Oh sorry, my mistake. I didn't realize it was just a toy. In that case I wish you much success in your pre-Christmas 50% down sale through your own AI shop and indeed the same for your AI portfolio on Adobe this coming year. You clearly deserve it.

"I don't need to imagine that, I am one of them - and I don't care in the least. Right, it took me quite some time to hone my art, however I don't need months to create a piece. Michelangelo perhaps... Lol"

Lol is right. Your art? Please. AI is not a tool. It's a crutch.

Personally I think you are looking at this all backwards. What took a comparatively short time was for the AI to teach you what it wanted, not the other way around. Making you the tool. This whole debate reminds me of a proverb coined by George Bernard Shaw. "Those who can, do; those who can't teach." I never thought that was necessarily true, however in your case "Those who can, do; those who can't, use AI" seems fitting. I suspect Michaelangelo and DaVinci and all of the other actual artists of their day who themselves were not above using all of the tools available to them at the time would still chuckle a bit if they heard you refer to what you do as "your art".

Face it, it's not.

Quote from: Reef on December 18, 2022, 07:43
Hello, everyone, Haven't been here for a while and was curious how the stock market was going. Like most of you I have had my mind blown by AI apps like Midjourney which seems to be improving at an incredible pace. A few days ago I tried ChatGPT, and although it doesn't have live access to the web or can create imagery yet, it more than blew my mind on its potential. As a designer I can realistically see my work being completed by an AI tool in the near future. And, I have already used it to write some copy for a product within a brochure thus eliminating the girl's job in the office who usually does that for me. And to be blunt, AI did a far better job than she or I could. Interesting times ahead I think. So my 2 cents to this topic is it would be foolish not to acknowledge there will be significant changes as AI becomes more powerful. How well we adapt is really unknown!

"In a world filled with automated processes and grey machinery is there still a demand for contemporary ceramics? Absolutely! Should you purchase one of my ceramic pieces, know that the clay was dug, processed and hand-thrown on a pottery wheel by a human being.
Its hard work and so it should be. The reward to you, the consumer, is an object of beauty signed by its creator and something you may admire for a lifetime. And who knows? Your great-grandchildren might share your joy a hundred years from now!"

The link in your tagline takes me to this site. Is this yours? If it is then the level of hypocrisy here is truly mind numbing.

Once again you are jumping to inaccurate conclusions and seeing only what you want to see. Given what I've shared with you a logical mind would actually question what you might have made had you not given your work away. Instead you use it as confirmation of your own bias. Seriously.

Certainly I also have my own bias, but it is the product of more than 40 years experience in the industry. Believe it or not none of this is new.

We'll then, proof positive. I stand corrected. Except that again, my income with AS has grown roughly the same amount as yours since the introduction of the free library even though I haven't nominated a single asset. Furthermore I haven't uploaded anything at all to any agency since the beginning of this year. In light of that I'd suggest that your "simple logic" isn't necessarily logical at all. And without the kind of proof Zero Talent was asking about I'd say your interpretation is based on nothing more than personal opinion and desire to see what you want to see. Certainly not the "evidence and calculations" you demand of others.

For what it's worth though, I'm not necessarily against giving away content when it actually makes sense. I may have been a little misleading when I stated I have never given away content on any platform. That's not entirely true. I'm strictly a food photographer, and I have a sponsored website where we give content away to select industry affiliates B2B in return for donation consideration to local food banks.

The difference here is that I think this actually qualifies as "advertising". It's highly selective and targeted. I can easily gauge its success with real data and at the same time I'm not lining the pockets further of those who really need it least.

But whatever, good luck to you.

Interesting again, because I could say exactly the same thing without ever having given anything away on any platform. Lucky me I guess.

So how is it that you can possibly credit this growth and profit to what you are trying to attribute it to? It seems to me you are the one making "controversial statements without any evidence or proof".

Interesting, I would find it difficult for me to do that kind of analysis since none of the agencies I contribute to let me know who my buyers actually are. Lucky you then.

