Author Topic: Article in the Wall Street Journal (Read 1175 times)

ADH · « **on:** May 02, 2024, 13:43 »

Even at the WSJ they know that AI is destroying what little is left of the stock photography business.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-last-stock-photographers-await-their-fate-under-generative-ai-822d1e6a?mod=hp_minor_pos1

cascoly · « **Reply #1 on:** May 02, 2024, 14:02 »

Quote from: ADH on May 02, 2024, 13:43

Even at the WSJ they know that AI is destroying what little is left of the stock photography business.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-last-stock-photographers-await-their-fate-under-generative-ai-822d1e6a?mod=hp_minor_pos1

they start by comparing today with the 70s:

Top photographers in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s routinely earned thousands of dollars from ad agencies, record labels and media companies for one photo. Life was good—until digital photography changed everything.

and the overblown headline doesn't match the moderately optimistic view of the article, they never say AI is destroying stock - but that much of the 'damage' had already occurred and describe some of those adapting to the new reality.

ADH · « **Reply #2 on:** May 02, 2024, 14:45 »

The company where my husband works has already adapted to the new realities, they have cancelled the subscription with one of the most important stock agencies they have worked with for 15 years for another subscription with mid journey for $30.00 per month.
They are saving thousands of dollars a year with this move.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2024, 08:42 »

---------

wds · « **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2024, 09:37 »

Quote from: ADH on May 02, 2024, 14:45

The company where my husband works has already adapted to the new realities, they have cancelled the subscription with one of the most important stock agencies they have worked with for 15 years for another subscription with mid journey for $30.00 per month.
They are saving thousands of dollars a year with this move.

Out of curiosity do they have a feel for how much employee time is spent generating an image vs. searching a stock database for an image?

Deyan Georgiev Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** May 03, 2024, 10:06 »

Quote from: wds on May 03, 2024, 09:37

Quote from: ADH on May 02, 2024, 14:45
The company where my husband works has already adapted to the new realities, they have cancelled the subscription with one of the most important stock agencies they have worked with for 15 years for another subscription with mid journey for $30.00 per month.
They are saving thousands of dollars a year with this move.

Out of curiosity do they have a feel for how much employee time is spent generating an image vs. searching a stock database for an image?

Let them play around with this for a while

cobalt · « **Reply #6 on:** May 03, 2024, 10:21 »

Quote from: wds on May 03, 2024, 09:37

Quote from: ADH on May 02, 2024, 14:45
The company where my husband works has already adapted to the new realities, they have cancelled the subscription with one of the most important stock agencies they have worked with for 15 years for another subscription with mid journey for $30.00 per month.
They are saving thousands of dollars a year with this move.

Out of curiosity do they have a feel for how much employee time is spent generating an image vs. searching a stock database for an image?

generating and post processing, I barely to 10-20 files a day. Can‘t imagine a designer has time for that. And if you want something really specific it can take even longer.

Will be interesting to see how this all develops, i think the ideal solution for clients are combo packages that show you both prompted files plus agency search content based on the prompt.

And then tweak your files in photoshop with gen ai.

ADH · « **Reply #7 on:** May 03, 2024, 13:46 »

Quote from: wds on May 03, 2024, 09:37

Quote from: ADH on May 02, 2024, 14:45
The company where my husband works has already adapted to the new realities, they have cancelled the subscription with one of the most important stock agencies they have worked with for 15 years for another subscription with mid journey for $30.00 per month.
They are saving thousands of dollars a year with this move.

Out of curiosity do they have a feel for how much employee time is spent generating an image vs. searching a stock database for an image?

