|
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 - RalfLiebhold
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
151
« on: July 04, 2023, 15:26 »
Thank you, now I have finally understood your argumentation.
But Doug's hourly wage is still not wrong, he just defined the conditions differently than you or others and explained it the same way.
Now I can go to sleep calmly 
Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.
But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.
Sweet dreams!
Oh Zero, you are persistent. At no point did I say that I agree with Jensen's hourly wage or find it correct, but that it should not be called wrong under the given arguments. Possible that these nuances only come out in my language.
152
« on: July 04, 2023, 15:02 »
No worries, Ralf.
Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.
But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work. 
And all this, to impress some who will be will be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo" 
Thank you Zero for your reply.
However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion.
As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about.
I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar.
Professionally, I do something completely different full time.
Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else.
So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing.
Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it.
From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive.
At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.
I also do something else full time.
But if you understand the "Jensen logic", which wrongly claims that he is making $348/hour, because he only accounts for the time spent keywording, then you also must agree that those who have fun shooting (while doing something else full time, like us) AND also have fun keywording, must be making ♾️/hour.
Presenting his absolute numbers while leaving out his $348/hour silly falacy should be perfectly fine.
Thank you, now I have finally understood your argumentation. But Doug's hourly wage is still not wrong, he just defined the conditions differently than you or others and explained it the same way. Now I can go to sleep calmly
153
« on: July 04, 2023, 13:47 »
No worries, Ralf.
Discussing workflows is perfectly fine.
But there is difference between discussing workflows and chestbeating yourself with an absurd (for microstock) $348/hour earnings, only because you have fun doing your work.
And all this, to impress some who will be will be willing to pay for his get-rich-quick course.
But since this hasn't happened here, yet: "In dubio pro reo"
Thank you Zero for your reply. However, I still do not understand the aggressiveness in the discussion. As I understand it, the agitation is the $348/hour. Of course, that in itself is very lurid and attention grabbing. But Doug was also fair enough to explain how the total came about. I can relate to all of this in that I am in the same situation and my bill looks similar. Professionally, I do something completely different full time. Stock photography is purely a hobby for me. High quality cameras and other equipment were already in place. The photography itself I do not see as work, but as relaxation from my actual job. During this time I could have also watched TV, read a book or done something else. So for me, this is also not working time, but relaxing leisure. It's the same with image post-processing. Without it being my intention at the beginning, I now regularly earn money with it. From this personal point of view, which is also ultimately Doug's, I find the absolute numbers presented - leaving aside the hourly wage - very impressive. At least for a hobby. And that's how I understood Doug's explanations here.
154
« on: July 04, 2023, 11:22 »
Nevertheless, it's never too late to catch up with your math and logic and adjust your silly $348/hour calculation.
Okay, against my better judgement, and despite what I said in my last post, I will give you one more chance to explain exactly what is about by calculation you don't like. What should I do differently? What is wrong with it? Please tell me what you find so flawed with my calculation -- and I will do my best to plug in the appropriate values to your satisfaction.
In other words, if my calculation is wrong, tell me how to fix it. What is missing? Just tell me in simple words even a moron like me can understand.
The floor is yours.
The beauty of the reductio ad absurdum method is that you don't have to show WHY a hypothesis is wrong. You just prove it is.
Besides, I am not here to help you to understand how to better run your business.
I only did you a favor by showing that you made an error. You're welcome!
So accept that your calculation is wrong (and silly) and try to figure out WHY by yourself.
Good luck!
Would you be so kind as to explain to the uneducated audience reading along here why this discussion is being conducted so aggressively? Apart from the fact that I don't necessarily see the hourly wage as an adequate parameter for economic success in the stock photo business, I can follow most of Doug's arguments very well and would find the knowledge of his workflow interesting. At least I don't see any reason for arrogant behavior towards Doug from my side - and before you get any stupid ideas, I didn't skip any high school classes and my latin is still quite fluent
155
« on: June 22, 2023, 16:14 »
Strange arrogant discussion here by self-proclaimed star photographers who themselves do not put their quality images here for discussion.
Stock agencies are in my opinion and experience no vernissage of high-carat images (of course, there should also be), but a collection of images that are needed by customers.
Do you top-photographers actually take a look at which images are used in the media?
Not every customer needs highly polished, artfully perfect works, but also simple pictures from everyday life.
This market is also large and lucrative.
My example image of snacks is admittedly of poor quality, actually embarrassing to others and was somehow an accident. But it obviously has content - and that's what stock photography is all about - that resonates with customers. Over 100 customers have so far chosen the image over your high quality fries alternatives in the face of stiff competition.
