|
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 - Big Toe
26
« on: February 19, 2024, 16:10 »
I am seeing more reports of new subscriptions being added instead of extending existing subs. Since it's a holiday in the US, many folks are off today. If you haven't already redeemed your code, and you have an active subscription. I recommened holding off until I can confirm whether there is an issue or not.
Thanks for your patience,
Mat Hayward
Hello Mat, how long will take until the codes expire, if they are not redeemed? The code I currently use runs until October 1 this year. If it looks like extending the period is problematic, I would just keep the new code until then and only use it, when the old one runs out.
27
« on: February 06, 2024, 18:49 »
In addition to what has already been said:
I also had a number of rejected editorial images and the rejection note lists several possible reasons, one of which may be relevant:
"- Die Datei hatte kein starkes redaktionelles Konzept."
(The file did not have a strong editorial concept)
Of course this is highly subjective. Perhaps the reviewer did not recognize MGM as an important brand.
28
« on: February 05, 2024, 10:56 »
This is modern slavery without any transparency. I
As unfair as our relationship with the agencies may be, it should not be compared to slavery. If we do not like the arrangements, we can just walk away and take our images with us. Slaves do not have this option.
29
« on: January 24, 2024, 03:37 »
Appreciate if anyone who had encountered a similiar scenario to shed some lights on this matter or to direct me who i can contact with to seek a solution to this matter? Thanks.
I had this problem once in the past with a number of images. It helped to make some changes to the keywords (add or remove one or more keywords, I am not sure whether changing the order would have been enough). This solved the problem, probably because it forced the system to reindex the images.
31
« on: December 30, 2023, 18:45 »
Can I sell my portfolio of 5k stock images to someone for a lumpsum price and remove it from my portfolio so they can sell it?
In theory, it is possible, but there are quite a few problems. The person, who buys the images has to upload them again, which may cost a considerable amount of time, the images may not all be accepted again and they certainly lose their search positions. All these issues combined mean that you will probably get considerably less money for the images than you would get in the future by selling them yourself. Also the person who buys the images would have to trust you that are no legal pitfalls in your portfolio and the images do not violate anybody's intellectual property.
32
« on: December 11, 2023, 08:01 »
Each page has 100 results and in this example you have 4 pages of video results for - Scorpion
Fly. How many pages would you be willing to search through to get the right footage?
Beacuse page 1 of 4 has .... 66% of the results which are not even insects. Birds, fish, food, and dragons. Many are insects which arent a scorpion fly
It is tragic - https://streamable.com/p5rhgo
And that was just the video results.
The search results are actually not that bad. Most of the top results actually feature scorpion flies. You can filter out the unwanted results by putting your search terms in quotations marks: "scorpion fly". Then you get only 33 results but almost all the results show scorpion flies. You can also search with the scientific name for the family Panorpidae or the most common genus Panorpa. And if you search for scorpion fly in images and sort by relevance, the first page shows almost exclusively scorpion flies. If you switch to sort by new, then the first page looks quite different. So the algomrithm actually does a pretty good jobs to show the relevant images first, when sort by relevance.
33
« on: November 30, 2023, 10:58 »
There are nearly 300 autumn leaves pictures in this contributor's genAI portfolio - all perfectly pleasant, but lots of repetitive material, not to mention all the other similar non genAI images already in the collection.
At least the AI has been very creative. Many images show new species hitherto unknown to mankind. For example this image: https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/maple-leaf-red-autumn-sunset-tree-background/657755682The leaves are somewhat reminiscent of maple, the fruits look more like hawthorn. Star Trek meets botany: We are Maple! Hawthorn will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!
34
« on: November 23, 2023, 11:14 »
I have prepared two examples from my account via screenshot (see below) and wonder if these pictures describe a specific event or if the title is general enough.
One image of those has already been accepted, one image was submitted before the new rule came into force and of course some of the keywords do refer in some kind to actual events in the world, but not a specific event in the title.
Well, you use "Gaza" and "Gaza strip" as keywords for an image that was AI generated, if I understand you correctly and was therefor certainly not taken in Gaza and the keywords are strongly misleading at best. I would not use them, whether it may be a loophole in the current guidelines or not. Also, what does this picture have to do with tourism? Regarding the second picture: It does not look at all like any picture of actual climate blockades I have seen. Who could have use for such a fake image, unless someone buys it by mistake, thinking it displays an actual event ?
35
« on: November 23, 2023, 11:12 »
Double post
36
« on: November 11, 2023, 10:51 »
I was always under the impression that most agencies do not allow upscaling. Am I mistaken there or has this changed with AI?
37
« on: October 05, 2023, 05:59 »
Yes, bananas are clearly very important to Adobe, so they are probably the next big thing. Perhaps the year of the banana is approaching in some calendar.
Therefor, we should all produce more images of bananas, lest we miss out when the demand for banana images will skyrocket.
yes,in fact in the near future everyone will only buy images of bananas,so it's better to be prepared! 
Maybe you'd better think about it,for what purpose can all these images,which include various environments,be used?offices, bedrooms,living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens... and much more!
Fair point. However, I guess the more various environments and settings you use for the banana images, the more effort it will be, will it not? And if you have access to so many environments suitable for stock photos, have you not used them already for that purpose?
38
« on: October 05, 2023, 02:57 »
Injusticeforall, you said you estimate to complete the task in 6 days full time job. Where are you from that you feel comfortable making $300 a week?
I am from one of the most expensive countries in the world:Italy.
yes,300 usd in 6 days of working from home,and friends home,in complete autonomy and freedom,is fine for me,but also because these photos of bananas can also be processed and added in my portfolio,because they are not just about bananas,but also about environments,kitchens,dining rooms and more,much more!
Yes, bananas are clearly very important to Adobe, so they are probably the next big thing. Perhaps the year of the banana is approaching in some calendar. Therefor, we should all produce more images of bananas, lest we miss out when the demand for banana images will skyrocket.
39
« on: September 23, 2023, 18:20 »
I wouldn't say completely anecdotal as the company I work for, a $3B company, uses AI almost exclusively....and it's a huge marketing driven company. I was able to pluck the robin image she did for me. It looks pretty good. Here is the link to the full Rez image she built. I mean honestly, nobody can predict what pivots AI will take, but since I'm seeing current state with a pretty big graphically driven company, it's at least an indicator of what's happening, or beginning to happen. I do think much of your post has merit. I'm just seeing someone who is very good with keywords and A.I. create many incredible interior designs, exterior home scapes , etc. I can't believe she'd be the only one doing this as a means to support an annual marketing budget of $20 million. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zylpx3ikxdh3gonmb2p14/MicrosoftTeams-image.png?rlkey=l4mrpfv626ewwsy5sg4t6a1br&dl=0
The picture is aesthetically pleasing and most people will recognize it as a robin, but a lot of the details are wrong. Here is how it should look like: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Erithacus_rubecula_with_cocked_head.jpgNote for example that the beak of the real thing is blackish or dark grey, rather than partly orange. On the other hand, the lower part of the forehead should be orange. And so on. So it comes down to the question whether customers are fine with using images of birds that have some resemblance to the real thing, but are really fantasy products.
41
« on: September 01, 2023, 05:03 »
As far as I see an extended licence allows the user to use your image on things like T-Shirts,mugs etc.
Supposing they buy an extended licence from Adobe Stock,can my image still be on sale with the other stock sites too or does an extended licence mean that you grant for example Adobe Stock exclusivity?
Extended licences have nothing to do with exclusivity. They just give the customer more right to use in a calendar, or as you said on a T-Shirt and some agencies require extended licences for higher print runs (or least they used to do). So unless the image is exclusive in the first place, for example because you are exclusive at iStock or have exclusive images at Stocksy or some other agency, you can continue to sell the image elsewhere. Sometimes you here about buyout sales, where you get a lot more money and then have to remove the image from all agencies, but in that case, the agencies usually reach out to the contributor with an offer made by a customer, which the contributor can then accept or decline.
42
« on: August 31, 2023, 14:58 »
Some locations - oil refineries, factories, research labs, outer space - are hard to access for stock photographs.
Outer space is another area, where you probably won't get very authentic images with AI, but where I could imagine a large demand for fantasy images, for example impressive space nebulae, or planets with two moons and stuff like that for science fiction stories.
43
« on: August 31, 2023, 14:43 »
Given that reviewers can't be expected to know the innards of a whole variety of factories or industrial processes either, I'd argue that points towards disallowing this type of content altogether
What kind of content specifically do you want to ban? Pictures from inside factories? Or everything where it is hard to get access? I think it is a general problem that the AI pictures do not show the reality, but some fantasy that may or may not have some resemblance to reality. It is just more obvious in some cases, but I am not sure that it is possible to pin point the areas where the deviations are particularly problematic, beyond the existing rules that AI pictures should not show specific places or specific brands. AI pictures are probably generally unusable to illustrate newspaper articles or anything else where some level of authenticity is required. If an agency wants to allow AI content at all, they should make very clear, which images are AI generated lest some customer mistakes them for the real thing. If you ban specific content like the inside of factories, then where would you stop? Someone in this forum reported experimenting with AI generated underwater scenes, with the AI just inventing species, so you would have to ban that content, too. On the other hand, some people may not care about specific species and are just looking for some fantasy underwater world. So it is problably better to make sure that the customer can tell the fantasy from the realtity instead of banning the fantasy.
44
« on: August 29, 2023, 14:43 »
...