Of course they did, as you know mid journey has a searchable gallery of all images generated by their "artists". Since there is no copyrights for AI generate images, the employees search and download whatever they need from Midjourney gallery without any need to waste time generating new images

tätarätä · « **Reply #8 on:** May 04, 2024, 02:57 »

Quote from: ADH on May 02, 2024, 13:43

Even at the WSJ they know that AI is destroying what little is left of the stock photography business.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-last-stock-photographers-await-their-fate-under-generative-ai-822d1e6a?mod=hp_minor_pos1

I guess AI is not destroying stockphostography industry. Its just the beginn of mass production for everyone.
As you look at Adobe Stock, never before so much new portfolios have reached first $1000 income at short time.
With AI you don't need an expensive equipment or studio, or take much time to make an expensive shooting with 4 models or more.
With AI everyone in the world can make at least a few $1000s a year without much effort.
But i think the sales won't rise as much and fast than new images.

cascoly · « **Reply #9 on:** May 04, 2024, 15:01 »

Quote from: tätarätä on May 04, 2024, 02:57

Quote from: ADH on May 02, 2024, 13:43
Even at the WSJ they know that AI is destroying what little is left of the stock photography business.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-last-stock-photographers-await-their-fate-under-generative-ai-822d1e6a?mod=hp_minor_pos1
I guess AI is not destroying stockphostography industry. Its just the beginn of mass production for everyone.
As you look at Adobe Stock, never before so much new portfolios have reached first $1000 income at short time.
With AI you don't need an expensive equipment or studio, or take much time to make an expensive shooting with 4 models or more.
With AI everyone in the world can make at least a few $1000s a year without much effort.
But i think the sales won't rise as much and fast than new images.

and your sources for these statements ? how do you know these figures? how many are actually making $1000 without much effort.

SS Contributor royalties payable

2022: $38,649,000 2021: $29,004,000

"Working with its growing community of over 2 million contributors, Shutterstock adds hundreds of thousands of images each week"

https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2022-financial

so average earnings is $15-20 / year

or, at most 30-40,000 contributors could earn just $1000. since many make more than that the number is much less. even those best-case numbers mean just 2% make $1000. of course, many receive more than $1000/year

these are just numbers for one major agency, but there's no evidence for many making 10x that amount from all their other agencies

SS doesn't accept AI, but there hasn't been any indication that AI contributors make more.

so the outlook for new contributors is grim

stock shooter · « **Reply #10 on:** May 06, 2024, 10:56 »

I have to agree with cobalt,

I've been shooting stock since 2005, and because my sales had been dropping and Getty ended up being no better that the microstocs, I stopped in 2019 to start selling fine art prints on Etsy. Then six months ago i started playing around in MidJourney and set up a second Etsy shop to sell AI generated art, (using the term art here very loosely.) I'm amazed what MidJourney can do, and more amazed by what it CAN'T do. $30 a month but hours and hours of time spent by designers, I don't think so. Most of my AI designs end up taking hours to fix in MidJourney and then in photoshop. Maybe 10% or less come out perfect or close to perfect from one prompt. Groups of people, lots of mangled looking faces and hands, oh the hands. Three legs, heads on backwards, weird looking eyes, and did I mention the hands? I have uploaded some AI stock to Adobe and none have been licensed yet after three months. Not expecting much. I don't know, I see the possibilities, the potential of AI art, but we are still pretty far from perfection. There are SO many non AI stock images, seems hard to believe most companies can't find what they're looking for already.

wds · « **Reply #11 on:** May 06, 2024, 13:59 »

Quote from: stock shooter on May 06, 2024, 10:56

I have to agree with cobalt,

I've been shooting stock since 2005, and because my sales had been dropping and Getty ended up being no better that the microstocs, I stopped in 2019 to start selling fine art prints on Etsy. Then six months ago i started playing around in MidJourney and set up a second Etsy shop to sell AI generated art, (using the term art here very loosely.) I'm amazed what MidJourney can do, and more amazed by what it CAN'T do. $30 a month but hours and hours of time spent by designers, I don't think so. Most of my AI designs end up taking hours to fix in MidJourney and then in photoshop. Maybe 10% or less come out perfect or close to perfect from one prompt. Groups of people, lots of mangled looking faces and hands, oh the hands. Three legs, heads on backwards, weird looking eyes, and did I mention the hands? I have uploaded some AI stock to Adobe and none have been licensed yet after three months. Not expecting much. I don't know, I see the possibilities, the potential of AI art, but we are still pretty far from perfection. There are SO many non AI stock images, seems hard to believe most companies can't find what they're looking for already.

