|
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 - SuperPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 47
451
« on: January 14, 2024, 00:29 »
Wondering if somebody will steal "your" AI images, how do you prove are yours, showing the tags you use to generate them? I honestly don't understand why a customer will pay for something that can be generated by anybody, not much skills is needed, just the right tool to do it for you.
Customer would use it because (a) it saves them time (they don't want to try and generate things), (b) it is 'more fun' to browse different concepts/ideas.
452
« on: January 14, 2024, 00:28 »
Why the final client have the right to use the image? Because the designer gives them.
Why the designer have the right to use the image? Because the stock agency gives them.
Why the stock agency have the right to sale the image? Because the stock stock photographer gives them.
Why the stock stock photographer have the right to sale the image? Because the AI image generator gives them.
Why the AI image generator owner have the right to sale the image? Because they have created this tool.
Why they have created this tool? Because they are smart and because we can not escape of the future and AI revolution.
Last point I strongly disagree with. "They" are not smart - "they" are thieves, using other peoples content, and using your own money (i.e., "taxes"/"inflation"/etc) to fund the theft of your work. Also - you can "escape" it, but that is not the right word either. It is not true "ai" - it is a sophisticated computer algorithm that steals & repackages other people's stolen works.
453
« on: January 13, 2024, 16:39 »
This sounds motivating although generating over 3000 images, upscaling and retouching are more time consuming than one thinks at the first glance. I would estimate at least between 3 and 5 hours of daily work to get 1000 images a month.
Hopefully the work will also pay off in the longer term and not only cover the Midjourney subscription but also the invested work time.
Since you've got now more experience than other users, would you say that image sales increase over time for the whole AI portfolio or only for some few bestsellers, which climbe the ranking ladder up and are more often shown to the customers?
And can you observe a special pattern in best selling motifs?
For example creative shots like business people with animal heads, which can't be created simple by classical photography?
Educated guess - I'd say a handful of people are doing "very well" (again, a relative term). I would make an educated guess maybe a couple hundred people (out of 10's of thousands of contributors) are doing perhaps maybe $2k+/month from this - although I am assuming they would have regular images/videos/etc that supplement that too. (And then of course, there are a couple "superstars" that I would estimate are making $10k+/month). I'd guess the majority though of the some (estimating) 10,000+ contributors are "maybe" making $50-$100/month, and every now and then one of them hits what they'd consider a "home run" (i.e., maybe making $100-$200 from a single image). But if you are doing this properly (i.e., taking time to upscale, remove artifacts, etc) - then for a western country - I do not believe the time required would be worth the investment, unless you have other ways of getting income from your generated assets as well, or doing it out of interest, for fun, etc, etc.
454
« on: January 13, 2024, 16:34 »
"waaay more" is relative. for some people, doubling their investment is "waay more". for others, getting like $1k is "waaay more". if you are in a poor country, maybe making $50 is "waaay more". that's why I am asking. what do you define as "waaay more"? So, it took 10 years to get 6,500 photos on Adobe Stock, but took only 3 months to add 3,000 AI generated photos on Adobe Stock. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
What is that "profit" wise though? Without a reference, it is difficult to make a decision, i.e., a bar chart of $2 is much different from a bar chart of $200 or $2000...
Did you read "I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. "?
455
« on: January 13, 2024, 11:43 »
So, it took 10 years to get 6,500 photos on Adobe Stock, but took only 3 months to add 3,000 AI generated photos on Adobe Stock. $120 x 3 months Midjourney cost is very well spent. I'll make way more than $120 in AI photo sales this month. Also, I'm lucky I got 3,000 AI photos accepted before the mass rejection trend started.
What is that "profit" wise though? Without a reference, it is difficult to make a decision, i.e., a bar chart of $2 is much different from a bar chart of $200 or $2000...
456
« on: January 13, 2024, 11:27 »
Interesting, I was wondering when they'd have a 'new' version out (it's still based on theft though, anyways, different topic). (a) Adobe was still doing massive rejections before that. I don't believe it has anything (really) to do with quality, because it seems depending who is reviewing it, sometimes stuff will get approved, and other times it won't. (b) Took a look at the quality of v6 (just a few simple tests) - some of the "photographic" shots do look more 'natural', but with other shots (i.e., not a standard type of pose "i.e., person standing smiling"), you still get some wierd artifacts, etc... It also seems to (inaccurately) "ban" certain types of prompts, i.e., if you said "beautiful woman wearing short outfit in summer" it would go crazy, because it didn't like the word "short" and figured it must be p0rn or something... Right now I suppose because "everyone" seems to be trying to "get rich quick" via selling "ai" images, it doesn't seem to really be all that beneficial now (i.e., LOTS of work for teensy tiny payout)... now I suppose with my workflow I still do edit images/make sure they 'look good' - and probably a lot of people don't care (just upload what is input, cut/paste blocks of keywords/etc)... I do it partially beacause I think it is fun/interesting - of course I'd like to make $$ from it, but if one is looking at getting "rich" from it (at least this way) I think a lot of work is involved... Of course, one can get 'lucky' and get one of the images to sell a lot (and maybe make a few hundred $$ from a single image)... The "get rich" method is by selling the TOOLS (i.e., midjourney), which the tool itself is based off of massive theft. Midjourney SHOULD pay out contributors in the same RECURRING fashion to the contributors they stole the work from. That may be coming later. They I believe are making several hundred MILLION in regular recurring income right now... Too bad that Adobe doesn't differentiate between the reasons for rejection.
Another trigger for strictness could also be that the reviewers are now only looking for the quality of Midjourney V6, which was released at the end of December and seems to have a considerable jump in quality:
https://mid-journey.ai/midjourney-v6-release/
Which AI engine do you use?
I'm too stingy for 48 to 60 bucks Midjourney's pro plan with stealth mode. I currently use a cheap provider with stable diffusion engine and various models/loras, who offers a private mode for 15 bucks / month without generative limitations.
457
« on: January 10, 2024, 15:19 »
It would nice to have a payment by cheque, or by 'e-cheque' (i.e., take a picture of a cheque and/or print off an e-mailed .pdf, and then deposit in your bank) option added... I.e., while I don't believe I personally used this company (I have used echeques in the past, don't recall which companies they were though), here is an example of one I found via google: https://checkbook.io/en-ca/product/payments/printable-cheques/
458
« on: December 27, 2023, 14:07 »
Merry Christmas!
459
« on: December 26, 2023, 19:59 »
Ouch, had a whole batch of AI images rejected - This never happened to me before. Real photos, yes, that has become the new normal, but with AI almost everything used to get accepted.
Looks like someone is very grumpy about having to work on Christmas.... 
seems like the weekend reviewers are grumpier, but yeah... that's what I've noticed too...
460
« on: December 23, 2023, 09:08 »
Okay. Yes i read this part.
No minor. Overweight man is adult and woman too.
If AI-image, no model release = account ban?
Overweight man = discrimination? Saw other images and videos after a quick search, online, so this should be okay. (?)
Maybe i just skip these topics. Still not 100% clear. Try & error (account gone) is maybe too risky for me.
There really needs to be a checkbox for things that you (I, and maybe everyone else) aren't sure about.
Adding a comment here: (a) Re: the "hypersensitivity" - I think most people have brains. It is the tell-a-vision via the blackrock/vanguard conglomerate/coalition controlling media outlets/etc which tries to promote and encourage the (insanely stupid) hyper-sensitivity, to try and cause division. (In addition they are using "money" to try and promote every sick type of perversion possible, from really sick obese deformed people in every gay/trans/multi-gender pick your pronoun soup/non normal type of relationship to try and attack families, and trying to 'normalize' that, as opposed to a healthy normal family unit. They basically want to 'control' people, so trying to do divide/conquer). Yes, I would say an overweight man eating a hamburger is fine... after all, usually that is what you see - you don't usually see an obese man eating a salad without salad dressing, unless he wants to get in shape. Maybe do both? Also - "discrimination" (that word) is being used incorrectly here... I think you mean "stereotype"? It is an accurate stereo-type. (b) Nudity, can't really comment on that... I tend to not go into that area, because I think there it is very subjective what could be considered 'artistic', and what could be considered 'porn'... And I think in most cases, people looking to download naked pictures of women generally speaking are not doing it for 'artistic' purposes... After all, if you go into google, or say a red light district, you don't normally see headlines of "XXX! ARTISTIC PORTRAITS OF WOMEN! ONLY $5 COVER CHARGE! ARTISTIC POSES!" 
461
« on: December 23, 2023, 08:58 »
There is a good noise reduction module in Davinci Resolve, studio version (paid), with both dynamic and static noise reduction options.
Better than Neatvideo?
Maybe yes, maybe no.
I didn't use NeatVideo to properly benchmark its capabilities.
What matters is that price-wise, there is no comparison: it's absurd to pay for a simple plugin like NeatVideo, more than half the price of the scary beast that is Davinci Resolve (studio version), which contains an excellent noise reduction module, able to satisfy all my low light video needs.
That's even worse if you also have to pay a monthly ~$60 subscription to access Adobe video tools.
If it produces good results, then I think it is worth paying for, and do agree with blvdone. Just the same way you want someone to pay for your photography - someone could just say "oh GEEZ, ANYONE can take a picture! pfft! why should you have to PAY when you can get the picture for FREE? pfft!"... well, because you have time, skill, expensive equipment, color correction, etc, etc that goes into making that fantastic picture and/or video... When I purchased it, yes I did find it a bit expensive, was hoping it would be more like $30-$40... but I paid the $150... And yes, if I remember correctly - I believe I did get my money back shortly thereafter because of the output it produced. While I haven't tested Davinci Resolve, so can't really comment on it - I do have to say for Neat Video it produced some fantastic results. Doesn't always produce perfect results depending on the noise level & lighting - but... for some slow motion videos I took where there were visible artifacts - it got rid of them and made a really nice smooth looking video... So yes, I would recommend purchasing it if is within your budget. I've also purchased a few other plugins in the past, at the moment, don't recall what they are, would have to look them up - but have found them useful... If you want to produce high quality, sellable video, you'll probably find you need to the same. Re: Adobe tools - lol, I do agree I much prefer the pay once, own forever model. I don't personally care for the Adobe subscription model myself (although I can understand why they do it). I think the pay 1x is much better, and if I want to get upgrades/updates/etc, then I can choose to do that (instead of the 'forced' upgrades which sometimes break other things).
462
« on: December 23, 2023, 08:04 »
just wondering if anyone else had this happen... I've usually seen consistent performance (sales) in december - looking at my historical amount, it's been roughly the same last 3-4 years... this year, about an 80% drop in sales, may be temporary. just surprised. anyone else seen the same?
463
« on: December 22, 2023, 07:57 »
I'm not sure about freeware - but I have found neatvideo to be pretty good (for the most part) in reducing noise.
It's about $150 usd (I'd go for the "pro" version, because otherwise you are restricted to max HD size. pro version does any size).
464
« on: December 21, 2023, 11:43 »
I believe you may have copyright issues there...
465
« on: December 20, 2023, 14:24 »
I know what a good image is, what a saleable image is. I know to submit unique shots (i.e., no "300 cucumbers" with "slight angle variations" like some ppl do, and actually currently have in their profile).
But if they are sliced vegetables, 300 cucumbers at various angles? That could be real Microstock!
hehe and yes, then another 300 with water droplets, then another 300 with one slice, then 2 slices, then 3 slices, etc, etc...
466
« on: December 20, 2023, 08:44 »
So, what is the point of creating this post if not to show the rejected images and find why you got such rejections? It's a frivolous to assume Adobe, the biggest company in the photography area don't know what they do, but you know. Many experienced people here can help you to find some weak points in your job and to resolve this rejection problems.
This has been going on and on and on for months now. The point is to complain and maybe to finally get Matt to aknowledge that there is something wrong. Rejections have become CRAZY on Adobe. I used to have a 95% acceptance rate, it went to below 40% from one day to the next and I stopped submitting real photos to Adobe completely, because the reject so much (at the same time they accept almost all my AI images, even though the full size quality doesn't even come close to the quality of my real photos) and there have been multiple threads by contributors reporting the same issue.
Yet Matt claims "everything was fine and nothing changed" when people keep telling him over and over and over again that this is not the case.
Now, if this were just posts from new contributors who do not understand the quality requirements for submitting this would be one thing, but the complains come from experienced contributors who have been doing this for years and when the acceptance rate changes so drastically for so many people from one day to the next, then it seems right to assume that a bunch of people not suddenly and simultaneously lost their abilities to take good quality photos and the problem is with Adobe instead. But to this day Matt refuses to aknowledge that.
What is the point in showing Matt individual photos? I've seen the extreme level of nitpicking he goes to to justify rejections (like "The photo shows different kind of plates!"). This is not an individual problem, but a large structural problem on Adobe. Nitpicking single photos will not solve this problem.
Yes, that is pretty much what I am saying. I know what a good image is, what a saleable image is. I know to submit unique shots (i.e., no "300 cucumbers" with "slight angle variations" like some ppl do, and actually currently have in their profile). I know about looking & removing artifacts, pixellation, etc. I know about proper subject focus, copyspace, etc, etc. I know about proper & relevant keywording, as well as proper & relevant titles. etc, etc, etc. And for both genAI & real photos/illustrations/etc, it seems in particular the last 2 months - (more so the "weekend" reviewers, i.e., if content happens to get reviewed on the weekend) - it just seems to be an "auto-reject" for a majority of stuff, almost like "they" need to reach a quota. (Not always of course, but more so than it should be that it has become very noticeable). Why not - for any contributor account created pre Jan-2023, realize those contributors probably know what they are doing, and be process those images better/be more reasonable for acceptance rates? (Jan 2023 was when the media in a co-ordinated fashion announced "ai" images and "ai" stuff in Jan 2023, and you subsequently had the "ai gold rush"). I realize there are now probably 10's of thousands of new daily contributors (in particular I believe from east india, malaysia, etc) trying to get on the 'genAI gravy train'. While nothing wrong with that - obviously some of those new people probably have no idea what constitutes a 'good' image, nor how to do pre-quality checks, many times quite frankly because they simply don't care - because they watch youtube videos how to make one billion dollars in 2 days from genAI images, and just rush to do it, not caring whether someone has 3 hands, 15 toes, just so they can make 'billions' in one day... So - why not - as an 'easy' way of reviewers still meeting their quotas - take into account whether an account was created pre Jan 2023, and realizing pre Jan 2023 accounts probably know how to do proper pre-reviews, so be more reasonable in accepting content that is submitting from those contributors? Thanks.
467
« on: December 19, 2023, 00:09 »
Mat, Now that Gen AI is allowed for video submissions, would the same guidelines apply for videos in terms of when to tag as Gen. AI?
Good question. For "AI" video - I didn't actually see any way to select an "ai" video for a submission, would one just add 'gen ai' to it? (I haven't actually made any 'gen ai' video - but I've noticed some people have 'ai video' submitted, and was curious how one would submit that). Thanks!
Hi Synthetick. Please refer to the generative AI guidelines for specific details on what is and is not allowed.
@Superphoto, there is now a checkbox for videos and vectors made with generative AI software. Please see this thread for the update: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-requirement-for-generative-ai-video-clips-and-vectors/msg595935/?topicseen#new
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
thank-you!
468
« on: December 19, 2023, 00:07 »
Yep. Same here. I inspect them after upsizing, remove artifacts if any, etc, etc. And it just seems to be a lazy reviewer - or - just meeting a 'quota' of rejections.
Why dont you share some photos like Matt suggested? This thread without actual photos is not beneficial to anyone.
Because I don't believe it would result in anything different, based on past threads I've seen. If I felt they'd receive an honest assessment, and get a response of something like 'golly gee! you are correct! We'' get that batch put back up', then I probably would. I spend a LOT of time preparing them, to make sure there is no pixellation, chromatic abberation, good subject(s), good in demand content, unique saleable content/perspectives, etc, etc. I do a LOT of that. even though I know it seems many don't. So to see batches like that get rejected to me just says it seems the reviewer is probably just trying to meet a quota, so he/she can "work" 10 minutes for the day while punching in an "8-hour workday" (I suspect/believe many of those types of jobs are 'outsourced'), then go outside and enjoy the sun. Of course, I wouldn't say that issue is unique to Adobe, but it is frustrating when you get such a reviewer.
469
« on: December 18, 2023, 19:10 »
Yep. Same here. I inspect them after upsizing, remove artifacts if any, etc, etc. And it just seems to be a lazy reviewer - or - just meeting a 'quota' of rejections.
470
« on: December 15, 2023, 17:53 »
Mat, Now that Gen AI is allowed for video submissions, would the same guidelines apply for videos in terms of when to tag as Gen. AI?
Good question. For "AI" video - I didn't actually see any way to select an "ai" video for a submission, would one just add 'gen ai' to it? (I haven't actually made any 'gen ai' video - but I've noticed some people have 'ai video' submitted, and was curious how one would submit that). Thanks!
471
« on: December 15, 2023, 14:08 »
So...
a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...
b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?
Thanks very much!
OOhhhh... prompting for genAI is Time consuming... A pity...  
Haha, glad you feel the sadness It's not the prompting itself... It's the actual editing to make sure it is a useable image. I realize of course not everyone does that - but, I do take the time to do that which actually makes it quite time consuming... Like brushing stuff out, 'adding' an extra finger where there should be one, etc... Quite time consuming, such that lol - almost seems faster to take regular photos. BUT - if you read my post - it was ALSO for regular photography that got rejected, that was frustrating. High qualty cameras, good lighting, good subject focus, good subject, unique content, desireable/commercial value, and then just batch 'quality issues' rejections...
472
« on: December 15, 2023, 10:41 »
So...
a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...
b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?
Thanks very much!
473
« on: December 14, 2023, 22:00 »
I really think you should watch it. It is not that long.
They give excellent examples of visual trends for 2024 and bring themes together across all media. It is exceptionally well done.
Don't look for a shortcut, just watch it. Then watch it again.
I realized I actually have a lot of content from that list, especially content that relaxes you when you look at it. But because I did not consider it to be commercial, just fun private kitsch I made for myself, I only uploaded very little.
Never thought that "soothing" content is actually a visual trend that is in demand.
Or cute funny animals.
Also loved how retro futurism was explained, might be the first time I actually understand the genre. But all things retro have been a steady part of my stock journey. And now with ai I can expand on that.
Do they have a way to watch it at 3x the speed? I find nowadays "everyone" thinks what they have is "THE" most important thing to say on earth (usually it's not), and tend to be incredibly verbose at times. While there may be gems - it is really hard sitting through people's videos to see "if" they have something worthwhile/valueable - as opposed to simply reading a transcript and knowing within 30 seconds...
474
« on: December 14, 2023, 20:41 »
Could someone please (who watched it) post the bullet points/important points?
Thanks!
475
« on: December 04, 2023, 17:42 »
Btw: The isolated png's are still in review... Today after almost 2 month waiting time my transparent png's got 100% rejected.
It is really incomprehensible what the goal of Canva is?
Here in the forum nobody answers, in the support nobody answers and images are almost 100% immediately rejected by some automatic system.
Dear Canva team,
have you become so indifferent to us that we are no longer even worthy of a short reply?
If so, all you have to do is say so and you'll be rid of us in no time :-)
Have a sunny day,
Michael
When I was last doing shutterstock, it seemed to be the same for videos & images. Got rather pointless uploading there, so don't anymore. (Aside from them of course, minimizing the value/payouts to contributors, & doing shady tactics, which of course are also other reasons).
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
