I don't look that attractive anymore! The waiting for the Review is wearing me down!

Injustice for all · « **Reply #40 on:** July 28, 2024, 14:27 »

Quote from: mike123 on July 28, 2024, 08:57

AI images are the future of stock industry, but I wouldn't count on prices staying the same as they are now. AI content is just too easy to create and ever more buyers will resort to creating their own AI images. To counter buyer loss, Adobe will have to drastically reduce the prices, either only for AI content or for everything. In any case all contributors lose, no matter AI or not. So in my opinion there is no long term value in creating/submitting AI content.

That could even be the current Adobe's strategy behind the shorter review times for AI content: accept as many AI images as possible before they drop the prices, thus removing the incentive for contributors to submit AI content.

In my opinion it's a bit of a dramatic scenario,don't underestimate yourself,customers will always need to purchase content from expert creators who have been doing this job every day for years.

customers need our ideas for their projects,of course some customers are lost with AI,but others are added.

for me,as I have already said,real contents are reviewed before AI contents.

I also see here and elsewhere people who haven't uploaded for a long time and have immediately had every type of content accepted in a short time,why?because precisely the quantity of content already uploaded during the year can influence the review time.

in my opinion Adobe should decide to set a limit and declare it publicly,so people know that they can upload a maximum of 5000 contents per year or 300 per month or 500 whatever they want,but an established limit in my opinion creates a more fair and balanced situation for everyone,and promotes quality and reduces spam.

I know that the last thing Adobe wants to do is limit creativity,but I believe that in this case there are conditions to consider this solution.

@Wilm good one!

mike123 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 28, 2024, 15:03 »

I do think great content will be in demand even in the age of cheep/free AI content. I just don't think it makes sense selling this content on microstock platforms anymore, as they will have to adapt their prices to AI content being available basically for free. So probably for this kind of content selling directly or through RM agencies to high-budget buyers will make a comeback one day.

cobalt · « **Reply #42 on:** July 28, 2024, 18:47 »

Quote from: mike123 on July 28, 2024, 08:57

AI images are the future of stock industry, but I wouldn't count on prices staying the same as they are now. AI content is just too easy to create and ever more buyers will resort to creating their own AI images. To counter buyer loss, Adobe will have to drastically reduce the prices, either only for AI content or for everything. In any case all contributors lose, no matter AI or not. So in my opinion there is no long term value in creating/submitting AI content.

That could even be the current Adobe's strategy behind the shorter review times for AI content: accept as many AI images as possible before they drop the prices, thus removing the incentive for contributors to submit AI content.

That would not be logical.

The visual quality coming in with ai is higher than what comes in with photos.

The total photo amateurs don‘t need to oearn professional lighting, posing, styling, image composition.

If you forced them to all take real photos, the visual quality in the library will go down.

I would expect the opposite.

Real photography will become a niche for the professionals, while the amateurs provide mostly ai.

Good quality ai with interesting creativity will be the most in demand, but very few people will do this.

Pacesetter · « **Reply #43 on:** July 28, 2024, 18:49 »

Quote from: Wilm on July 28, 2024, 13:54

Quote from: Pacesetter on July 28, 2024, 05:46
I uploaded a panorama photo today as editorial that could of passed for commercial but I couldn't let this one wait as it is more time sensitive.

It was reviewed and accepted in just a few hours.

Sorry, but that's not how it works!

You can't just take a photo of me and put it online without a model release and my permission! I didn't even notice that you had a camera in your hand. That's stalking!

What's more, the photo isn't even recent - it must have been several months ago! I don't look that attractive anymore! The waiting for the Review is wearing me down!

I'm terribly sorry Wilm.

And what's worse, I failed to flag the photo as AO nudity!

You weren't wearing any clothes following your very successful weight-loss program!

zeljkok · « **Reply #44 on:** July 28, 2024, 18:50 »

It depends on direction and speed of technology advancements. Musk is already experimenting with Neuralink brain chip implants. Maybe Visual Media, digital or traditional, becomes completely obsolete. This sounds crazy, but show iPhone/wifi/speach recognition, etc to a person 50yrs ago that was watching black&white TV with rabbit ears and he would flip over.

Mifornia · « **Reply #45 on:** July 28, 2024, 19:57 »

Adobe is trying to cash on AI rush, while others are still reluctant to do so. When every agency will accept AI, then Adobe will start accepting traditional photography back.

Wilm · « **Reply #46 on:** July 29, 2024, 01:05 »

Quote from: Pacesetter on July 28, 2024, 18:49

Quote from: Wilm on July 28, 2024, 13:54
Quote from: Pacesetter on July 28, 2024, 05:46
I uploaded a panorama photo today as editorial that could of passed for commercial but I couldn't let this one wait as it is more time sensitive.

It was reviewed and accepted in just a few hours.

Sorry, but that's not how it works!

You can't just take a photo of me and put it online without a model release and my permission! I didn't even notice that you had a camera in your hand. That's stalking!

What's more, the photo isn't even recent - it must have been several months ago! I don't look that attractive anymore! The waiting for the Review is wearing me down!

I'm terribly sorry Wilm.

And what's worse, I failed to flag the photo as AO nudity!

You weren't wearing any clothes following your very successful weight-loss program!

mike123 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 29, 2024, 03:27 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 28, 2024, 18:47

Quote from: mike123 on July 28, 2024, 08:57
AI images are the future of stock industry, but I wouldn't count on prices staying the same as they are now. AI content is just too easy to create and ever more buyers will resort to creating their own AI images. To counter buyer loss, Adobe will have to drastically reduce the prices, either only for AI content or for everything. In any case all contributors lose, no matter AI or not. So in my opinion there is no long term value in creating/submitting AI content.

That could even be the current Adobe's strategy behind the shorter review times for AI content: accept as many AI images as possible before they drop the prices, thus removing the incentive for contributors to submit AI content.

That would not be logical.

The visual quality coming in with ai is higher than what comes in with photos.

The total photo amateurs don‘t need to oearn professional lighting, posing, styling, image composition.

If you forced them to all take real photos, the visual quality in the library will go down.

I would expect the opposite.

Real photography will become a niche for the professionals, while the amateurs provide mostly ai.

Good quality ai with interesting creativity will be the most in demand, but very few people will do this.

I think my comment completely aligns with what you said

.
Yes, AI images are the future of stock industry. There will be less and less real photos in the library, as it is much easier to create visually appealing AI content. The only point where I have a different opinion, is the price: I expect it to drop drastically, because:
1) It is very fast and cheap to create AI content and it's going to get only cheaper and more visually appealing in future
2) Buyers can create AI content themselves basically for free, so they will only be willing to pay peanuts for stock images. They will pay for the convenience of being able to use a curated image library instead of writing a prompt.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #48 on:** July 29, 2024, 04:49 »

if you want shorter review times you must push to establish a limit.

you know that I always defend Adobe,but in reality I defend logic,what is logical to me.

in this case in my opinion Adobe made a mistake.

you cannot allow a single contributor to upload 100,000 or more content in a year this is wrong in my opinion.

I've seen that there are contributors who have 100,000+ AI content in a year or less,this must not be allowed,and I hope they take action about it,it's too much.

It's better to have 5000 content from 20 different contributors per year,rather than 100,000 from just one single contributor.

Adobe should definitely set a limit and state it publicly,and it needs to be done now because it's already too late.

In any case,I believe that the sales system balances this problem,but I believe it can do so up to a certain point.

we need an established AI limit and we need it now,and so there will no longer be problems with epic review times, contributors will only upload the best AI content,no longer infinite series of the same content,and everything can work in a fair and balanced way for everyone.

cobalt · « **Reply #49 on:** July 29, 2024, 06:19 »

They could just have a weekly rolling limit per category they keep adjusting

video - 1000
real photo - 200
photo ai - 300
illustration ai - 1000

or maybe for newbies

video 20

real photo 30

ai photo 20

ai illustration 30

until they move up in sales rank

etc...

depending on what the team can prcess.

make it visible to the individual and you will get a much better inflow of better quality content

Many agencies have dynamic upload limits, no need to reinvent the wheel

Injustice for all · « **Reply #50 on:** July 29, 2024, 08:02 »

but yes,why not,it seems like a good idea!

the important thing is that something is done to slow down this senseless mad rush,now the quantity you upload is becoming more important rather than what you upload.

kids making videos of how to upload 100 AI content in an hour to Adobe Stock.

I believe it's time to end it,and create the conditions for controlled,balanced and fair growth for everyone,so that contributors try to create something of quality,or at least try,instead of turning into mindless automatons!

In any case,it may be that Adobe is already doing something about it,I hope so,if so please let us know!

zeljkok · « **Reply #51 on:** July 29, 2024, 14:15 »

Lots of good discussion and ideas, but we are still in dark what's really going on.

Last night I submitted 1 Illustrative Editorial and it got accepted within 12 hrs. In the meantime that RF image is in its 5th day. They must realize people will start uploading perfect RF as Editorial and create even bigger mess.

One more issue that potentially hurts agency: RF image that is waiting is about these horrible Canadian Wildfires, Jasper World Heritage site burning etc. No AI, in-person realtime shot. I had 1 more that was poor technically because of noise. I uploaded it to IS only; got accepted and downloaded couple of times already.

cascoly · « **Reply #52 on:** July 29, 2024, 14:49 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on July 29, 2024, 08:02

....
the important thing is that something is done to slow down this senseless mad rush,now the quantity you upload is becoming more important rather than what you upload.

kids making videos of how to upload 100 AI content in an hour to Adobe Stock.

