|
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 - Bauman
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12
126
« on: November 26, 2023, 13:57 »
Let's not confuse generative AI content with AI software.
The copyright problem is gigantic for generative AI content and affects little-known authors.
I agree 100% with Wilm.
127
« on: November 15, 2023, 08:44 »
Yes, I confirm. I have about 5000 files on Shutterstock, and I started in 2012. I sent 400 images this year, and the "2023 file earnings" are 1.4% of the total. When I sent 400-500 images in 2012-2015, they sold $5000 in the first year and $7000 in the second year ($12000 in the first two years). Today, I can't earn $300 in the first year... and my quality level has grown significantly recently. Now I'm wondering if it's still worth sending new images. 
128
« on: November 10, 2023, 07:33 »
Producing 100 images with AI takes just two or three hours?
do you mean to generate unfinished images,just prompts?yes,you can do even more in 2-3 hours,but the work is just started.
I just sent 10 AI images to Adobe and it took me 2 days!
I'm no expert, but I see that many succeed. They may not be the best images in the world but it is possible to take 100 images in 2.5 hours. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cS9N4NqEIsIf I remember correctly there was a contributor here on the forum who had uploaded 3000 AI images in a month (100 per day).
129
« on: November 09, 2023, 05:25 »
I have no doubt that at the rate artificial intelligence is advancing, stock photography has a maximum of two years left to live. Right now the smart thing to do is to sell all the lenses, equipment and cameras on ebay before it is too late and they become worthless junk.
I haven't sent any AI images, and don't think I ever will. I get help from AI for my post-production, but I'm not interested in generative AI. It's boring, and the images are all the same, all with the same style. Producing 100 images with AI takes just two or three hours, so photography and illustration categories will soon be saturated with millions of images uploaded in no time. I think eventually, people will get bored, and the majority of AI users will create their own images. I hope in the future, there will always be a niche of customers who prefer real images captured with authentic landscapes, models, and objects. And I continue to work for that niche. We'll see in a few years.
130
« on: October 25, 2023, 08:06 »
In my commissioned work, I charge 600-1000 for 10-15 images ... Adobe pays $80 for 500-1000 images. New forms of slavery are growing ... 
131
« on: October 19, 2023, 08:14 »
I don't think Adobe cares for real photos anymore. All that matters to them is AI.
I'm afraid you're right. The future holds a world of fake images for us. How sad!
132
« on: October 19, 2023, 08:03 »
I agree with you. I am also a photographer with a small portfolio (around 5,000 images) selling a lot for 15 years. The same thing happened to me for the first time last week with a batch of 15 images. 13 were rejected, and 2 were taken. It had never happened to me. I have a nearly 100% approval rate at every agency. I'm a professional; I shoot with a 60-megapixel camera and $2/3,000 lenses. I travel 30,000 km a year to shoot. Each image I upload requires 30 minutes/1 hour of postproduction with a $3000 desktop. With this Adobe policy, my images that have always sold a lot are becoming invisible or rejected. Hidden by the sea of AI images (probably copied from some of our old images that were selling ) that Adobe approves every day and which cost like peanuts. No photography equipment, no travel costs, no effort to learn the art of photography. Thanks Adobe. In a few years, I would like to know from which art AI will copy.
134
« on: October 05, 2023, 05:33 »
Day 4 of October and already on SS I'm at of my total September sales. Hopefully that's an indication that things are picking up. Maybe because the writer's strike is over?
Day 5 of October and I'm on 7% of total September sales. And yesterday was my first working day in 12 years where I didn't hit $10 ... 50 sales for $8 ... With 5,000 files, I was used to make $40-50 a day before 2020 and $25-30 a day this year. SS is in a nosedive.
135
« on: October 04, 2023, 00:46 »
Im seeing my model stock photo sales going down and seeing a few AI generated model photos sold.
I think that the sales of AI with models cannot compensate for those lost with photographs with real models. Because the production of images with AI is much faster (there are contributors with 3000 images in the queue) and because the images are all the same, same Midjourney's or Dall-E's style, and the earnings are divided equally. Whoever produces the most wins. Read my post about this: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/9-million-ai-generated-photos-stock-photography-coming-to-end/msg593430/#msg593430
136
« on: October 03, 2023, 08:16 »
I wonder how Midjourney got their "Dataset". Is there any alternative to Midjourney to create AI stock photos?
They scraped the internet.
Laion-5B, a nonprofit, publicly available database that indexes more than five billion images from across the Internet, including the work of many artists. See here: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/is-ai-art-stealing-from-artists
137
« on: October 03, 2023, 04:48 »
I don't know if we must do it with generic stock agencies or niche agencies, but earning a full salary with AI will be very difficult. There are too many contributors and too many images for the same pie to share.
There will be no earning any salary from AI images for contributors, clients will type what they want and pay to the big companies. At least thats how I see it.
If you try to generate what you exactly want you'll see how difficult that is, so for the clients is much more easy and less time consuming to use a good AI search engine and find the best of AI generated content from image data base. To me the future is in the best search engine.
I agree with you Mir. I didn't write it in my post, but what you say is true. Many customers will create their own custom images. When I talked about salary, I was referring to those who do photography or illustration in a traditional way, without AI. The key is to differentiate yourself and communicate well with a blog, a YouTube channel, or a podcast. Often, those who buy images fall in love with the author's story or the process of creating the images. I don't see a great future in uploading images to the big stock agencies. As for photography and illustration authors, only the best will survive. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe we need to invest time in improving the quality of our work, not in producing millions of useless AI images. Agencies will profit and build their own AI engine. But we contributors don't, the slices to be shared are too small.
138
« on: October 03, 2023, 01:10 »
I see that AI has allowed many low-quality contributors to finally submit high-quality content.
Contributors with 40,000 bad images who struggled to make $100 a month now think they're making a lot of money.
But for me, it's a mistake. Sure, maybe they will make a little more money. Because AI has allowed us to raise the quality of jobs, but now they are all the same.
I struggle to distinguish the work of one contributor from another.
They are all identical, all with the same style.
And so in the end everyone will earn quite similar amounts. There will be a race to see who can upload the most.
And I think this will eventually tire customers who want to find something different from this mountain of boring images copied from artists and photographers of the past.
I think differentiating yourself from others will be the most important thing in the future.
I don't know if we must do it with generic stock agencies or niche agencies, but earning a full salary with AI will be very difficult. There are too many contributors and too many images for the same pie to share.
139
« on: August 31, 2023, 16:42 »
Only people who have produced quality images, at the cost of effort, time, renunciation of mediocrity, self-challenge, and perhaps ultimately talent can understand this turning point. And they see absolutely no benefit in what AI produces.
AI enthusiasts can only be delighted to finally be able to produce what they have never been able to produce.
I agree with you 100%, great post!
140
« on: August 31, 2023, 16:38 »
much of microstock is 'low-quality' but what's the incentive for agencies &who would make the subjective labeling? even at this young age AI many AI i mages are better than 'low-quality' digital images
we were talking about microstock where there's no indication buyers care at all for artist stories or look for a specific artist they're too busy buying cheap images
i participate in several groups on FAA (and admin for 5) and have never heard anyone on Redbubble reporting significant income. more income from those using twitter & mastodon, but still dwarfed by microstock income
I think microstock has opened up to too many amateurs and is getting too close in quality to freemium sites like Pexels, Unsplash, Pixabay and Freepik. The race to the bottom of prices will penalize the contributors. Especially the quality ones that risk becoming invisible. And it will be even worse with AI available to everyone. I have a portfolio of 5,000 images and sell much more than contributors with 50,000 images. Quality matters, but with this invasion of AI my images risk becoming invisible. I am full time and until 3 years ago microstock was 90% of my earnings. Now I earn the same amount but the microstock is now at 50% and the rest is print-on-demand and commissioned work. I achieved this by working hard on my personal branding with blog, social media, and personal website.
If microstock agencies don't change, I don't see a brilliant future, they will look more and more like sites like Unsplash, Pexels because the best contributors are all leaving.
141
« on: August 31, 2023, 05:09 »
buyers dont care about how the artist traveled to get a picture or the cost of their equipment - they want an image for their needs & dont care whether AI or not.
AI isnt there yet for most actual locations and model-type images need improvement, as Jo Ann & others have documented. but as AI evolves it will be to the buyers' benefit to use AI generated people rather than the model release hassles for editorial usage.