No worries. Buyers will fix them to make them make sense. At least these are not copyright/trademark violations. Reviewer AI clearly cant distinguish 6 fingers, 3 arms, 3 legs and other weird images.
and, nitpicking, but this unsupported staircase, is possible - while scary i've used such in Turkey & India
An unsupported staircase may be possible, however, in this case, the transition between the lower part and the higher part does not seem right. The devil is in the details.
45
« on: July 28, 2023, 13:18 »
The car that I bought, and was advertised as a shiny car driving to smooth city traffic against flashy buildings, while reality is more like getting stuck in shabby neighborhoods.
...
After all, on every advertisement there's a small notice: real product might differ from advertised product.
Most people understand that they buy just the car, not the neigbourhood. However, if the picture of the car they order looks like a Porsche and what they get looks more like a Volkswagen, they might get cranky.
46
« on: July 27, 2023, 11:08 »
One month after the OP, the Adobe Stock genAI collection (tagged; there are more that are not) is over 12 million - 12,004,534
We can celebrate by making a yummy fruit smoothie - although I'm really afraid of this mixer...
The mixer is clearly Borg and in the process of assimilating the kitchen. Resistance is futile!
47
« on: July 05, 2023, 11:01 »
Now, what could possibly be more lucrative than an infinite amount of money per hour?
You cannot have it both ways. Either you are doing stock photos because it is what you love, without financial considerations and then what does it matter that something else would earn you more money, when it is just a hobby?
Obviously that's absurd. It is a logical tool used to prove that the Jensen hypothesis is flawed.
My point is that Time is never free. Time costs money even when you do something you enjoy.
Time is probably our most expensive resource, and it must be accounted for.
Think about this:
Would you swap your life with Warren Buffet - one of the richest and most respected people in the world?
Or with a person with only 100 USD in her/his pocket?
Buffet is 92. The poor person is 18.
Doesn't your example show the opposite of what you claim? Obviously, there is no equivalency between money and time. Buffet cannot buy himself more time with his money (or only to a limited degree with better healthcare) and the 18 year old person cannot necessarily monetize the years they have ahead of them.
48
« on: July 05, 2023, 09:55 »
Sure thing.
Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.
This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
Well, I guess you can see it that way. I would question, though, whether it makes sense for you to calculate an hourly rate at all, since in your case, you seem to be enjoying windfall profits for basically doing nothing, similar to winning the lottery. You would not usually calculate an hourly rate for that either.
Not really, I am not doing "nothing", I am spending TIME on this lucrative hobby. But time is not free. Time is money.
Time may be taken away from doing some even more lucrative business.
Or from learning a new skill than may pay back much more in the future.
Or simply, time is taken away from the family. I am sure that many of us know well how many times our partners were upset with the amount of time we spent on this passion.
Now, what could possibly be more lucrative than an infinite amount of money per hour? You cannot have it both ways. Either you are doing stock photos because it is what you love, without financial considerations and then what does it matter that something else would earn you more money, when it is just a hobby? Or else, you do stock fotografy, or at least parts of it for the money and then you can calculate your earning per hour, either considering all time invested or only the time you would invest anyway, if you would not earn anything, because it is your hobby. Not accounting for ALL the time spent doing this work, while claiming that money is falling from the sky at a rate of $348/hour (only to impress people), because only the keywording time matters, is a fallacy.
Anyway, it will be also interesting to see a tax return from Mr. Jensen, to understand if he truly claimed zero expenses, for this business. I have my doubts here, but even so, what I said above remains a fact: time is money.
Allt hat being said, the $348/hour is a different story. Even if we accept the premises for the calculations, I have some trouble believing the claim that Doug can process and keyword a file in five minutes. But that is a different issue.
49
« on: July 04, 2023, 19:17 »
Sure thing.
Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.
This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
Well, I guess you can see it that way. I would question, though, whether it makes sense for you to calculate an hourly rate at all, since in your case, you seem to be enjoying windfall profits for basically doing nothing, similar to winning the lottery. You would not usually calculate an hourly rate for that either.
50
« on: July 04, 2023, 16:56 »
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!
Dougs calculations can make sense under certain conditions. Let's say you are taking pictures or videos just as a hobby and are just returning from a cruise to Anarctica and Patagonia where you took a lot of great pictures of penguins, albatrosses, orcas, icebergs, mountains and whatnot. Now someone tells you that you can earn money by offering those pictures at agencies on the Internet. Then you can try to calculate whether the money you can earn is worth your time to process, keyword and upload the pictures. You don't have to take into account the time it took to take pictures, because you already have the pictures and you will probably never earn enough to cover the costs of your trip anyway. If you are doing this as a business, you cannot calculate that way, though. Even if you enjoy every aspect of the work, even the keywording. Because the day has only so many hours and even if you enjoy yourself the whole time you need to make a certain amount of money per hour to cover your expanses and the cost of living. Otherwise, you cannot do it as a business, at least not without other sources of money.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
