|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - f8
101
« on: April 21, 2023, 10:29 »
The reason Getty is a sinking ship is for a few reasons. You can only screw contributors so far before they move on. Getty used to be good as was Istock. I still do contribute to them but in all honesty they are low on my upload list for a few reasons, the disambiguation process is very time consuming and the 0.02 sales do not justify my time. The overall ownership/management is perhaps the most disrespectful of all the agencies out there.
102
« on: April 21, 2023, 10:22 »
If Getty sends their exclusive images over to Adobe, why would anyone still buy from Getty? Every buyer uses Photoshop, Getty would literally lose them all if their content was available.
You are as usual very ill informed. Every buyer does not use Photoshop. Many do, but not all.
103
« on: January 16, 2023, 18:33 »
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm  No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it
Yes a total waste of time for everyone. I did however resubmit and they all got accepted on second go. Usually a reject here or there does not bother me, but having total rejects or a stupid amount of rejects is an on the inspector not doing their job. Why do something once when you can do it twice?
104
« on: January 16, 2023, 18:27 »
Every country has different rules in regards to drones. Rarely does the actual weight of the drone make a difference and at times it does.
Quoted from FAA. "You will need to get a Remote Pilot Certificate ( RPC ) issued by FAA to fly your drone as the pilot in command ( PIC ) . The FAA does not currently recognize any foreign RPC or equivalent."
I am registered and certified in my country (Canada) but can't fly in America. I am currently travelling and got certified where I am, but the next country I am travelling to is a root canal to get a permit. I have noticed some countries make it more difficult for foreigners to fly.
In my view it's not worth the additional expense cause it's an either you can fly or you can't fly scenario.
105
« on: January 02, 2023, 02:43 »
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
We would need to see some examples to provide you with valid feedback. If you are a Creative Cloud member, you can share your files by clicking the blue "Share" button in the upper right corner of Photoshop. From there, you can create a link to the image that we can all view and provide comments on how to improve your chances of success for future uploads. Viewers don't need to be CC members to participate.
-Mat Hayward
Thanks for your reply and Happy New Year to you and yours. I have decided that Hildegarde is the most accurate in response. This crazy rejection situation happened several months ago as well on Adobe and after re-submitting I had gone from 80%-100% rejection rate to the polar opposite of 90%-100% acceptance rate on the exact same images.
106
« on: December 28, 2022, 19:26 »
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
107
« on: November 18, 2022, 17:31 »
still the most boring poster on this forum. no one cares what you have to say mate. give it up,
What an utterly arrogant comment. If you don't care about the post then just move on, and while you are moving on get a step ladder to get over yourself and try to consider that maybe, just maybe some people do care what he has to say.
108
« on: October 23, 2022, 10:06 »
derby, I'm not convincing anyone here. I answer questions and write my opinion. The topic was opened by adobe representatives and they are also in it, why should I write to them when they already read everything.
I have many thousands of videos in my portfolios, of course, even for $ 1 it will be a huge amount.
Read me more carefully, I already wrote that I get the main income from agencies that sell my videos almost for free, for a few cents. And I don't have to believe it, it's a reality that has been around for many years.
You have cured my insomnia. Thank you.
109
« on: October 15, 2022, 13:06 »
I don't want my files being downloaded in droves and then uploaded to other sites by stalkers and leechers. Much less for 8$. I would be tempted for 30$/file. But 8$ is laughable.In my case they have selected over 200 files 
Or the corporation that in effect is using your asset for $8 and the unlimited usage is for their sole marketing purpose could let you nominate your asset for 'free' and the corporation could then pay you the minimum subscription rate per 'free' download. But we know corporations don't work that way. You'd have to be delusional to think this benefits the contributor/s in any way.
110
« on: October 14, 2022, 10:48 »
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.
"Slag" at Adobe may be selling well at other agencies.
No one is forcing you to participate in this program. The more people who opt out, the more my videos will end up in collections and the more money I'll get. 
Very short-sighted.