Quote from: stoker2014 on October 15, 2022, 14:16

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 15, 2022, 10:55
2. Adobe is bulding this free collection to stimulate extra sales for themselves. This is done by attracting customers from other agencies, since the free collection has no reason to stimulate extra sales from their current customer base (quite the opposite) => canibalisation.

If your work is in a free collection, it means that a lot of people download it, this is advertising for you, people will go into your portfolio and see what you have, and they will buy it. You are against advertising your portfolio, that's your right.

You make it sound like a wine and cheese opening at an actual art gallery where potential patrons are so taken by your unique vision and talent that they just can't help but gobble up your incredible work whether they need it or not. That's not how Microstock works. Exposure for free is a fallacy perpetuated by those with something to actually gain... unless of course your work does stand out from the crowd in some extraordinary way in which case you likely wouldn't need to give it away anyway. Agencies already know exactly what to do with that kind of content.

So ask yourself.

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 14, 2022, 15:29

Quote from: stoker2014 on October 14, 2022, 13:20

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 14, 2022, 11:40
Free "slag" is very likely be preferred by many "buyers" as an alternative to paid quality stuff.
Free distorts the market and competition, because free is not used, but is abused

Your statement is very controversial and reflects only your opinion. You have no evidence or calculations.

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 14, 2022, 11:40


Very short-sighted.

So, if I allow these clips to be given away for free, in exchange for 8 bucks, I'm not only shooting myself in the foot, but I may also shoot you in the foot if we both cover the same topics.

To free or not to free - that is the question.

It's futile Zero Talent. Some of us have understood this since the early days of UnSplash and Freepik arguing tooth and nail the absurdity of it all. I can't be bothered anymore trying to defend simple concepts like systemic devaluation or mutual benefit. It's clear to me the divide is more than philosophical.

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on October 04, 2022, 18:32
" Why go all through that trouble when you can excel in photography or creating illustrations, learn and do great work on Photoshop and with other image editors yourself? If you have patience, skill and willingness to learn that is? "

Simple answer would be: its faster.

Keep in mind that even Photoshop now uses AI too and It's not a "trouble" for me. it's just another tool to help me create artwork.
I start with analogue and moved to digital. i like both. But it's faster with digital and results depends of what i want to achieve in a creative sense. The same happens with 3d renders. In a way they are photography too although the process is not quite the same ....still.... renders calculate the light and reflect them into objects like real world. Nowadays i see a lot of people even using Unreal engine (game engine) to do photography artworks.


"Besides, It is always a good idea to read the terms of service. You can't even be the copyright owner."

It's funny you mention this... because in university there are studies that point that the Prompt is the new "digital signature" of the artist. You can copy/paste the prompt but the AI does not create equal images, like fingerprints (they are similar but not equal). This is arguable of course but not in the realm of authenticity but rather understanding that humans are now Human-machine people. AI is just another exponential of you and not a substitute of you, like a pen, a smartphone or your email account.

In terms of copyright owner this depends what models you use or how they are trained for your creative artwork. You will find free libraries of AI trained models on GitHub but you can create your own. the code is free. i suggest you to use google Colab for this.


So, in short: From Analogue to digital... from Photoshop to C4D/UE5 or AI tools/code similar to Dall-e  i use the tool that i find it will be better to create what i want to achieve. 

I really wish I could look at this as just another tool in my kit, but the singularitarian in me fails to see how this can possibly benefit myself at the moment let alone humanity in the long term. Right now it's still just another disruptive technology poised to benefit a select few at the expense of many. Nothing new under the sun there. But just another tool it is most definitely not. The speed with which it is encroaching on human expression and creativity is alarming to me. And the fact that (as predicted) it is developing so rapidly and is being so wholeheartedly embraced by so many without thoughtful consideration to its real impact is distressing. In the end though I'm curious what it is you think that "you" will actually be "achieving"? Certainly nothing special IMO. And once the technology has matured and become so ubiquitous and pervasive that everyone will be using it for everything will your digital graffiti still be original, noteworthy, or even remotely interesting to anyone other than yourself? I highly doubt it. Nor will it be marketable. I believe that what you and others are forgetting is that the sole evolutionary imperative of AI is to ultimately make the you part of the equation irrelevant. You yourself mentioned the concept of "human-machine people" but never mentioned the fact that after the singularity the next purely logical evolution doesn't bode well for humanity. Remove art, expression, individuality and perhaps most importantly trust from the equation and you are hastening the process.