I believe it's time to end it,and create the conditions for controlled,balanced and fair growth for everyone,so that contributors try to create something of quality,or at least try,instead of turning into mindless automatons!...

it's always been a choice of quantity vs quality.

all the calls for 'fair' & 'balanced' are really just attempts to preserve that last generation - and what they miss is there's no reason for the agencies to change anything

and calling other artists 'mindless automatons' is just repeating the same failing arguments where automation has replaced craft jobs in both quantity AND quality

Madede · « **Reply #53 on:** July 29, 2024, 16:10 »

Since noon today I can't see all my files in "In review" page ?

Jus a few rows of files are visible.
I also tried other browsers and the result was the same.

Anyone else have this bug ?

MatHayward · « **Reply #54 on:** July 29, 2024, 16:17 »

While review times for some have definitely been longer than they were in years past, I'm not aware of any review times at 5 months. 8 weeks is more realistic. The screen shot shared by the OP shows the date from the time the file was uploaded, not the time submitted. Most comments/questions I have fielded on this, it turns out the file was uploaded to the portal, then sat there for months without being keyworded and submitted. The actual review time is based on the day/time you submit the content, not upload it. I know that can be confusing since the wait time shown is based on the upload date.

Please share with me the file number you are referencing so I can see if that is the case here or not. If it has truly been sitting in the moderation queue for 5 months, there may be an issue I need to investigate.

thanks,

Mat Haywawrd

yuriy · « **Reply #55 on:** July 29, 2024, 16:41 »

hey Mat, thanks for responding. i keyworded and submitted these files 4.5 months ago. i will get you some file new numbers when the pagination glitch is fixed since I'm unable to navigate to the end of my lengthy review queue. i did send an email back in march regarding a few of these though and this is one that is still waiting: File ID: 743968048

zeljkok · « **Reply #57 on:** July 29, 2024, 17:09 »

If anything, this is clear indication that Age is not only Factor that determines Review order.

yuriy · « **Reply #58 on:** July 29, 2024, 17:33 »

Quote from: MatHayward on July 29, 2024, 17:04

Quote from: yuriy on July 29, 2024, 16:41
hey Mat, thanks for responding. i keyworded and submitted these files 4.5 months ago. i will get you some file new numbers when the pagination glitch is fixed since I'm unable to navigate to the end of my lengthy review queue. i did send an email back in march regarding a few of these though and this is one that is still waiting: File ID: 743968048

Thanks for the file number. You are right, that is an image that appears to be stuck in the queue. You hold the record for the longest wait that I've seen. I'm sorry about that. I've forwarded it to our moderation team and asked them to take a look.

-Mat Hayward

appreciate it. i figured it was some sort of anomaly. i have exactly 12 images stuck like this (and they are actually 6 versions each from 2 different shoots). i hope there's some work behind the scenes to speed up the rest of the images that are 2 months in queue as things stand.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #59 on:** July 30, 2024, 05:00 »

Quote from: cascoly on July 29, 2024, 14:49

Quote from: Injustice for all on July 29, 2024, 08:02
....
the important thing is that something is done to slow down this senseless mad rush,now the quantity you upload is becoming more important rather than what you upload.

kids making videos of how to upload 100 AI content in an hour to Adobe Stock.

I believe it's time to end it,and create the conditions for controlled,balanced and fair growth for everyone,so that contributors try to create something of quality,or at least try,instead of turning into mindless automatons!...

it's always been a choice of quantity vs quality.

all the calls for 'fair' & 'balanced' are really just attempts to preserve that last generation - and what they miss is there's no reason for the agencies to change anything

and calling other artists 'mindless automatons' is just repeating the same failing arguments where automation has replaced craft jobs in both quantity AND quality

with all due respect,but anyone who produce and uploads 100 AI contents in a single hour cannot be defined as an "artist" in my opinion.

I didn't say that they are mindless automatons,but that they transform into this with this behavior.

in any case I would define them as more producers than artists.

however,these personal opinions aside,I hope that Adobe does something to avoid this,because from my point of view it seems a bit excessive,too much is enough,you can't allow a single contributor to upload 100,000 content in a year,it's simply senseless madness.

HalfFull · « **Reply #60 on:** July 30, 2024, 10:09 »

Quote from: MatHayward on July 29, 2024, 17:04

Quote from: yuriy on July 29, 2024, 16:41
hey Mat, thanks for responding. i keyworded and submitted these files 4.5 months ago. i will get you some file new numbers when the pagination glitch is fixed since I'm unable to navigate to the end of my lengthy review queue. i did send an email back in march regarding a few of these though and this is one that is still waiting: File ID: 743968048

Thanks for the file number. You are right, that is an image that appears to be stuck in the queue. You hold the record for the longest wait that I've seen. I'm sorry about that. I've forwarded it to our moderation team and asked them to take a look.