Here are a few examples from my eligible clips:
1. AS: 0 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $199
2. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $391
3. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $562.55
3. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $143.91
4. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $371
.... and more
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.
That is how my math adds up as well. My best selling image on AS hardly sells on other sites. On other sites my best selling images hardly sell on AS and are on offer for free if I nominate them. But I won't. I also have multiple content that does well across all platforms. Interestingly enough if I do a Google image search for my content more often than not there are links across all platforms. Why would I take a paltry offering of $5-$8 dollars. It makes no sense. Now Stoker2014 on the other hand appears to not understand basic economics and is enthusiastic about making poor business decisions. There is a reason some of us make it and some of us don't. I also suspect they are a troll and love getting a rise from posting such gibberish.
111
« on: October 13, 2022, 20:26 »
The math here is simple. The more videos that are initially nominated, the more videos will be included in the free collection and the more money will be transferred to you.
The math here is that this is an initiative by a publicly traded company which you can guarantee will have a set budget, which will result in a set number of selections for the free collection. If 100% of people nominate 100% of their eligible clips, then I'll put good money on Adobe not select all of those clips. Sure, if a total of only 1% of eligible clips are nominated then that changing to 2% will mean more clips in the free collection... but a change from 99% to 100% isn't going to increase anything. And while the more videos that are selected, the more money will be transferred to you, that's based on them all being selected which they probably won't be... nominating more doesn't automatically mean more money.
Adobe is selecting the content with their needs in mind and not the contributor's needs. Just sayin.
112
« on: October 13, 2022, 20:24 »
Coincidentally one of my "eligible assets" that has already sold twice on Adobe Stock just sold again for over $50. I should accept and nominate their offer of $8. It should be noted that this particular clip has also sold five times elsewhere. That $8 just keeps looking better and better. That $8 would essentially wipe out my income producing asset for the sole benefit of a corporation and it's marketing needs.
This is not even the main issue.
Every free clip or image is an alternative to paid images or videos created by other contributors.
It's hard to compete with free. Even if other paid images/videos are better, many "buyers" will choose a free option.
It is short-sighted to selfishly look only at the immediate little gains obtained from allowing your free assets to be downloaded for free, without looking at the bigger losses from your other assets, when free competitive alternatives are offered by other users.
As a community, we shoot ourselves in the feet. 
I totally agree this is not even the main issue. The main issue is much bigger than any one individual. As a community we are not only shooting ourselves in our foot, we are shooting ourselves in the other foot as well. I will never opt in to one of these offers. They do not benefit the community at all, they do however benefit a billion dollar corporation. I have enough confidence in the quality of work I produce that I will NOT give it away. Just because it does not sell on Adobe does not mean it's not a best seller on another platform and vice versa. Free is the kiss of death.
113
« on: October 13, 2022, 15:51 »
Coincidentally one of my "eligible assets" that has already sold twice on Adobe Stock just sold again for over $50. I should accept and nominate their offer of $8. It should be noted that this particular clip has also sold five times elsewhere. That $8 just keeps looking better and better. That $8 would essentially wipe out my income producing asset for the sole benefit of a corporation and it's marketing needs.
114
« on: October 11, 2022, 12:49 »
In principle, I find the FreeCollection offers quite good, but $8 for a video clip does not seem to me to be in proportion to $5 for a photo.
I will definitely not participate in this programme with my videos.
Agree.
8 for one year is really poor for what clips could generate. I'm a little disappointed
I'd have a heck of a lot more respect for this 100+ billion dollar company if they gave us the choice to use our content for "free" and offer us 0.33 per download per image and $2.80 per video per download rather than a one time $5 and $8 respectively. The reality is they offer chump change to us for their sole marketing purposes. We see no direct benefit for giving our work away for so cheap. I really do like Adobe Stock but this "free" section is not right. I too am thankful they give us a choice to opt in or opt out. I will 'donate' my work for a charity, but not a publicly traded multi-billion dollar company.
115
« on: October 11, 2022, 10:25 »
How exciting! Another shoot yourself in the foot opportunity.
116
« on: September 21, 2022, 10:49 »
...
If they want a merlot grape on a vine they will most likely search for "merlot grape vine". So you don't use "wine" as a keyword, yet so many do.
The five W's Who What Where When and Why.
but you'll lose those who search for 'grapes for wine' 'growing grapes for wine', etc
you need to tag both for a very specific interpretation of the image and how a more general search might interest the buyer. using 'cat' on a 'dog' image is obviously spam, but including both 'elk' and 'deer' accounts for biologically confused users who just want a pic of a large ruminant
not if you use an accurate tag of 'wine grapes' or 'wine grape', but point noted. all elk are deer, but not all deer are elk. this is why I am such a stickler for accuracy in keywords. blunders like the link below are preventable and discredit our entire industry. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/02/rubio-canada-and-the-dangers-of-stock-footage-in-campaign-ads.html
117
« on: September 20, 2022, 15:27 »
[/quote]
What words do buyers actually use to search for images?
[/quote]
Probably they use keywords for the content they are looking for. Better to have 20 accurate keywords than get imaginative with keywords that are in effect not relevant to the image AKA keyword spam.
If they want a merlot grape on a vine they will most likely search for "merlot grape vine". So you don't use "wine" as a keyword, yet so many do.
The five W's Who What Where When and Why.
118
« on: September 14, 2022, 18:06 »
I have been having lots of rejections recently of editorial images. I thought nothing of it and have kept shooting other commerical subjects that get accepted. This week I have been in London covering the tributes to Queen Elizabeth in Green Park and Buckingham Palace. These are current news editorial images, yet the whole batch have been rejected for not meeting editorial guidelines. I really cannot work out why these would be rejected.
Anyone got any ideas? have Adobe changed their editorial policy? or know how to contact Mat Hayward to understand a bit more.
Thanks
Nothing has changed regarding our policy of editorial submissions. While these files you've posted about do not have recognizable people in them, they still do not quality as "illustrative editorial" which is all we are currently accepting. Please review the learn and support pages for specific guidelines on what is and what is not acceptable. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html
thank you,
Mat Hayward
Mat, first of all, thank you for kneeling in here like this and facing the criticism . Although we are hairstyle twins, now a little criticism of your statement.
Quite a few people here describe problems with the definition of "illustrative editorial" and you only refer to all well known Adobe guidelines, which obviously have a lot of room for interpretation.
Last week I submitted about 50 city views of Cologne as editorial, all rejected in the first round. On the second try, about 30 were accepted. Mat, this sucks and maybe you could address this issue and take it seriously. This is very much in need of improvement.
The Illustrative Editorial collection is designed to be showcasing specific, branded content. A soda bottle in ice with condensation dripping down the bottle comes to mind. While there is some gray area here for sure, what it sounds to me is that you are attempting to submit travel editorial content which if the true intent of the collection were considered, is not acceptable. The content in the OP here is newsworthy and based on a current event, not on a specific brand.
I hope that helps,
Mat Hayward
Mat, I think I've got the general idea - but I don't think your reviewers have.
A close-up of German brand beer goes through, no question.
A front view of a Vodafone store with a clearly visible logo is rejected. Modern protected architecture is usually accepted.
Your presentation here contradicts many experiences of others here in the forum. I can't quite understand why you are fighting this criticism tooth and nail.
... Mat, thanks for chiming in on this. There are now two threads on sudden bizarre rejections and you have maintained that nothing has changed. I don't think in all my years on this forum that a 'review' thread on AS has even appeared, and in the last few months 2-3 have appeared. That should be a clue. I am getting very wonky results in both illustrative editorial and the regular collection. I have had entire batches 100% rejected for "quality standards" and on the second go they all get accepted. I don't re-submit to the illustrative editorial the second time as there is a gray area so I let it be, but with the regular collection something is acting up over on the review side of things. My most common rejection is "quality standards" and most if not all these images are accepted at a handful of other agencies. As mentioned in an earlier post, this has only been happening for the last few months and it is a stand out anomaly from AS. Right about the time these rejection threads started on this forum. Coincidence? I can tell you it is incredibly frustrating and a waste of my time and the reviewers who are making some pretty bad call as of late.