Ralf, do you also mostly supply AI images these days? If so, then the same goes for you.
If not, read what your fellow contributor says and let it sink in before, again, you think you are targeted here:
"All 10 ai images accepted, one photo accepted, one photo declined for "quality"."
No I have not submitted any AI images yet. But that doesn't mean I won't do it someday. What is annoying me here, is that some self-proclaimed top photographers take apart the portfolio of a forum member without being asked and make it bad. I do not find it ok and beside the point. And the income for an agency like Eyeem is impressive.
156
« on: June 22, 2023, 15:39 »
Strange arrogant discussion here by self-proclaimed star photographers who themselves do not put their quality images here for discussion.
Stock agencies are in my opinion and experience no vernissage of high-carat images (of course, there should also be), but a collection of images that are needed by customers.
Do you top-photographers actually take a look at which images are used in the media?
Not every customer needs highly polished, artfully perfect works, but also simple pictures from everyday life.
This market is also large and lucrative.
My example image of snacks is admittedly of poor quality, actually embarrassing to others and was somehow an accident. But it obviously has content - and that's what stock photography is all about - that resonates with customers. Over 100 customers have so far chosen the image over your high quality fries alternatives in the face of stiff competition.
157
« on: June 21, 2023, 14:58 »
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
Very funny and hitting the nail on the head. The others just don't get it. They only care about money. And how that comes in, is not in their interest. If they need to collect empty bottles in the street that is fine for them also. As long as it pays them a few dollars.
Why always directly so insulting when you do not like other opinions.
From my point of view, you have not understood something here.
As already mentioned, I am also not a fan of AI.
But the AI is there now and will not disappear. So the only question is how we deal with it. So what's wrong with using this new tool wisely?
The problem and annoyance are those who suddenly produce thousands of images and fill the agencies with low-quality junk. Or do not mark the images as AI. This, in turn, is not a genuine problem of AI, but of the agencies, namely Adobe.
Hi Ralf, didn't think you thought you were spoken to.
Let me explain a bit better. I make my money in a complete other sector (which is not art) and I would have to sell at least ten thousand of Shutterstock subscription sales a day to match that income.
But I have a passion, which is photography. I use microstock to understand the value of my photography. Are people willing to buy it or not? I am obviously not in my place there because I only submit photography that I like to shoot and not what the market might actually need. And I am fine with that. It is not my goal to be the best. I am just measuring for myself.
I feel compassion for and I am interested in people who are doing this for their livelyhood. I think it's great if someone was able to earn their money through microstock (if it is photo or video). I understand their dissapointment that the market has gone down and that it is a struggle to get by these days. I understand that people were able to make money of their passion years ago and then the market collapsed.
That is why I am also rude maybe to Mat because I know he is not telling you the truth sometimes. I know corporate speak when I see it. It's not his personal fault. He is an employee but he cannot always get away with statements which are obviously misleading.
I really strongly believe that AI will kill any remained hope for these people that I just mentioned. I am sure they are passionate about their photography and video making (even though they have to shoot something else they would maybe prefer).
In the near feature every idiot (or maybe they are doing it already now, Adobe seems to accept it all), will be able to produce fantastic results with just a few words and one push of the button. Your long waiting time is because all these idiots are flooding Adobe's system.
Contributors here that have an awful portfolio are going all-in on this AI stuff, merely because they smell the money. And those are the people I am referring to in my previous post. Same kind of people as the thiefs that rip a photo or video from your portfolio and trying to sell them with another agency. It's only about the money and has nothing to do with the art or passion of photography or videomaking.
AI sucks also because it has also nothing to do with photography, videomaking or Art at all. It's a bloody computer algortihm that leeches on people's work. It's not creative at all.
For all those people that think they are needed because you need to tweek the original output of AI. It will be short lived. That tweeking will soon not be neccesary anymore.
Lastly, it is, like other people said, disrespectful and outrageous that Adobe accepts junk from AI and rejects high quality real work. It certainly seems they think that AI is the future and have left real work behind them. I am really wondering if they will also stop with their core products like Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere Pro etc.. Why would they continue with that, if it is not the future for them?
Edit: I said thousand but I meant ten thousand a day. It's corrected.
Thank you SVH, I can live with this differentiated answer and your point of view. I understand that then also as a good constructive exchange of views - now
158
« on: June 21, 2023, 13:00 »
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
Very funny and hitting the nail on the head. The others just don't get it. They only care about money. And how that comes in, is not in their interest. If they need to collect empty bottles in the street that is fine for them also. As long as it pays them a few dollars.
Why always directly so insulting when you do not like other opinions. From my point of view, you have not understood something here. As already mentioned, I am also not a fan of AI. But the AI is there now and will not disappear. So the only question is how we deal with it. So what's wrong with using this new tool wisely? The problem and annoyance are those who suddenly produce thousands of images and fill the agencies with low-quality junk. Or do not mark the images as AI. This, in turn, is not a genuine problem of AI, but of the agencies, namely Adobe.
159
« on: June 21, 2023, 06:00 »
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
Well, with my camera I also only press one button I am absolutely no friend of AI. But now it's there and it won't go away. So I also played around with my Midjourney subscription for a month. First of all, I had to realize that meaningful, complex images can't be created only at the push of a button. It needs a bit more. Different formulations, settings, even the image format lead to different results. So you need a little experience and maybe even a little language talent. Afterwards, the images have to be reworked, sometimes at great expense, and also keyworded. So all in all, it's a bit more complex than flushing a toilet. In the meantime I have paused the AI again, because I prefer to be outdoors quite old fashioned with my camera instead of spending the whole day at the computer. But there's definitely no reason to go after those who are trying to make money with the new medium. So I also assume that there is still a market for real photos. For illustrators it might look a bit more critical.
160
« on: June 21, 2023, 05:03 »
Yes, Shutterstock has definitely changed something about the review.
Not a single rejection in the last few weeks. Even landscape images with trees and forests, which were always a submission battle last years for me, go through immediately.
161
« on: June 09, 2023, 08:44 »
I think it is very difficult to separate the microstock business from political issues. Politics engages microstock contributors in the same way as landscape, architecture, wildlife or whatever topics.
The agencies' databases are full of politically influenced images.
Contributors present their opinion or their concepts in images. Or they photograph the reality shaped by politics. Or politicians themselves. Or their opinions on banners. Politics shapes our lives and their contents. If we produce images about it, why shouldn't we also verbalise our opinions about it?
Wouldn't the logical consequence of "stop about politics" in a microstock forum then also be "stop shooting politics" for a microstock agency?
If you want to argue politics you should go to a political forum. If you want to discuss microstock and photos come here. Do you go to a cooking forum to argue politics or national differences? Asking the people stay on topic is not censorship. The only people who will shout how they are being censored are the ones who want to argue politics everywhere they go all the time. Politics shapes our food and diet, many places by location, but that doesn't make a food forum a place to argue politics.
Interrupting and mixing a thread with classic stock topics with political topics is definitely not ok. At the moment, 3 threads with political discussions are running here, neatly separated. Nobody is forced to read these threads. So where is the problem please?
162
« on: June 09, 2023, 07:04 »
You're welcome Ralf. I'm always happy to provide comic relief
Actually, your post hits the proverbial nail on the head. As you know, I'm not on the moderation team. I don't review content, so what I did was scrutinized the image in question, gave it some consideration and decided after looking for a while that if I were forced to guess why the image was rejected for "quality" it would be for the reason I described. It's just my opinion, and in truth, I could be convinced otherwise without much objection.
The moderation team on the other hand, does not have the luxury of time when it comes to analyzing content. As has been noted in countless posts here and elsewhere, the wait time for review is taking an unprecedented amount of time. There is tremendous pressure to get this wait-time down to a more reasonable amount. Even without that added pressure, the mandate has always been for fast reviews. The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video. They do this all day, every day, 365 days a year.
There are more than 500,000 images online at Adobe Stock with the keywords "party plates" right now. It's safe to assume that most on the moderation team have seen their fair share and then some of photos of party plates. Some of the photos are awesome, others are "ok". The image in question here falls into the latter category in my opinion.
Complaints about rejection reasons, the lack of clarity in the reasons provided and disputes on the rejections have been ongoing since the first days at Fotolia. As I've mentioned countless times before, if the moderation team took the time to wrestle with each and every decision and then spent additional time providing specific details and answering every question that comes in arguing with the decision, the review time would be exponentially longer. It's not a perfect system and they don't get it right every time, but I feel very strongly they get it right most of the time. As an employee or not, you would have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise. Since I opened my account in 2006, I've had 2,989 files rejected. If I thought the content wasn't good enough to be approved, I wouldn't have sent the files in the first place. Someone on the moderation team felt differently. That's just part of the deal. The only real action that can be taken is to look at the content through impartial eyes, consider if something could have been done differently or better, and apply what I've learned to the next shoot to find a better result the next time.
We have an active Discord community, as well as the Adobe Stock contributor forum in which impartial feedback is provided by other contributors on rejected content. I've personally learned a lot from the insightful critiques offered. If you have some content you feel strongly was unjustly rejected, I recommend posting some examples and asking for outside opinions. Maybe you change you mind, maybe you don't. The important thing in my opinion is to continue to grow as an artist and to keep feeding the creative side of your brain.
On a personal note, @Ralf. You commented that my original explanation caused "hair-pulling". I too used to pull my hair with rejection reasons. If you've seen what I look like these days, you will almost certainly stop pulling your hair out. It doesn't always grow back!
Thanks for the lively debate y'all.
-Mat Hayward
Thank you Mat for your kind and detailed reply. Unfortunately, the question still remains why many contributors have been complaining for weeks (also in other forums) about sudden new changes in the review with an unusual increase in rejections. Collective blackout? I've been uploading only editorials myself for some time now. Everything else makes no sense in combination with long review times and high rejection rates at the moment. And thanks Mat for your tip on hair care. But it's too late for that, we apparently have the same hairdresser
163
« on: June 08, 2023, 12:40 »
I appreciate you sharing the example. In my opinion, the image is "OK" or "fine". Maybe a bit hot on exposure, but within range which explains why you didn't get the "technical" rejection. My perception of the "quality" rejection reason is that it's just "fine". It's a subjective process and we definitely won't all agree on everything. My personal opinion is that this one could have gone either way. What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. Having hosted more than my share of childrens birthday parties, the plates always match. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
It's easy to focus on the rejections, and I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be. That said, it's part of the process and we've all experienced it. My suggestion is to avoid taking it personal and look at is as a challenge to do better the next time. We approve a heck of a lot more than we reject at Adobe Stock and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Good luck!
Mat Hayward
Sorry Mat, but I really had to laugh out loud when I read your (hair-pulling) reasoning for Firn's rejection. According to my imagination NOW, a review team of well-paid experts from business, art and technology sits there in a cozy Adobe office and discusses on a scientific basis the sales prospects of every picture that is projected on a large screen - quite democratically, everyone then presses the quality buzzer or not. But in this particular case, an international kids birthday paper plate expert had to be consulted. That is laudable and of course takes time. At least that explains the long review times. Qualitatively good review takes time Thanks for explanation
164
« on: June 02, 2023, 13:09 »
Ha, for some others arguing censorship. Without moderation or any standards or rules, all we'd have is chaos, disorder, and anarchy. The forum would become disorganized and dysfunctional. Leaf runs the forum and started it and owns it, he can restrict as he wishes. This isn't the right to free speech for news and public speaking. It's his forum.
Ha, but it wasn't Leaf who has that claim. Since I've been reading along here, political discussions have also been taking place. There are not many forums where you can exchange quite cultivated on an international level. I'm interested in how you, for example, Pete, as an American, judge things. If now a single person (or several people) want to suppress political discussions without justification, I would find that not only a pity, but corresponds to my idea of censorship.
165
« on: June 02, 2023, 08:58 »
What you are calling for here is generally referred to as censorship For reasons Cobalt mentioned, this is exactly the right place for political discussions. Since the topics in the forum are also neatly separated, no one should actually feel harassed. In this respect, I find your demand quite incomprehensible.
166
« on: May 08, 2023, 14:42 »
167
« on: April 19, 2023, 04:58 »
168
« on: April 18, 2023, 15:39 »
I wonder why buyers suddenly go for a pink X? Because it's a bestseller? I can't imagine that.
If the bestsellers are arranged here the way they are in my own portfolio, then that doesn't correspond to reality. But it's certainly strange.
Well this is currently the most popular in the photo search, and has been for a while:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/yellow-color-banana-sri-lanka-2093921068
High Usage and customers 'love this asset'.
What is going on at Shutterstock these days?
Ok, but I can understand that. I worked in Sri Lanka some time and can only remember ripe bananas. Otherwise, there's really not much to see in this country.
169
« on: April 18, 2023, 15:02 »
I wonder why buyers suddenly go for a pink X? Because it's a bestseller? I can't imagine that. If the bestsellers are arranged here the way they are in my own portfolio, then that doesn't correspond to reality. But it's certainly strange.
170
« on: April 16, 2023, 13:16 »
Checked in on the Discord. Quote: "there were many people who sent 200, 300 AI images a day, I myself sent around 150 a day, then the moderators were overloaded" lol
I know a person in India who sent over 1000 images a day
Who can create and edit 1,000 images a day. That's some really dedicated work. I'd love to see what they are and how many sales?
Everyone, at least with AI.
All you need to do is enter a prompt and click the retry button over and over again. (You don't even have to do that manually, just use an auto clicker). 10 clicks per hour and you get 1000 different images for which you can even use the same keywords...
Each one needs to be edited to remove the color bar in the lower right. Resizing could be done batch. Still, I haven't seen anything from Open AI that didn't need editing, and people who use the other, still need to edit for size and error's.
Yes some group could make 1,000 a day, but how many would be useful, or get downloads and how many are accepted? At some point if it's the same prompt, the images are going to be similar, and the keywords or description will be a big red flag.
Then there's the time to create, and to upload. 1000 minutes is 16 hours. The possibility that someone does 1,000 a day is highly unlikely, just from the simple math of time. 100 not so much of an issue.
If it was a team of people, not "someone", then 1,000 a day from a factory situation, that's also possible.
It's already being done:
African Studio = 1,305,871 stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.
Lineartistpilot = 1,166,763 stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.
Thanks Pete for taking the subject of AI out of mythology and into reality mathematically. In the end, real people have to do some work.
171
« on: April 14, 2023, 06:01 »
I've been checking for the last few months.
Like Wilm, I found two 33 cent sales, otherwise nothing under 36 cents. . Your mentioned amounts I could not find with me.
172
« on: March 31, 2023, 12:24 »
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.
Interesting. Are you primarily stills or video?
I am primarily stills and my experience is the opposite. It used to be that SS was the clear $$ leader, but AS seems to be whizzing by with SS in the rear view mirror.
I share Bauman's experience. Portfolio of about 13,000 stills, no videos. With Shutterstock 2 -3 times as many downloads and significantly more higher sales than with Adobe that compensate well for the 10 cent crap.
173
« on: March 27, 2023, 12:54 »
Firn, are you noticing a decline in sales already now, or is your concern more about the near future?
It's more about the future. My sales are as usual so far, both in terms of downloads and revenue.
But I don't expect a decline so fast. The latest version of midjourney that lets you basically create photorealistic images is maybe 2 weeks old? Up till that point AI photos were rather poor in my opinion. It's really the latest MJ version that is giving me nightmares.
It will take a while till everyone catches on to what AI can do now, most of all customers. But eventually there won't be any money to be made with microstock photography and I am afraid it will be rather sooner than later.
Then I'll keep my fingers crossed that customers are more likely to vote for real images. I can understand your frustration. You have conquered a great niche here, which was very difficult (I could not do it at all) to imitate. Now any dork can do it 
174
« on: March 27, 2023, 11:46 »
Product photography. For new products. AI can't replace it.
You are more optimistic than I am. You can upload a snapshot cell phone photo to midjourney, give it instructions and it will create something for you. No product photographer needed.
I don't think it would work for product photography yet, because MJ doesn't do texts and writes in its own alien language, so every product packing with text on it would not work and I don't think it can really completely reproducing an object yet, just another version of it, but it's absolutely something I can imagine for the future: Just take a snapshot of your product, upload it to MJ and tell MJ "make me a beautiful advertisement shot" and voil!
But besides this, I did actually start looking for other jobs, but it's not like someone is searching for a product photographer anywhere in my area. As said, I am not considered as "trained" with my university degree since I did not work in that field for 15+ years and the only very few job offers where being trained wasn't a requirement were not an option for me for various other reasons, like not having a driver's license.
I though portrait photography might be one that would always be in demand, but I've already seen sites where you can send in a couple of cell phone selfies and it will create 100 of professional looking portrait photographes with your face. 
Firn, are you noticing a decline in sales already now, or is your concern more about the near future?
175
« on: March 26, 2023, 05:36 »
Her Ugliness, there are few things more squalid and pathetic than explaining a joke to someone who missed the punchline. Do you really want me to do that, or would you rather give it another go?
RalfLiebhold, I'm afraid you missed a slight hepatomegalia, an asymmetric sphenoid, the navel being displaced a quarter of an inch to the right and, worse still, the split corpus callosum causing her somewhat lost expression.
Oh, and I assumed that the supernumerary fing... erh, cuban cigar was the parasol handle, poor me!
I usually spend quite some time and toil on Photoshop to remove/correct those AI's hiccups (and that's probably why my works are rather well-accepted and profitable), but in this case it would have been worse than straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa...
Stopped looking after 6 errors, I'm sure there's more screwed up It may be because you don't necessarily know each other very well in a forum like this and actually have to admit that I missed the joke behind it too. That reassures me because I really like your posts and examples on the subject so far. Also, I must confess that it took me an alarmingly long time to register the third arm. Somehow you don't expect something like that.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