Lol, gigabyte, giggle, girth, gadfly, garbage, garbanzo, gunsmith, and gnat. I know the g is supposed to be semi-silent there But I like to pronounce it for dramatic effect.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 08, 2022, 22:28

Quote from: alan b traehern on June 07, 2022, 21:04
What does this mean, when does it end? Pride month and another letter added. LGBTQIA I get the first 4 but then things start to get lost. Is Q for questionable, I for I don't know.

Jif and Gif are the same because the person who named it says so. The End 

Nope, not good enough! Unless of course he pronounces graphic as jraphic then I'm afraid the hard gr rule applies to the acronym as well. On the other hand I pronounce jiffy as heefy in honour of my adopted second home. That's within the rules.

Quote from: farbled on May 24, 2022, 20:55
I have always been of the opinion that a good chunk of the demise of macro was done by the "pro" photographers themselves. Seeing hobbyists and amateurs make so much money hand over fist with volume gave many the incentive to put really good work up for peanuts instead of RM. So almost all of the sudden I remember we saw a massive influx of quality stock specific imagery that upped the quality game (I was working for a smaller stock photo company at the time).

Ideally IMO, micro should have stayed a place where photographers began their climb to RM as they improved. But that went out the window when there was no quality difference anymore. Agencies just took advantage of it is all. I remember the forums back in 2005-ish all pointing out this very scenario happening.

Just my 2 cents. We allowed this to happen to ourselves.

Remember though that it didn't take long for the relatively new stock model to quickly start eroding the mid tier and lower end commercial photography market. Leaving those that weren't interested in wedding photography or studio portrait photography watching demand for their services dwindle away to a shadow of what it once was. As an example, I recall the first time I realized fully just how much the microstock market was going to change commercial photography forever. It was around 2009-2010 and the publication of a local regulation booklet that went along with the purchase of a provincial fishing license. I'm sure you remember it Terry! Anyway, inside there was a photograph promoting a wholesome outdoor lifestyle with a father and daughter bonding while fishing for trout. The problem was that the photo wasn't taken locally at all. In fact it had nothing to do with trout or anything remotely related to our region. It was a stock shot taken somewhere on the flats in the Caribbean complete with mangrove swamps and flamingos. Cheap filler yes, but filler that before that time would have required hiring a pro. Not only had the market changed obviously, but more importantly buyers attitudes had changed along with it. The savings were just too tempting and there was no turning back. So I don't think it was so much that pros were cashing in on a goldmine per se, rather more like they understood that technology along with the market was changing and that they reluctantly needed to adapt. Microstock was actually a necessary evil for many.

Totally agree though that we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. Still are in fact.

I see you've met Joe😄

Quote from: Lizard on February 16, 2022, 21:00

Quote from: Camillo on February 16, 2022, 16:19
Our biggest enemy is free stock images and videos. Those sites are becoming more and more popular. Those sites are owned by companies like dreamstime, wirestock etc. Wether you are aware of it, agreed to it or not some companies like ones mentioned give your work for free in exchange for a small rate. Smaller than what shutterstock charges but without the overhead of reviewing photos, categorizing or keywording since thy come straight out of our ports.

If nothing was given away we would have a business.

I remember times when instead of "free stock", some people used to say microstock in the same context. 

And they weren't wrong either.

Two of my go to sources are used shipping pallets and remnants from kitchen counter top manufacturers. The pallets you can easily find for free anywhere there's a loading dock. For a lot of the box stores etc. they're a pain in the but to get rid of so they're usually happy to give them away free for the asking. Some are well used with a ready to go rustic patina while others are like new and ready to finish however you like. The same goes for counter top fabricators. There's always offcuts and broken pieces that they have pay by the pound to dispose of. The pieces are too small to be of any use to them but can be perfect for table top photography. I have some gorgeous marbles, granites and slates that I didn't pay a nickel for.

The start of the month was slow for me as well. Last week things definitely picked up though and I should hit level 4 by the end of today. 4 more to go. The crap part is I won't be back to level 5 for months, and I'll certainly never see the highest tier again. Nothing more demotivating than an unwarranted demotion. It leaves a bad taste that just won't go away.

Well as a lowly busboy working part time shifts all I can say is I appreciate any tips front of house cares to share!

Not to mention ad agencies and designers...the monthly fee is a pittance compared to the historical cost of image acquisition. Be that custom or stock. Don't forget about bloggers either. Prolific bloggers can easily justify the larger subscription packages, even if they don't use their entire quota every month.

Honestly, when were "the arts" ever really a viable career path?

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 06, 2022, 19:49
I've already made four times as much on AS than SS.

Yep, same boat here. More than 4X actually closer to 5X. Very unusual for me. Level 2 reached but slow going with the amounts. Very early days though.

I like the part where they talk about market value.

Quote from: OM on January 02, 2022, 21:30
Level 6 be careful with trading the stock market/options/futures. If you think that microstock CEO's are greedy and grabbing, wait until the Wall Street Boyz hit you. I did stocks and options for a few years in the late 90's and early noughties. Made 20K in a couple of days just after 911 for a couple of hundred bucks in put options and had a few other successes in trading stocks at the time but the thing about the financial world is...they want it back and they'll usually get it and more!

Eventually I couldn't stand the stress.....losing a fortune by taking a toilet break can easily happen! The thing that really got me out was the way the big options traders could move the goalposts if the value of options went against them.

At around 2000 there was some 'guru'/fraudster who was telling the wealthy that the easiest way to make a lot quickly was to sell a very in-the-money 4-year index put option....index at 700...sell 4-year put 800 and get €10K +4 years time value (€2K). The prediction was that the index would go to 800 maybe even in a matter of months so you could buy back your put option for much less than you sold it for. Easy money! Except it didn't work out that way after 2001.
I took the opposite side of that trade and bought those 4-year mucho-in-the-money 800  puts when it was still a bull market. But when the index dived after 2001, those puts which I had and which I also used to cover some smaller short-dated puts I had written (for the premium) were no longer deemed to be covering so I couldn't do that any more. And the long dated in the money puts I had were not going up in value as the market declined because the time value of 4 years meant that in that time the market could go back up again and so my long-dated puts were now worth less than in the money puts at the next following expiration.

In the meantime the dealers who sold me those puts were trying to get me to sell them off. Because I could no longer use them to collect premium on other short-dated options I wanted to write, they also became pretty useless as a way of producing regular income. At some point I sold them for almost no profit whilst the market dive should have made them worth a lot more....but if the optionsboyz decide that they don't want to lose money then you have to. Had I had the mental courage plus enough valium and held out until expiration in 2004, I would have indeed made around 4X what I paid...but I didn't. At the urging of my wife I stopped all stock market activities in 2003, having given back around €80K. The big guys (with their nano-second executions and servers next to hubs) just love the small 'investors'/speculators and are really practiced at taking your money. The small guy is truly easy prey....so beware!

Lol, even the terminology sounds similar to what one might hear walking by the craps table on a busy casino night.

A new twist for me. This .17 sale didn't go to China like my others. It was a UK sale, editorial, newspaper (national), perpetuity, full size (103 Mb). A touch more worrisome.

Adding my voice to the chorus. Just checked and sure enough a gaggle of downloads at .15. Looks like it's site-wide. Hopefully a bug or a bot. If not Alamy is the one agency I won't accept this from.