|
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 - SimonSays
26
« on: January 30, 2025, 12:44 »
You need to check every day and post your current weekly rank here, every day. If nothing changes just post the same meaningless nonsense over again with the time and day.
or I'll report you,if you don't like what I write don't read it!
Really? You would report someone who makes only a cynical remark on this 'look how my position is' topic?
You probably ran crying to the teacher when you were young and tell on children who were not overly nice to you.
I never reported anyone,even though I probably should have,because some people like you are really ignorant.
You are the last person who should talk,after what you told me,after I had done absolutely nothing,and despite what you told me,I didn't report you.
Unfortunately in this forum there are ignorant and presumptuous people like you,fortunately not all,there are also many intelligent and educated people,who write interesting things.
and this is the reason why I have stayed until now,because here there are also people with whom I can joke and have a civil conversation,about microstock or otherwise.
and now we're done?
what else do you want?a lollipop? 
Then don't threaten with it if you don't follow through. And because you asked, just one more thing. Can you swear on your parents grave you did not have a peek at your sales on Adobe? You are so obsessed with your sales that I can hardly believe you have not looked all this time 
27
« on: January 29, 2025, 14:58 »
You need to check every day and post your current weekly rank here, every day. If nothing changes just post the same meaningless nonsense over again with the time and day.
or I'll report you,if you don't like what I write don't read it!
Really? You would report someone who makes only a cynical remark on this 'look how my position is' topic? You probably ran crying to the teacher when you were young and tell on children who were not overly nice to you.
28
« on: January 29, 2025, 14:49 »
And for camera content there are other agencies with normal queues.
Ok, so then it's ok for Adobe to have queues for months while other agencies review in days. I don't think so. It's a shame that Adobe who did before, as all other agencies, accept actual photos for their platform now suddenly has review times of months while it was days. I think it's totally unacceptable. If they wanted to do AI they should have hired more reviewers to do that work and not let it to impact the old normal flow of business. It looks like they are overwhelmed, don't know what they are doing and have no clue how to solve it. There is no excuse and they don't even bother to make one.
29
« on: January 26, 2025, 03:10 »
Hello,
I have a collection of images from various unrelated shoots in December 2024, and I would like to submit them to iStock.
Can I consolidate these photos into a single batch, or must I submit each shoot as a separate batch? I prefer the former option, as it would simplify the submission process.
Your guidance on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
Wishing you a peaceful Sunday,
Daniel
I have done multiple submissions of one batch with unrelated photos and never had a problem. It also didn't affect rejection rate. So I would say, put them all in one batch. I would not make your batch too large though. Very large batches seems to take longer to review. So put a max of 30 in it or so. But that number is just a gut feeling.
30
« on: January 25, 2025, 01:51 »
Yes, no disagreement. MY point was, YOUR results or MY results, can't be applied to any theories or decisions by others that site A has better search or algorithm results, than site B, based on our personal experiences or our different types, styles or images.
The whole, which is best, is totally personal and subjective. 
I disagree, there is certainly a difference between the algorithms between the agencies. It's not the same and just differentiated because of personal experiences. They are in fact different which might suit ones personal expectations or not. So it's just the other way around I would say.
Which is best in your opinion and why?
Like I said before, personally I prefer the algorithms of SS and IS then that of AS. Somehow I sell a bigger part of my portfolio with these two agencies and with AS a much smaller part. Each photo submitted took quite some time to make, edit and submit. With AS, if it doesn't sell with a month, you rarely sell it later on. So you need to be lucky that a buyer will act in these 30 days and otherwise all your trouble was for nothing. With IS and SS I still can get first sales even if the photo was submitted three months ago or earlier.
31
« on: January 25, 2025, 01:36 »
Why does it matter if they sell illustrations, camera photo, ai photo, video, vectors...it is all media files. There is no reason for them to offer anything cheaper, because they will make less money.
SS was the one sprinting forward with low prices, not adobe.
And they have just "merged" with getty, so why should they lower prices now? Plus, they don't even take ai from producers, they have no ai collection. Maybe they will never offer an ai collection. Who knows? Perhaps keeping their collection ai free will be their main selling point?
It is possible the adobe collection will be 95% ai. So what?
The only thing that matters is how many of these files are competing with mine. There are so many niches with very little content.
Plus there is a gigantic hole in all things editorial, not just with video.
The main thing is to look at customers and what they need. Keep customers happy and you have sales.
Adobe offers the ability to exclude ai for those who want it, for instance for real locations or real food.
But that is all that is needed.
The customers are the main factor in the algos. There might be millions of files coming but the majority will just sink to the bottom forever.
Anyone who believes stock is over, the best decision is to look for alternatives.
I see loads of opportunities, so I keep uploading.
eta
If you think your travel niches are safe from competition...the pandemic is over...my city is already being overrun by massive amounts of travelers from asia, especially china.
They all have cameras and access to the internet.
The influx of editorial and travel content from anywhere on the globe will increase dramatically if more people from asia travel everyhwere by the millions.
So...nothing is safe...
All valid points. Well the future is very near. We will see what happens to the AI part of Adobe's collection and if it indeed will still be priced the same relatively in the coming two years or so.
32
« on: January 23, 2025, 17:45 »
Fully agree, which is why I am making camera video my main focus this year.
I disagree about prices falling for ai, agencies want a one price for everything model, and the majority still don't even take ai.
My sales are actually nicely split 50/50 between camera and ai, so however the algos swing I will always sell something.
There is no "outsourcing" because from the beginning a very large part of high quality stock has come from countries with much lower living costs.
We have been living with this competition forever and we are still here.
eta
the current influx of people doing ai with no background in stock...i think that will die down, because they are not making the money the youtubers promised.
it is the regular camera stock producers from asia or eastern europe that are making the best ai content.
I have to agree with Mike here. Although your sales might be 50/50 split for now between AI and real photography, it cannot stay that way. As you have seen AI photos have grown exponentially. From nothing to now 37% of Adobes stock and that in just a matter of a few years. In the end Adobe will have to make a choice how to evaluate AI sales versus real photo sales. Now it is the same but if AI make up 95% of their catalogue, then what? Needless to say with all the AI offerings, real images will come more desirable. AI prices will have to drop versus real photography. It would be strange if they would not make this exciting news flash later on
33
« on: January 23, 2025, 16:40 »
I think he is totally stressed out trying to do stock as a full time income.
But this is not the right business for everyone. For many it is best to keep stock as a part time side hustle while the main business is something else.
Then grow stock slowly over 10 years.
One small tip about making it in this dying business. AI is not the way as a Western person. AI can be made by anyone wherever they're from. It's just prompting and curating. The people that can do that are in the millions and they have the resources and the time. Worse is that any income that is generated by it will exceed much more then we in the western world will value it. Your dollar is way less then a dollar for someone like say in India. What they can't do however (generally speaking) is travel and make actual photos of those places they make with AI. Even though that actual photography is overly satuarated as well, it's still less competitive then the AI market. The AI market is just a no go if you want to get ahead. You can't seriously think you will do a better job then the other millions of people that have time and resources on their hands. And when some in these countries have a little success with AI, it will ignite a whole bunch of newbies trying as well. Lost cause, stick with real photography.
34
« on: January 23, 2025, 14:35 »
To me it often sounds like you believe your account is being "held back intentionally" by Adobe.
But i am probably misunderstanding.
No, you are not misunderstanding. This guy either praises Adobe all the way or accusing them to put a limit to his downloads. He is quite tiring if you ask me. One day Adobe is the best agency ever and he has all these plans how to grow his sales and the next day when things don't succeed it's because Adobe has this evil plan putting a ceiling on his sales. I would diagnose him as manic depressive but I am not a psychiatrist. The term cry-baby comes into mind as well.
35
« on: January 23, 2025, 14:24 »
Yes, no disagreement. MY point was, YOUR results or MY results, can't be applied to any theories or decisions by others that site A has better search or algorithm results, than site B, based on our personal experiences or our different types, styles or images.
The whole, which is best, is totally personal and subjective.
I disagree, there is certainly a difference between the algorithms between the agencies. It's not the same and just differentiated because of personal experiences. They are in fact different which might suit ones personal expectations or not. So it's just the other way around I would say.
36
« on: January 23, 2025, 02:16 »
Anyone have a clue why Getty just sent me 0.24$ to my PayPal? (I didn't reach the payout this month).
You should have had an email stating: Pictoright Collective Licensing Payback 2024 H2. It's a Dutch institution. Google it if you want more information.
37
« on: January 22, 2025, 11:56 »
Can't agree either. Adobe seems a lottery to me. Something takes off and becomes a bestseller based on sales for a very short time and otherwise it dissapears in oblivion.
With SS and IS photos have a longer period to been seen and bought somehow. Consequence is that on SS and IS a much larger part of my portfolio is getting sold and on Adobe only a relative small part. So, in all I prefer the algorithm more on SS and IS then on AS.
For the customer I can also imagine that they have less choice. Always the same photos on top because of the algortihm (when relevance is chosen). Almost nobody wants to go beyond page three obviously, if they make it already past page one or the first five rows that is.
38
« on: January 18, 2025, 16:30 »
I have another theory about whats happening, especially on Adobe. I wont go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, Ive seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated contentimages and videos that look suspiciously similar to the top-selling ones on the platform.
Of course, last year, we got paid quite a bit because they "trained" their AI using our images. But what really worries me is the possibility that these accounts aren't real people, but rather fake company-run accounts, designed to grab all the earnings from contributors who actually put in the work and figured out what sells.
Through AI, they could be generating almost identical content under these fake profiles to compete with and replace real contributors. If thats the case, they wouldnt just be profiting from AItheyd be cutting us out entirely.
I really hope these accounts belong to independent people who are simply analyzing top-selling content and artificially copying it. Because if they are actually company-run accounts, created to take even more of our earnings, it would be a massive disappointmentespecially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
At this point, I have to agree with you on the whole.
There seem to be accounts that specifically copy bestsellers with the help of AI and fill the entire account with them. In another forum, someone explained how this is technically possible on a large scale.
Maybe he will explain it here.
Because I'm not very good at this sort of thing, I can't reproduce it here.
But it has nothing to do with Adobe.
Wow! That's interesting...! 
Hmmm, I think we missed a big business opportunity here. Too late now, I guess?
39
« on: January 18, 2025, 14:51 »
Its rare to see reviews as uniformly poor, even for stock sites.
Did a fact check in 10 seconds. Adobe the same negative picture.
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/stock.adobe.com
No this can't be true. Adobe is the best company in the world that only spreads love and is only here to support creative people, be it a contributor or customer. They can never have a bad review. That can not exist. You must have visited a fraudelent website or it's just the evil competitors writing all this negative reviews. Must be. C'mon man, it's Adobe we are speaking hereof (I will praise Adobe at all times).
40
« on: January 18, 2025, 10:52 »
Bizarrely, a swathe of GI Single Asset sales, all of the same subject, for 6c per download (each sold twice, so 12c). No idea what went on there, as GI Single Assets normally sell for much more - though I had one for 3c once. 
Were those sales by any chance coming from Japan and purchased in two days (25th and 26th of December)?
First sales on 20th and 21st Dec, 2nd sales of all on 26th Dec, and all from Japan. Subject: sea mammals
Same here. 7 photos of seals bought twice for $0.045 commission a piece. All GI Single Asset (RF Image). It was through partner portal, COO Agent, it says.
41
« on: January 18, 2025, 02:01 »
Bizarrely, a swathe of GI Single Asset sales, all of the same subject, for 6c per download (each sold twice, so 12c). No idea what went on there, as GI Single Assets normally sell for much more - though I had one for 3c once.
Were those sales by any chance coming from Japan and purchased in two days (25th and 26th of December)?
42
« on: January 17, 2025, 17:02 »
So, forget all the Behance videos from Adobe or advice that Mat Hayward gave us about only submitting your best work. There is a new sherrif in town in Adobe city and they want all your crappy shootings because otherwise you will not meet the upload target next year. It's like this 15 year old Italian guy said, it might be 200 (or 300 next year, couldn't follow exactly what he was saying) but count on a thousand. And maybe even more because review times are so slow that even if you put in 2000, maybe only a 100 or so will be reviewed and accepted this year. So no matter your sales and how much you earn for Adobe, get your upload numbers in order and send in all your crap, AI or not. Maybe even make it 5000, just to be sure 
43
« on: January 16, 2025, 15:24 »
You don't know anything about this problem,so don't be such a know-it-all!
Ne ache tu lo sai la verita. But in reality it's you that pretends to know it all, with your excuses for Adobe. Can't say I heard anything saying by them that this is the reason but you just make it up as if this is why they did it. But please tell me what do you think is fair and real? Upload or download numbers for getting the bonus? Spammers or people bringing in the money for Adobe?
44
« on: January 16, 2025, 13:36 »
If the merger goes as planned, GETY / SSTK will have 70% of the photo market. Because of the archives and the collections, they will also control some specific images. If they are the biggest and most complete agency, combined, they can also control the prices for their images.
Canva can't offer those images, and the free sites can't either. Some of Adobes images, might be unique as artists have stopped supplying IS and SS.
Interesting post by someone who knows: https://petapixel.com/2025/01/12/stock-photographys-crossroads-can-a-getty-shutterstock-merger-fix-it/
AI: The Elephant in the Room
"To stay relevant, Getty/Shutterstock must find ways to better integrate AI capabilities into their platforms."
Precisely, in an oligopoly where competitors will not compete until death/ equal money, the chances of raising prices instead of lowering them will increase. This situation might just work and hopefully also for us, the contributors.
45
« on: January 16, 2025, 13:30 »
Funny that some people here are fantasizing about excuses for Adobe.
Bottom line is that after years of a minimum upload limit for this bonus they put the bar suddenly a lot higher. And that seems really a business decision to cut costs as much as possible.
It would have been more fair to raise the download limit if in effect they would have had more downloads that year in relation to the previous year. But now it seems they can just cut out a large group that are in effect making money for them and had earned the bonus fair and square.
So yes, not a nice move from Adobe.
I'm not paying for CC in the future. If this plan was to get more of us, who have a free photo editing subscription, to pay, it's not going to change anything for many of us.
I appreciated the thought and the free subscription, but Adobe CC photo editing wasn't a necessity.
Me too, I get the full all apps plan (discounted that is) because it's cheaper then a LR+PS plan and a seperate PR subscription. I need exactly those three apps, don't care about the other apps.
46
« on: January 16, 2025, 11:58 »
Funny that some people here are fantasizing about excuses for Adobe.
Bottom line is that after years of a minimum upload limit for this bonus they put the bar suddenly a lot higher. And that seems really a business decision to cut costs as much as possible.
It would have been more fair to raise the download limit if in effect they would have had more downloads that year in relation to the previous year. But now it seems they can just cut out a large group that are in effect making money for them and had earned the bonus fair and square.
So yes, not a nice move from Adobe.
47
« on: January 15, 2025, 10:04 »
iStock is paying 15% flat commissions to photo contributors. SS currently is paying 15% to 40%.
But ... the IS percentage is on the selling price of the image, the SS percentage is on the cost of the customer's subscription.
If a customer has a subscription of 100 USD per month for 100 photos and downloads 25 of them, the contributor earns:
Shutterstock
- 100USD/100 photos * 15% = 0.15 cents
Istock
- 100USD/25 photos (those downloaded) *15% = 0.60 cents
Shutterstock knew very well the rate of use of its subscriptions and therefore moved its entire business from on-demand sales to subscriptions. In this way it increased its earnings significantly.
Precisely, that's why I like Istock better and have no problem waiting for a month to see for which amount something was sold and the calculation of the commission. Because their system is much more fair then what SS and AS do, namely giving you commission based on all the possible downloads that the client can do with their subscription.
48
« on: January 14, 2025, 09:33 »
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding salesbut is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
Not here. Slightly up for SS in regard to last year around this time. IS doing well also. It's Adobe who is lagging substantially for me.
49
« on: January 13, 2025, 16:47 »
Guess who is going to pay for the merge..
Stockholders mostly. Shutterstock is now even down before the merger announcement and Getty's just slightly up. But nowhere near the bump they saw when the merger was announced. Almost looks like a pump and dump scenario in a last desperate action of the company owners that had some shares to sell. You know, share news that might bump your stock and then get rid of it quickly and cash in before the ship sinks.
50
« on: January 13, 2025, 16:37 »
Adobe's thoughts are likely elsewhere - focused on the builk of their business and the role investors see AI playing in the company's future earnings. Adobe Stock is not a significant factor in that drama - it's all about monetizing AI add-ons to Creative Cloud subscriptions and banishing thoughts about all those subscriptions vanishing as creatives are replaced by AI tools.
Exactly that. Stock is just a minor part of operations for Adobe. As a user of their apps I get spammed using AI and using photos that I can I adjust with all these new features they have. Remove something, add something, add a person, change the background, change the sky. In the end the buyer doesn't need an AI generated photo by a contributor, they just need a good base to start from and add whatever they like with just a few clicks. And those people that hold the Adobe subscriptions, to whatever the product they sell, are their clients not just the clients who buy ready to use images for copy and paste.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