119
« on: September 14, 2022, 10:12 »
"hit and miss" the new review style at AS.
120
« on: September 13, 2022, 17:12 »
I think there is something bizarre going on in the review department of AS. I too am having entire batches of content rejected for not being editorial even though they fit the criteria. Some skyline shots with lots of logos for example. In one batch 50% got rejected for not meeting the guidelines yet 50% got accepted. Go figure. It really makes no sense at all.
The rejections over on the commercial side are as wonky as well.
121
« on: September 13, 2022, 11:28 »
I've never been able to embed metadata in PNGs in PS and don't use LR. Maybe some day.
You embed metadate in PNGs in PS the same way you do it for jpgs.
Open your png, click on File -> File info, fill out the form that pops up with yout metadata and then go to File -> Save as copy and select png in the drop down menu below the name field. Do not use the export feature to save the image, that will remove the metadata.
Maybe it is a version issue. All of my PNGs are made from JPEGs that already have the metadata included. When I save them as PNGs the metadata does not get included. Canva used to let you upload the JPEG versions so they could extract the metadata - that was a nice way to do it. I am still using PS4 so maybe that was changed in later versions.
My feeling is there is a "quality issue" with the reviewer. Again, my entire batch was rejected for quality and the exact same images were all accepted at multiple other agencies. This anomaly is only somewhat recent in the last 4-6 batch submissions. For now I will hit the brakes on submitting anything to AS.
122
« on: September 09, 2022, 10:33 »
When you say "sales for the ones they appropriated completely dried up"
...As for the Adobe $5 per 1 year offer, what exactly is that about? ...Does Adobe have another licensing deal going where they offer you a flat $5 per image to sell that image for 1 year?
1. The images Getty took and gave away some years ago stopped selling on other sites, don't know if that was just my experience.
2. Adobe offered $5 per image to let them add it to their free collection for one year. They let you choose which to offer from a selection. Not my cup of tea, but they did it in a much more contributor friendly way, and for more money.
both are shameless and predatory. you are shooting yourself in the foot with these deals.
123
« on: September 08, 2022, 13:38 »
Sorry to be harsh but the quality from micros has gone from mediocre to garbage The only ones that supply to micros nowadays are bad photographers that do not find any demand of their images from no clients and amateurs that they really don't care if they make a few hundred or a few thousand a year
But as a pro endeavor any field in pro photography is much much more lucrative than stock photography or video. It is what it is.
I think it was the transition from editors at traditional stock agencies to inspectors at micro agencies that created this. Once upon a time a 10% acceptance rate after an editor or editors went through your work was considered good. Now if you get a few images rejected by an inspector it becomes a complete forum whine festival. The result is there is so much content to the point of saturation death and you get a lot of great work mixed with a lot of junk work. That said, I am old school, and I recently took a shot with really horrible side light, nothing to be proud of in any way. Fifteen years ago I would have never even considered taking that crap shot, today I will take that crap shot and upload it. It has become one of my top sellers on SS. Each and every time it sells I scratch my head. The old days are gone for sure, and the new days don't look promising at all, but what I do know is I will soldier on and be very thankful my career is behind me.
124
« on: September 07, 2022, 14:35 »
Just had a couple of rejections for photos that had been accepted by the - allegedly - stricter Shutterstock. Quality Issues was the reason given. I'm not going to bother resubmitting. Hopefully they will sell over at SS.
I had on batch 100% rejected on AS and 100% accepted in multiple other agencies. I resubmitted the same images again and 100% accepted. That has happened to me twice now. Interesting enough my poor quality images that got rejected then accepted have sold multiple times since being uploaded. Not sure what is going on but it is a lot like spinning the roulette wheel these days at AS.
125
« on: September 05, 2022, 09:52 »
I will presume most agencies will reject old editorial images as there is more often than not a short shelf life.
Unless your content has some sort of archival value I do think you are wasting your time.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