I think you are right for very low-quality work, but you are wrong for those who want to differentiate themselves from others. And today, in marketing, it matters a lot to do different things to stand out from the crowd. Even for those who buy images. Maybe you need to read some Seth Godin books to understand where the world is going. Seth says: People do not buy goods & services. They buy relations, stories & magic. Today a good photograph is not enough; there is too much competition, but we also need the stories and emotions of those who take it. Stock photography and especially AI images will serve to fill low-quality blogs and websites at a price close to zero. It will probably no longer be a lucrative market for creators. We need to do as RedBubble did which divided the contributors between Premium and Standard, giving more visibility to the Premium ones.
142
« on: August 29, 2023, 18:14 »
I've been a professional landscape photographer for almost 30 years and I don't think I'll ever send an image taken from my desk by typing words into a prompt. My job is another.
My photography is done with a camera, while walking, cycling or driving to a place. It is made up of emotions, effort, heat, cold, clear or stormy skies and a lot of satisfaction. As Seth Godin says, it's a practice.
I agree with your proposal and I think that in the future there will always be many people who will ask for real photography for their stories to tell and not all these identical images copied here and there.
And it will have to cost more than an AI image, because the marginal cost of an AI image is very close to zero, while a real photograph requires expensive equipment, travel costs, and in some cases, real models.
It will be like the vinyl record in music.
143
« on: May 26, 2023, 13:35 »
And I say NO, like every year. And also, next year, I will say NO and then again NO again.
I have almost 1500 eligible photos.
like every year, thanks for reducing the competition
Like every year, thanks for ruining the photographic market more and more. I take much better photographs than yours and I don't need to give them away for free.  Luckily for me, someone still chooses quality images and not snapshots
144
« on: May 26, 2023, 04:14 »
And I say NO, like every year. And also, next year, I will say NO and then again NO again.
I have almost 1500 eligible photos.
145
« on: May 14, 2023, 03:24 »
That is more than I make on Adobe with more files. Very impressive.
Obviously your choice to delete, you probably have very well doing portfolios elsewhere.
Yes, I have good portfolios elsewhere, but Envato accounted for about 7-10% of my total earnings. I have been doing stock photography full-time for almost 20 years. I have a portfolio of around 5000 images and had around 1900 on Envato (not my best). I only left 150/200, the worst. I've wanted to remove them for years because I don't agree with their Unlimited subscription. I've already had them stolen twice to put them on Freepik by downloading the entire portfolio right from Envato. Obviously, this lack of clarity in the agreements prompted me to take the definitive step. Money is not everything, AI can be an interesting thing to make money (POD sites these weeks are flooded with AI images, they have all become great artists  ) ... but I don't care, I don't want to make art giving instructions to software. I still enjoy using my medium format film every now and then, this is the photography I like, and I prefer to be poorer but do what I love. I make high-quality images, I spend 1 hour or 2 in postproduction for each image, and I also sell them as prints, and therefore I try to protect them even if today it has become almost impossible. To be honest today I don't know which way to go. I'm trying to grow as an author, but the print business is difficult and requires excellent marketing skills. Perhaps the best solution for a photographer who has good skills is to do workshops or go back to work on commission (something I unfortunately don't like but I have to do again if I want to continue being a photographer in the future).
146
« on: May 13, 2023, 11:08 »
"We do not have the details of future arrangements so we cannot provide you with the fee payable to you."
This is the best part!
So should I accept an agreement whose terms I don't know?
147
« on: May 12, 2023, 12:26 »
I just deleted 1700 photographs that made me $250 a month ...
I only left 150 crappy textures and backgrounds from 15 years ago ...
I may be poorer, but I don't care to deal with these people with no respect for our work.
148
« on: May 12, 2023, 07:37 »
Me too, bye-bye Envato!
149
« on: March 31, 2023, 05:02 »
I am not happy with Adobe sales.
Too few extended licenses (only 1 in 2023).
In March, Shutterstock (I'm level 5) did 3x better than Adobe, and the RPD (SS $0.84 - AS $0.73) is also better thanks to many great value single and extended license sales.
150
« on: February 22, 2023, 10:04 »
I am very curious how is it going for you, selling directly?
No, I do not sell stock photography directly. Too much competition. I started working with companies and professionals (wineries, architects, hotels ...) in my area. And then, I sell prints directly through my website and art galleries. But you must work with marketing - blog (the most important for building a personal brand), SEO, Social media ... -. And you must have very high-quality work. But that's not enough, you have to be well-known. It's a very long journey; improvements are very slow to have some personal brand awareness. Sometimes it's daunting, a lot of work for nothing.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
