From the cotributors point of view it makes sense, but from the customer's point of view it doesn't make sense. For them only the end result matters. They want an image that suits there need and it doens't matter to them how much work the image was to the contributor.

Even now different photos take so much more work. I have photos in my port that took me literally 5 seconds to shoot, and photos where I spent lots of money on props and easily 20 minutes setting up the scene, one hour taking the photo (especially with pets that you can't just place easily like you want and often have to try over and over again till you get what you want) and 20 minutes post-processing. Yet both images are sold for the same price.  It doesn't really matter to the customer. If you want to be paid per time/effort, then microstock, where everything is offered at the same price, isn't the best business model for that to begin with. It's not like assignment jobs, where a customer tells you what he/she wants and you say "This will take me x hours and therefore I will charge you X amount of money".

� should not be offered at all, anywhere� and first of all, not being generated this fast and in this quantities�

From the cotributors point of view it makes sense, but from the customer's point of view it doesn't make sense. For them only the end result matters. They want an image that suits there need and it doens't matter to them how much work the image was to the contributor.

Even now different photos take so much more work. I have photos in my port that took me literally 5 seconds to shoot, and photos where I spent lots of money on props and easily 20 minutes setting up the scene, one hour taking the photo (especially with pets that you can't just place easily like you want and often have to try over and over again till you get what you want) and 20 minutes post-processing. Yet both images are sold for the same price.  It doesn't really matter to the customer. If you want to be paid per time/effort, then microstock, where everything is offered at the same price, isn't the best business model for that to begin with. It's not like assignment jobs, where a customer tells you what he/she wants and you say "This will take me x hours and therefore I will charge you X amount of money".

Yes, the props and an aesthetic composition, lighting, etc. cost an enormous amount of time in food photography, for example. With animals, as you've already written, you need a lot of shots, which you have to sort out after the photo session. So it takes for the majority of shots really a lot of time.

First users naturally focus on the price. Many for sure expect everything for almost free, especially for mobile use like in newspaper articles or blog posts, etc. On the other hand I am sure there are designers who need high-resolution content for print projects as well and would pay more, if they would get a set that maintains continuity (several shots) of the same motif. But currently, everything is being mixed together. Agencies like Adobe should differentiate much more now; they are currently contributing to an inflationary price decline due to the high flood of AI images. In the long term they can't anyway compete even with lower prices against AI image generators, which the first users will use for mobile usage.

One possibility could also be to accept AI-generated images up to a smaller certain resolution, for example, 2 megapixels, and offer them at a particularly low price for mobile usage only. Since the AI images almost always generate artifacts when upscaled for higher resolutions, this would help alleviate the review process.

I believe it's primarily a marketing problem and higher prices could be achieved by better hand-picked authentic, genuine photos and marketing them in various premium galleries.
I mean look at other smaller agencies, they can't be real competitors because they aren't performing good.

Quote from: cobalt on March 04, 2024, 05:31

Hell no. It is a lot easier and much faster to take a good series of pictures and videos with a camera than to do stuff with ai.

At least for me.

You keep saying that. May I ask why - If that is indeed so - you keep adding thousands and thousands of AI image to your Adobe port? Wouldn't it be much easier and faster to just take real photos, according to yourself? Why do the extra work?

Several reasons:

- first mover in learning a new technology, it takes a lot of time to learn ai, at least for me

- I added around 2200 ai files in one year, by ai standards that is quite little. I am not a mass uploader. I only had one day where I managed to add 34 files created on that day, but worked till 4 am. And didn�t work the next day.
 

- I am adding a lot of illustrations, over 1000 by now.

That is a media type I have never had before. It is not selling that well yet, but that is also because I have to learn to what is it that I can offer that people like to buy. The whole process will probably need 3-4k illustrations and 2-3 years before I understand my preferred niche in the illustration market

I know a lot about selling stock photos, I know zero about illustrations. Long learning and research process.

- I am testing a lot of series. That is a very useful aspect of ai, basically a live mood board to upload and see customer reaction before I take out my camera and actually shoot

- I am now doing hybrid shootings, i.e. I do a normal photo series, then �develop� the series with ai.

etc�

Photos always sell better in my portfolio, especially simple things like objects on white.

For this year, my priority is to do a lot more videos and process all the video content from the last 3 years I still haven�t uploaded. Also to help diversify from Adobe.

Finally

I have personal/health issues which mean I have to work more from home, instead of going to the studio 4 days a week.

So establishing a good ai workflow is a very good way to change my stock worklife.

I can probably now get by with just one day in the studio for photos/video, and every two weeks maybe a 2-3 day set up for specific video or to team up with friends.

So, yes, last year was like 90% ai, but this year I am already processing a lot more normal content.

In spring/summer I will also go back to doing more things outdoors.

I am very pleased with my ai journey, but my increase in income from Adobe started with a huge uptick in my old photos when I started uploading again. The ai files only really started to take off quite late. Partly because most of it was holiday related.

Everybody has a different experience. Some people report very drastic and fantastic income from ai versus their normal photos.

For me that is not the case.

But the learning experience was absolutely worth it and my new hybrid photo/ai workflow will give me new options in how I work.

If for you uploading 1000 ai files a week is successful, why not do it?

I genuinely wish I could get into a workflow with such high upload numbers, but even though I have tried midjourney, I cannot generate what I specifically want in such high numbers.

Midjourney seems to be better for people, but otherwise I am not very impressed.

My personal experience with ai is also why I believe we will have customers for a very long time.

The more I do with ai, the less scared I am.

Quote from: cobalt on March 04, 2024, 05:31

Hell no. It is a lot easier and much faster to take a good series of pictures and videos with a camera than to do stuff with ai.

At least for me.

Sure you can do many very simple shots in much less time. Of course, I can photograph myself brushing my teeth in the next 3 seconds. But I would say you are very limited to specific motifs.
For example to take photos of easter eggs one is already dependent on weather and time. You need a somehow a beautiful well-kept lawn, nicely painted Easter eggs, etc. It's a motif I would always generate because I know there would be only few artifacts and I don't need an authentic shot.

I have a studio with over 500 drawers of seasonal stuff, lighttable etc�so for me it is a lot easier to do greeting cards in the studio.


But now I can do a hybrid workflow, nice pics in the studio then expand the series with ai. I am still working on that, but I think for me that will be a good bonus.

Even more interesting - test new arrangements, color combinations, lighting, backgrounds with ai�then go to the studio to work.

More and more ai images, including the illustrations are based on my photos, sometimes very old photos.

This doesn�t mean that what I am doing is the best way to make money.

If I could generate great pics with ai and upload 1000 a week, I would love to do that.

Basic bad economics and a bad plan. If anyone thinks raising the prices will make more money or lowering the prices on AI will help us, that's terrible.

The effect would be, driving customers away to a cheaper AI product and away from more expensive real photos.

The way to make more for us would be, raise the prices on AI, so customers who shop, will buy the real thing, for less. But that's not going to happen.

...
One possibility could also be to accept AI-generated images up to a smaller certain resolution, for example, 2 megapixels, and offer them at a particularly low price for mobile usage only. Since the AI images almost always generate artifacts when upscaled for higher resolutions, this would help alleviate the review process...

isn't that a review problem?  with AI competing with photos at 100%

No.

Yes.
AI can't make anything that's AUTHENTIC. Can't do news. Can't do illustrative editorial. Can't do anything real.
AI can make pictures, but most of them are crap.

I do agree! 
Some greatly appreciate that the only skill required of new "photographers" (or old snapshooters) to work is sitting and keywording for flooding their crap...

Yes.
AI can't make anything that's AUTHENTIC. Can't do news. Can't do illustrative editorial. Can't do anything real.
AI can make pictures, but most of them are crap.

Then you have poor prompting skills or use the wrong poor image generators.

With AI you can already now create even better looking generic images then real photos in small resolutions. Only in full resolution the AI images fell clearly visible behind.

I would adjust my opinion.
Unique AI images that cannot be imitated in reality should be even more expensive.

Hell no. It is a lot easier and much faster to take a good series of pictures and videos with a camera than to do stuff with ai.

At least for me.

It depends on what you do.

I only take photographs of real landscapes in the field, but I don't know what future I can have.

In my case (landscape and travel), creating images with AI is incredibly cheaper and faster than buying quality photography equipment, traveling to the most profitable locations, and hoping that the weather conditions are good. And then, often, you have to do double exposures and a lot of post-production work for sunrises and sunsets, if you want your images to be sold (On average I spend 30 minutes to an hour of post-production to create a photograph that sells well).

Snapshots don't sell.

A professional buyer still buys real landscapes because he knows how to recognize them, but what AI does for many is good enough and will lead to a future of mediocrity and falsity for commercial landscape and travel photography.

The biggest problem is that, if agencies do not give privileged space to real images, these will be lost in the noise of those made with, AI because the latter will be produced at much higher rates. Sitting at a desk, in one afternoon, I can create 50 AI images of the most beautiful locations in the world without leaving home.

yep!for the moment,landscapes are among the worst things to generate with AI.

in general,the further away the subject is,the more the AI image generator creates errors,from what I have seen in the 15,000 images that I have generated so far,of which only less than 1,000 I have for sale so far.