-Mat Hayward

I submitted a batch of images back in April/May and twenty were approved within 6 days and the other 20 (approx) sat there for 3 months without being approved. I deleted them just the other day after recording which ones didn't go through. I might try again at some point. They're up for sale on SS so at least they're earning something.

I submitted a batch (24 images) the other day... about 2-3 days ago. Someone quickly went in after 1 day and declined one and the rest are once again sat waiting. The fact that I'm straightaway thinking that these may well be on their way to another 3 month wait sort of sums up my confidence in the Adobe review process at this point. Very different from the process pre AI images. Some images just seem to end up being ignored or get stuck.

It makes it hard to plan work around specific events knowing when to start work on a project, complete and submit it in order for it to appear as a new image just when people will start looking for them.

cascoly · « **Reply #61 on:** July 30, 2024, 12:47 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on July 30, 2024, 05:00

with all due respect,but anyone who produce and uploads 100 AI contents in a single hour cannot be defined as an "artist" in my opinion.
....

i commonly upload 100+ in an hour - but that reflects a week or more of intermittent work - post, captioning, etc. (i've been spending less time on ms in the last 5+ years and now have a backlog of over 50K images - mostly dupes or similars which will eventually be weeded out)

now 100 in the same series is a different bird

Jim Cumming · « **Reply #62 on:** July 30, 2024, 17:10 »

Hello Mat
I have about a dozen or so still sitting in the review queue with one waiting 5 months File ID: 743934467
The others say 2 months but that was 2 months ago..
Could you please look into this

Thanks
Jim

zeljkok · « **Reply #63 on:** July 30, 2024, 20:49 »

Love the second duck - must be fast lens to freeze it like that

For me another editorial overnight; submitted 29th, approved 30th. RF now almost a week in wait ...

Faustvasea · « **Reply #64 on:** July 31, 2024, 00:10 »

Quote from: MatHayward on July 29, 2024, 16:17

While review times for some have definitely been longer than they were in years past, I'm not aware of any review times at 5 months. 8 weeks is more realistic. The screen shot shared by the OP shows the date from the time the file was uploaded, not the time submitted. Most comments/questions I have fielded on this, it turns out the file was uploaded to the portal, then sat there for months without being keyworded and submitted. The actual review time is based on the day/time you submit the content, not upload it. I know that can be confusing since the wait time shown is based on the upload date.

Please share with me the file number you are referencing so I can see if that is the case here or not. If it has truly been sitting in the moderation queue for 5 months, there may be an issue I need to investigate.

thanks,

Mat Haywawrd

I have a file in the queue 4 months now, , does have keywords and description too. File ID: 755936414

Can you please check it as well. My photos have been reviewed very late for some reason.

yuriy · « **Reply #65 on:** July 31, 2024, 14:35 »

Quote from: Jim Cumming on July 30, 2024, 17:10

Hello Mat
I have about a dozen or so still sitting in the review queue with one waiting 5 months File ID: 743934467
The others say 2 months but that was 2 months ago..
Could you please look into this

Thanks
Jim

this is hilarious. the image id i shared was a photo of a wood duck. the same one as your upper image. i think adobe's reviewers have some kind of avian phobia.

zeljkok · « **Reply #66 on:** July 31, 2024, 14:39 »

Quote from: yuriy on July 31, 2024, 14:35

i think adobe's reviewers have some kind of avian phobia.

Or maybe AI pre-processing pushes what is perceived as low demand content (flowers, common animals, food etc) at bottom of the queue

danielstassen · « **Reply #67 on:** July 31, 2024, 18:34 »

Quote from: zeljkok on July 31, 2024, 14:39

Or maybe AI pre-processing pushes what is perceived as low demand content (flowers, common animals, food etc) at bottom of the queue

I think this is highly likely to be the case.

On Artlist, content in higher demand is giving priority in the queue.

stocky · « **Reply #68 on:** July 31, 2024, 22:32 »

I had ONE accepted!

Shutterstock is accepting everything very quickly (within 24hrs).

zeljkok · « **Reply #69 on:** July 31, 2024, 23:14 »

SS, IS and Alamy are reviewing very fast. This makes whole Adobe RF situation very strange. If they don't want common RF content, wouldn't it be easier to simply shut the pipe.

Just make public announcement "Please do not submit photos of food, flowers, common animals etc - we are already swamped with these. Our AI will detect such content and automatically reject it".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: won't be long now (Read 6499 times)

danielstassen

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors