|
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
26
« on: October 12, 2024, 13:00 »
2400 selected I will not accept a single one.
Not fair to have the same videos for sale on other sites and here for free.
Hear hear! $8 is a complete kick in the noids and so disrespectful. I am surprised there are contributors desperate enough to sell out for a pitiful $8. I am worth more than that and so is my content.
27
« on: September 27, 2024, 11:45 »
If a man says something in the forest and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?
28
« on: September 27, 2024, 08:35 »
I don't bother submitting to Adobe any more. The review process takes far too long and the rejections for "quality issues" are a joke. I've better things to do with my time than waste it on a lengthy and inconsistent process.
It is the inconsistencies for "quality issues" that I find most bothersome. The second most bothersome is that most of my editorial work is immediately accepted and there are absolutely no "quality issues" with those images. I can deal with the wait in inspection times. It's the batch rejections that I know are more than fine backed by the fact they are accepted at a few other noted agencies and the content does sell on those noted agencies. It's the baseless and senseless batch rejections that make me feel I too am wasting my time.
29
« on: September 26, 2024, 10:45 »
I love Adobe. You wait for over three months to have a batch rejection because none of you work meets their quality standards but the very same images have been accepted and are selling on other sites. It's frustrating to say the least.
30
« on: September 19, 2024, 11:35 »
When Adobe announced Adobe Firefly in March 2023, we shared that we are developing generative AI responsibly, with creators at the center.
In addition to your regular stock licensing revenue which covers Firefly training, we want to recognize your contributions through our second-ever Adobe Stock contributor bonus.
The 2024 bonus is based on photos, vectors, or illustrations approved between June 3, 2023, and June 2, 2024, as well as, for the first time, the all-time number of videos approved through June 2, 2024, and the number of licenses that all those assets generated in the same 12-month period.
A banner on the Insights>My Statistics tab in the Contributor portal provides the specific amount that was added to your account.
We plan to base potential subsequent bonuses on new approved assets and licenses they generate annually.
We have put together an FAQ here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/firefly-faq-for-adobe-stock-contributors.html
Can you please update us on the reason inspection times are so painfully long? There has been nada in the form of communication. 2-3 months is a bit over the top.
31
« on: September 18, 2024, 13:36 »
Adobe announces inspection times within one year. Hurrah!!!
32
« on: September 13, 2024, 14:50 »
Adobe Review Time: Non-Existing.
Do they even review anymore? Are they even accepting new content? Should we continue to upload content?
Some sort of communication would go a long way.
33
« on: September 11, 2024, 09:50 »
Maybe they just have the idea that selling AI images is not necessarily linked to a remuneration of contributors busy generating them. It's obvious, we are only living in a transitional moment. Microstock agencies will become largely autonomous. Doing without contributor royalties, a good deal for them!
You really have to be blind to yourself not to be aware of this.
This is why, oddly enough, the future is maybe better assured for photographers producing quality and authentic subjects than for AI prompters, which will quickly be replaced by autonomous systems.
In any case, the good times are inexorably at our backs.
I tend to agree. The new trick with Adobe is to get us to use five words to describe an image just to login. My bet going forward for most stock images (not all) is that when one searches for "ripe organic red merlot grape" as an example then an image will automatically be generated by Adobe and others in the future so that they can feed of our content and not pay us a royalty going forward. It'll take a few years yet, but that is the direction its going in.
Sure! others already took the direction:
In a few seconds at 123rf, zero royalty paid to anyone:
and the 3 apples are offered! 
As they write in the numerous emails they sent: "✨Stop Scrolling, Start Generating✨"
And Shutterstock offer, zero royalty paid either. Customer pays $0.015 per image:
If you know your grapes, most of those are not merlot. Especially the one with the three apples.
34
« on: September 10, 2024, 19:07 »
Maybe they just have the idea that selling AI images is not necessarily linked to a remuneration of contributors busy generating them. It's obvious, we are only living in a transitional moment. Microstock agencies will become largely autonomous. Doing without contributor royalties, a good deal for them!
You really have to be blind to yourself not to be aware of this.
This is why, oddly enough, the future is maybe better assured for photographers producing quality and authentic subjects than for AI prompters, which will quickly be replaced by autonomous systems.
In any case, the good times are inexorably at our backs.
I tend to agree. The new trick with Adobe is to get us to use five words to describe an image just to login. My bet going forward for most stock images (not all) is that when one searches for "ripe organic red merlot grape" as an example then an image will automatically be generated by Adobe and others in the future so that they can feed of our content and not pay us a royalty going forward. It'll take a few years yet, but that is the direction its going in.
35
« on: September 09, 2024, 14:09 »
Knock Knock. Who's there? Adobe. Adobe who? Adobe crickets.
I don't think I have ever experienced in my many years of total silence like this. C'mon Adobe please show just a bit of professional courtesy and inform us why it's taking so effin long to inspect our work.
Are you even accepting photography any more? Serious question. 2-3 months to inspect content is beyond ridiculous.
36
« on: September 04, 2024, 13:03 »
I don't think Adobe wants a huge shitstorm of angry graphic designers and photographers badmouthing Adobe all over the internet and recommending a switch to affinity photos. They are not stupid.
Keeping us happy is good for their business, Adobe is the only agency where we are also users and customers. Plus many of us have the client contacts to keep recommending Adobe to buyers.
Look at how Shutterstock lost clients after their disaster.
They even bought several agencies and client contracts for over 500 million dollars...and still the volume of customers and downloads has gone down.
How do you even do that???
And imagine if they had kept their royalty system and invested 500 million into marketing and a deeper connection with the buyer/client groups?
I am quite sure Adobe likes us happy. We are a great marketing tool and like to bring people to buy from our Adobe ports.
Affinity Photos, what a joke that was. It was a sinking ship before it even got started. It was nothing more than a bunch of egos.
37
« on: September 04, 2024, 12:54 »
Adobe Stock photo tip of the day: Shoot Christmas themed imagery in September 2024 and they will be on market by September 2025. Shoot back to school images now so that they will be on the market by next school year.
38
« on: September 04, 2024, 12:51 »
I would not be exclusive with any agency, none of them are worth it. I like Adobe but seriously their wait times for inspection are insane. Your images are out of date by the time they get around to approving them. That is bad mojo. That said, even submitting to a half a dozen agencies still barely cover the expenses if at all. It is not a growth industry for the contributor and it will only become worse over time. Throwing all your eggs in one basket in this climate is fiscal suicide.
39
« on: August 06, 2024, 13:52 »
The bigger question.... Buying your prints.... Worthwhile?
40
« on: August 06, 2024, 13:48 »
As annoying as it is nothing is going to change, so constantly moaning and whining is not going to help. Does it really make or break the bank if you wait for a few months to have an edit?
41
« on: May 24, 2024, 18:02 »
Adobe is a corporation. Never forget this, ever. Adobe has never had your best interests in mind. To think otherwise is foolish. Adobe has their eyes locked on to the future and sadly photographers are not really part of the plan, or designers for that matter. I see more and more imagery that is AI in both advertising and editorial. Photography as a career is at the Check Mate stage of the industry. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it is the truth. If you want to make money in photography, sell you equipment and put the money into Adobe stock. Maybe if you ask nice enough they will give you a share for $5.
42
« on: May 09, 2024, 12:58 »
iStock Exclusive is better than Abode.
Honestly, I never thought I would hear that from you. Does that mean you went back to being exclusive?
43
« on: April 21, 2024, 12:14 »
Back in the day.... Oh boy, where do I begin?
Traditional stock was very competitive and you really had to have skills to get in. Shooting on transparency slides took skill with no room for error, none. It was very expensive to shoot. You had to be a true professional with consistent quality to get into any agency, big or small. Being rejected was normal. It took me a few attempts to get into an agency. If you did get accepted into an agency then you had to go through the acceptance that 90%-95% of you work was rejected by an editor which again was normal. If you made it to this point it was a very rewarding career.
Then came along microstock which was full of amateur hacks that were self applauding and part of some special group or in their words a community. They were convinced that selling photos for pennies in volume was the future. Look where that got them. There would be forums filled on topics of rejection and crying because they got rejected. If you will, consider microstock to be the 'woke' of photography. Everybody gets a prize for showing up. I joined microstock with all of my rejected images from the likes of The Image Bank and Tony Stone Images (both got bought out by Getty) and my Getty Images rejects. This in turn turned into another rewarding source of income, not a career. The logic of microstock was not sustainable in any way, and the results show in todays market. If one spoke like this years ago, which I did, then you were a bitter old trad as the cool kids would say. Alas, experience won out and I can now say "I told you so". What did they expect with a shotgun approach for selling photos with a zero barrier to entry and zero editing?
At the end of the day, I'd prefer to go back to the old ways of getting rejected to build your own skill level to hopefully be able to compete with equal talent levels in creating images. Today your work gets lost in the zillions of mediocre crap that does sell based on an algorithm provided your metadata is good. I currently get 98% of my work accepted unless something wonky goes on in the process. I have some seriously crap images that I upload and they sell like crazy, whereas in the old days I would not have even considered submitting the image and let an editor review it.
I am glad I had my career when I did. I still shoot as it's an old habit. I still travel pretty much full time but I am now an incidental photographer as opposed to working it hard to create great content. It is no longer worth the time or expense to be gung ho about it. I no longer pack all the gear to travel and shoot. I no longer am in a rush to edit and do the post production to submit. Each and every agency is about profit for them with no real concern for the content producer. In effect we are all expendable and no photographers absence will break any agency no matter how inflated your ego is.
44
« on: October 22, 2023, 15:59 »
I just took a look at your site. As usual I did a search in my area of knowledge and only one image showed up and it was not footage of the search I typed. You will have to up your game if you expect talent to come on board.
45
« on: October 13, 2023, 09:11 »
There is no relationship with any agency. All agencies provide a platform to distribute your content and in exchange the platform gives you a small royalty and it's always on their terms. All agencies have a unilateral contract. We are all expendable. Those are the facts.
And the only way we can enjoy fair compensation for our work is to unionize. Period. Otherwise, online agencies will always be in control. Either you accept their terms and continue providing them with your images or you don't. That's the world we currently live in. We set-up our own agency and agree to providing OUR agency with images, clips and illustrations and no one else.
You lost me at "unionize" and "set-up our own agency". That said, why don't YOU set up an platform that provides better royalty rates and terms? Unfortunately the stock photo industry has gone from being a once viable and lucrative career to being a losing game career wise. I know this because I have seen the pendulum swing both ways. To think any agency is going to improve the situation you are fooling yourself. Sadly we are all at the mercy of corporate greed.
46
« on: October 12, 2023, 16:58 »
There is no relationship with any agency. All agencies provide a platform to distribute your content and in exchange the platform gives you a small royalty and it's always on their terms. All agencies have a unilateral contract. We are all expendable. Those are the facts.
47
« on: September 26, 2023, 09:29 »
The current review times at Adobe are a disgrace. Not to reminisce but back in the good old days before microstock and digital we used to package up our slides and send to the agency across the country or to another country by Fedex. The submission rejects would be returned usually within 2-3 weeks with a personal note from your editor. Surely a company like Adobe can do better than analog.
48
« on: September 14, 2023, 11:51 »
49
« on: September 13, 2023, 10:14 »
I am very concerned by the large payment I received (close to $700).
This means that my assets were heavily used to directly compete against myself.
We need a way to opt out from shooting ourselves in the foot for money.
You seem to forget this is not about you. Adobe is not shooting themselves in the foot at all. They are using your/our content to create their content for their benefit. Notice how much Adobe cares about your best interests... You can't opt out. Sadly we are all expendable. Adobe knows this, Shutterstock knows this, Getty knows this. This is not so different from the beginning of microstock when anyone who willingly submitted was shooting themselves in the foot whether they know it or not. If Adobe had any integrity they would let us opt out. And yes you can opt out, stop submitting and close your account. Or stay, Adobe has you/us over a barrel. Sadly it's the way of the world.
50
« on: August 27, 2023, 19:05 »
I agree. I think they way underestimated the number of AI submissions they'd get.
And that new pop-up checkbox just gives them a way out when accounts get suspended.
"Well, YOU checked that box, so....SUSPENDED!"
Mat should chime in, other than just regurgitating the official company policies and procedures, which apparently changes on a dime.
I don't think Mat has any say on this nonsense. Mat has an amazing track record for reaching out to contributors. I feel sorry for him in this current situation, he has always done a great job, but now I think his hands are tied. That said, if you have any suggestive powers Mat, perhaps you could pass on the discomfort far too many contributors have with the recent actions of Adobe. It's no longer a comfortable environment for too many of us. I am not one to have a hissy fit and threaten to close my account but I can say with certainty that I am debating to continue uploading to Adobe as the risks are far greater than the reward.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