I get what your saying regarding AI. I have about 80 AI images so far and have seen only a few downloads. Of course, I really should have an order of magnitude more images before I "complain". Using Firefly which can require a lot of post work.

Mantis · « **Reply #12 on:** May 06, 2024, 18:18 »

Quote from: ADH on May 02, 2024, 14:45

The company where my husband works has already adapted to the new realities, they have cancelled the subscription with one of the most important stock agencies they have worked with for 15 years for another subscription with mid journey for $30.00 per month.
They are saving thousands of dollars a year with this move.

Same with my company, a $3B annual company. They create most of their imagery now and roll that funding over to TV commercials. They were a huge Shutterstock subscriber.

wds · « **Reply #13 on:** May 06, 2024, 21:21 »

It would be interesting to see some kind of cost comparison analysis. It's got to take up quite a bit more time for an employee to generate their own AI images. If they use AI images generated by others on one of the AI sites, they are still paying a subscription cost to use the AI site...and are their usage charges when they used AI images generated by other people?....if not yet, I would think the AI sites will "wise up" and start charging for usage scope?

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #14 on:** May 07, 2024, 03:34 »

The AI generation is the dream for incompetent, lazy people who don't even have respect for the word "artist", who were previously only capable of producing photographic craps. Even ignorant kids play to destroy this previous world by using these new technological toys without even having to leave their room, under the watchful eye of their parents who see them as little geniuses.
But soon, they will wake up from this dream of easy money and realize that they have been the tool of these technologies which will shamelessly eject them from the production chain.

edit: My joke of the day: Do you want hands with 5 fingers? well, write in your AI prompt to generate 4-fingered hands ...

cascoly · « **Reply #15 on:** May 07, 2024, 13:53 »

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on May 07, 2024, 03:34

The AI generation is the dream for incompetent, lazy people who don't even have respect for the word "artist", who were previously only capable of producing photographic craps. Even ignorant kids play to destroy this previous world by using these new technological toys without even having to leave their room, ...

yes, definitely! always attack all the users rather than accepting the world is changing

exactly like the disparagement of mobile pix before they mastered the market.

resistance is futile

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2024, 15:03 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 07, 2024, 13:53

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on May 07, 2024, 03:34
The AI generation is the dream for incompetent, lazy people who don't even have respect for the word "artist", who were previously only capable of producing photographic craps. Even ignorant kids play to destroy this previous world by using these new technological toys without even having to leave their room, ...

yes, definitely! always attack all the users rather than accepting the world is changing

exactly like the disparagement of mobile pix before they mastered the market.

resistance is futile

It is not the question of accepting changes but of being aware of a technological revolution.
It's not about resisting, it's about choosing more freedom and prefering true life and true creation.

The real can still be beautiful and fascinating.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2024, 12:40 »

Quote from: cascoly on May 07, 2024, 13:53

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on May 07, 2024, 03:34
The AI generation is the dream for incompetent, lazy people who don't even have respect for the word "artist", who were previously only capable of producing photographic craps. Even ignorant kids play to destroy this previous world by using these new technological toys without even having to leave their room, ...

yes, definitely! always attack all the users rather than accepting the world is changing

exactly like the disparagement of mobile pix before they mastered the market.

resistance is futile

Well if someone is a poor photographer and doesn't understand lighting and exposure, they can always shoot RAW and fix it in Photoshop? Talk about new technology destroying the art and allowing no talent people to repair their images and make them suitable. Digital cameras are destroying the art.

Bring back film.

No, wait, bring back Black and White film. All this new digital camera stuff has ruined it for real photography.

AI might kill some of the business, but there will always be a need for quality and skilled people. Real photos will still have a market. Just a smaller segment than in the past. Yes, the world is changing. Adapting and adjusting to change is important. No wait, it's not important, it's survival and necessary.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Article in the Wall Street Journal (Read 1175 times)

ADH

cascoly

ADH

SuperPhoto

wds

Deyan Georgiev Photography

cobalt

ADH

tätarätä

cascoly

stock shooter

wds

Mantis

wds

DiscreetDuck

cascoly

DiscreetDuck

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors