|
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 - Jaggy
51
« on: September 26, 2023, 10:29 »
I'm now at over 6 weeks on some of my submissions. It's a joke.
52
« on: September 17, 2023, 12:19 »
No AI images here either. Adobe Stock is my best performing agency this month and it is usually not due to just a smaller protfolio than the others.
Pond5 is a complete disaster for me with now over 2000 clips (and they are sell-able) now and not one sale this month so far even with hundreds of views. Shutterstock is performing poor so far this month too.
Shutterstock started slowly for me this month but last week was pretty good and made up for it. Adobe is on track to be a good month. Revenue on both is only average for the month although the bonus payment for the Adobe Firefly training helped.
53
« on: September 16, 2023, 09:12 »
I had two photos in my queue approved today. Strangely, they were not the oldest shots awaiting review. Those are still pending approximately 35 days in.
54
« on: September 15, 2023, 07:09 »
Nope, sales are tracking normally and I don't have any AI.
55
« on: September 15, 2023, 06:23 »
The Contributor Dashboard is working fine on my Mac but not on my phone. On my phone, neither the app nor the web site will load. I keep getting invalid password/userid even though I verified that I was using the right one.
Update: reset the password and everything is working now.
56
« on: September 11, 2023, 10:28 »
35 days right now - still not reviewed.
I'm over a month on some of mine.
57
« on: September 07, 2023, 05:59 »
Back up now.
58
« on: September 06, 2023, 06:15 »
Im still not seeing this. I'm getting maybe a 2-3 day time period for new images to be uploaded and its been like that for a while.
Last batch i submitted on the weekend have been reviewed sometime before now when i checked.
That said, for some reason, ive had 4 images stuck in the queue for 2 weeks now that havent budged but the other 150 or so went through.
You are lucky. My oldest batch of photos (not AI, real photos) has been sitting in review for 16 days now, still not reviewed. The batch after that has been sitting unreviewed for 10 days, another one for 9 days and so on...
The only photos that get reviewed faster for me are editorial ones.
I have a bunch of photos (also real) sitting in the queue at 25 days.
59
« on: September 01, 2023, 10:24 »
Not as good as July but July was exceptional.
At SS, downloads slightly on the low side but decent revenue. At AS, good downloads but a little weak on revenue.
60
« on: September 01, 2023, 08:37 »
I don't really understand why Adobe would block an account for this. Why not simply reject the images? Seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
61
« on: August 25, 2023, 16:30 »
Instead of suspending the entire account, why don't they just remove all the images generated by artificial intelligence from the portfolio and block future uploads of AI-generated images from the contributor?
I would speculate that Adobe are overwhelmed by the number of Generative AI submissions, they are understaffed and/or overworked, review times have become far too long and it's much quicker to suspend an entire account than go to the effort of deciding which images to remove.
62
« on: August 25, 2023, 15:37 »
Seems to me that Adobe have got themselves into an almighty 'pickle' with this Generative AI stuff.
63
« on: August 09, 2023, 19:16 »
Seems a bit better now (maybe famous last words). Of my batch of over 20, one rejected for quality (I can live with this one), two for similar (ridiculous), two still pending (it's only been 15 days) and the rest accepted. I'm going to resubmit the similars and then feed in a bunch of others I have waiting.
64
« on: July 31, 2023, 06:34 »
So, three of my batch were reviewed, one accepted and two rejected for 'similar'. One of the 'similars' was a windmill in the Netherlands. Now, I've only ever photographed one Dutch windmill and that was it. So I'm at a loss to know what it's supposed to be similar to.
It will be resubmitted along with the other rejection.
65
« on: July 27, 2023, 16:32 »
I have over 20 submissions which have been waiting for two weeks now. In my opinion, they are a step up in quality to the work I did in the past because my new camera/lens combo is that much better. All have been accepted on other sites too.
Anyway, I made a copy of the title and key words for all of them so I can resubmit real fast and with a minimum of effort. If Adobe want to play 'silly buggers', so can I.
66
« on: July 15, 2023, 10:08 »
Well, last month, Adobe revenue leapt ahead of Shutterstock revenue with the $5 payments for the free collection plus a $66 sale.
This month, the 'empire' struck back with a $192.10 sale.
So my historical ratio of revenue - SS around 65% and Adobe around 35% - continues to hold true.
67
« on: June 24, 2023, 05:43 »
AI seems to be the 'big bet' right now. But is that what the customers want?
One thing ... now that everything will be accepted one way or another, no point in doing resubmits.
I'll be watching closely to see if everything starts getting rejected. I might opt-out till I see which way things are going.
68
« on: June 23, 2023, 06:36 »
I just had a look and, right now, it looks like everything is still going into the regular stock catalog. I don't see any option to view a 'data catalog'.
"Starting next week, Shutterstock will be introducing Data Licensing"
Missed that bit.  I shall be interested to see what proportion of submitted content goes into the regular catalog and what goes into the data sets.
69
« on: June 23, 2023, 05:59 »
The way I understood it, the content that's only part of the Data Catalog will be compensated via the already existing contributor fund. Content accepted for the regular stock database will be compensated via the regular and also already existing commissions.
Contributors should be able to filter out the assets which are only accepted for the data catalog soon.
Needlessly to say that contributor fund compensations are neglectable for individual images.
I just had a look and, right now, it looks like everything is still going into the regular stock catalog. I don't see any option to view a 'data catalog'.
70
« on: June 23, 2023, 05:56 »
As I understand it, rejected content will now be retained for inclusion in the datasets, presumably to help train AI as they have already done for other content.
Begs the question as to whether they will now start 'rejecting' most content (a bit like Adobe are) but retaining it for their 'datasets'.
My other thought is that we - and probably Shutterstock - don't really know how ready the market is for AI generated content. That remains to be seen.
71
« on: June 20, 2023, 19:52 »
I found that Commercial was getting reviewed fast but Editorial less so. All my recent submissions were accepted but, historically, most of mine have been.
72
« on: June 19, 2023, 05:15 »
So how is it going guys? Is there anyone still trying to submit real photos and can share some insights? I already have another batch of several hundred photos to be added, but I am afraid of getting all of them rejected and wasting my time. Is it still the same as in last couple of weeks?
I just had another batch rejected by Adobe for "quality issues" having been accepted by Shutterstock. It's beyond a joke now. I'm done uploading to Adobe.
73
« on: June 17, 2023, 12:57 »
...
And have a "burger with egg" for breakfast while you're here 
...
burgerw egg is not uncommon, but it's usually under the bun. more curious is the dripping egg yolk when the yolk is unbroken
Good spot on the yolk Still, I'm sure it meets Adobe's stringent quality standards (no sniggering at the back).
74
« on: June 12, 2023, 09:04 »
A week ago, I had 4 photos rejected by Adobe for "quality issues". Generally, I don't resubmit but I thought I would try resubmitting one of them as a trial.
Predictably, this photo has been accepted by Adobe.
Does this mean that, in the last week, Adobe has reduced their quality standards? Alternatively, perhaps it highlights that there is inconsistency in the review process and that Adobe's review guidelines lack the specificity to allow for consistent reviews.
Does it also mean that we must now adopt the ridiculous 'resubmission game' that has been a feature of the relationship with Shutterstock.
I had thought Adobe was better than that!
75
« on: June 06, 2023, 06:53 »
Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe.
Same here. They changed review process, not necessarily criteria. I am certain they reject whole group (batch) without even looking at the rest if single photo is flagged. In other words like Alamy. I also believe AI does pre-processing and if it flags a file, human QA doesn't even look at anything.
Try to submit rejected photo as single. Just upload 1 photo, keyword, submit, before uploading another. I had rejected photos approved this way.
(btw I also never fully understood their Editorial criteria. I don't think most of their QA reviewers do either, so rejections are random, depending who you run into)
I'm going to try resubmitting with one of the four. We'll see what happens.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
