|
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
76
« on: June 19, 2023, 13:27 »
Mat...
Can you please chime in on this. It is now 7 8 pages of concern from several contributors and not a peep from Adobe. In the meantime I will cease to submit my work as it has become a complete waste of my time. These sudden rejections for quality issues en masse is nonsensical and confusing.
I will reach out on a limb and suggest I am not the only one who would like an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
77
« on: June 17, 2023, 09:05 »
4. There are no freelancers on this forum, only stock photographers.
Really? I'd hate to rain on your parade but you are way off base on this ill informed comment. I have been freelancing for a very long time and done incredibly well with it. In addition shooting stock has also been a sideline since before micro stock was even around. If you had any experience freelancing you would heed the advice I posted above which is based on invoicing clients all over the world for the last 30+ years. In fact, your whole reply is bad advice if you are concerned about professionalism.
78
« on: June 16, 2023, 18:37 »
I'm going to watch this space to see if AS stops rejecting batches of photography for "Quality" that would have passed before and consistently pass at other sites. Until then I'll pause uploads, as it is now a waste of time.
It is a complete waste of time. I am having a hard time taking Adobe Stock seriously these last few weeks, especially with that "dog poop" new Adobe standard of quality we are supposed to lower ourselves down to.
79
« on: June 16, 2023, 18:32 »
What were the terms of payment on your invoice? Depending on the client it should be either payment upon receipt of images, payment due in 15 days of receipt of invoice, or payment due in 30 days of receipt of invoice. Real estate agents are notorious for slow and delayed payment.
Why did it take you 9 hours of editing? That is a very long time for editing an our worth of real estate photography.
80
« on: June 15, 2023, 17:35 »
Looking at that horrific dog photo or whatever that crap is I can now understand why I no longer suddenly produce the quality Adobe requires. If that is the bar they are setting going forward then it looks like I will never meet their "quality" expectations again because I will never produce crap like that or attempt to lower my standard to get my work accepted. This is appalling.
81
« on: June 15, 2023, 11:24 »
Wow! My wife is an illustrator and usually gets 100% acceptance of her work on Adobe and every other site she submits to, and just like that her "quality" is not good enough for Adobe with 100% rejection. This is getting tres weird.
82
« on: June 13, 2023, 11:57 »
They look away from anything that doesn't concern their financial interest, universal business rule.
[/quote]
Exactamundo!!!
83
« on: June 08, 2023, 12:15 »
What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
The plates being different is your "quality issue" ?! 
A party store that would for example want a banner or header image for a plate category for their store would not care much whether the images would show the exact products they carry - because the products they carry change by the week, as products get sold out and new products enter the shop. Do you think they hire a photographer to make new banners with up to date products each week?
I have so so so many of my photos used in various shops all over the internet, mostly for dog products like collars, leashes or coats, where I can guarantee you the shop does not carry these items, because most of them were handmade by a friend of mine. We are actually constantly shocked by how frequently shops advertise their products by using photos of completely different products they do not sell.
Not even talking about other potential usages, like for example an article about the damage caused by disposable dinnerwear.
I strongly disagree that "different plates" is a quality issue. But it does not matter, because in the end it is not up to me to decide what your review team finds acceptable and what not. But it doesn't change that they did not have problems with the quality of like 10.000 of my photos, of witch, I can assure you, a lot were much worse and less usefull. Especially in the beginning of my microstock career where I had no clue what I was doing and still had to figure out what had sale potential and what hadn't. And suddenly they have issues where there were none before. This is not my first photo with "different plates". Was not an issue with Adobe reviewers in the past.
So, have my photography skills and my judgement of sale potential in photos suddenly drastically declined? Has the usability of photos of differenet plates suddenly declined? Or has something changed about Adobe's review process of real photos?
But I am afraid there is no point in arguing any further. I think you are so set on denying that there might even be a chance that the issue was with Adobe (Have you even ckecked back with them? Have you asked them about the rejection rate of real photos now compared to a year ago?), that you will grasp at straws to justify any rejection.
Firn... never ever think Mat is you friend. He is a paid employee of Adobe Corp and will tow the company line at all costs, after all it is his job. No point arguing with him, your work does not meet the standard of Adobe just like mine and many others. The fact this is a new and sudden development has nothing to do with it. That said, I am thankful Adobe Corp does have a contributor service representative reaching out as it has proven informative in the past.
84
« on: June 08, 2023, 11:52 »
Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.
Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.
"the quality does not meet the standards of approval at Adobe Stock." - Mat I too have close to 8000 photos on Adobe, well over 10,000 on Istock from the excslusive days, 2000 on Getty Images, 9000 on SS and the list goes on, and just like that I don't meet the standards of approval at Adobe Stock. What a crock.
85
« on: June 08, 2023, 11:45 »
$5 for allowing them to use your content for corporate marketing... Shame on them? or shame on you?
86
« on: June 07, 2023, 11:23 »
"Given our strong free cash flow generation and healthy balance sheet, Shutterstock is uniquely positioned as a technology company to be able to invest for organic and inorganic growth while also consistently returning value to shareholders through a mix of dividends and share buybacks,"
It would be nice if they shared a bit of that free cash flow to all the contributors aka 'returning value to contributors'... the ones that enable the shareholders to profit by using our assets.
We all know that greed will not enable this option, but it sure would be nice.
87
« on: June 07, 2023, 08:43 »
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock. I think this would be a much more impactful thread if you would share some examples of content being rejected that you feel was done so in error. It's certainly possible as the moderation team is made up of human beings, but in my experience, it's pretty rare.
If you don't want to share examples publicly here in MSG, simply post the file number of the rejected image and I'll be glad to take a look..as long as you are OK with me giving a public answer with my feedback.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
Thanks for the reply. If Adobe is doing one thing right it is having a spokesperson who engages. It is appreciated. That said, I have been in the game for a very very long time and can see when something is broken. To suddenly have extremely high rejections from only one platform when this is not the case on multiple other platforms is concerning. I am not concerned about one or two image rejections as I just move on and that is par for the course. What I am concerned about is abnormally high amount of rejections that suddenly appear to be the new norm on Adobe specific. I can see by this particular thread that I am not alone in expressing my concerns as many others are expressing the very same problem that I have.
88
« on: June 07, 2023, 07:32 »
[/quote] When a lot of people come out at the same time and say they suddenly start to have lots of random rejections when they did not have this issue for years, don't you think that maybe it is worth to at least look into the overal issue, instead of just single examples?  It seems more likely that the issue is with Adobe, especially since it started right when Adobe started accepting AI content and review time grew to a whole month, than that we all suddenly forgot how to take decent photographs. [/quote] EXACTLY! There is definitely something broken at Adobe. I can totally accept the odd rejection, but to suddenly be an incompetent photographer is baffling. If one or two other platforms were rejecting my work en masse then it would be fairly certain it is my quality, but this is not the case at all. All of the other platforms accept 95%-100% of my content which is the polar opposite of Adobe these days.
89
« on: June 06, 2023, 10:52 »
I am getting a lot more photo rejections than usual. I keep reading that people use topaz to denoise files especially for Adobe...
I don't think noise is the issue (although obviously I haven't seen other people's photos except for a few posted here). Firn's rejection doesn't look like a quality issue to me either.
I've lost patience with the randomness of what's accepted at Adobe Stock and what's not - and with the total lack of information about why.
I'm going to take an uploading break for a bit. Life's too short...
I too will give it a break. The rejections lately are insane.
90
« on: June 06, 2023, 10:45 »
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
91
« on: May 29, 2023, 18:26 »
It's called Roulette Stock by Adobe. The odds of winning are 48.65%.
I too get these tres bizarre rejections. A while back I had an entire batch rejected. They were all accepted at the other agencies I submit to. On two of those agencies the files sell almost daily. I resubmitted to Roulette Stock by Adobe and they all got accepted after waiting it out for an unusually long time. Now they are active and selling with frequency.
Unfortunately all one can do is waste everybody's time and resubmit the content again. Why do something once when you can do it twice.
92
« on: May 25, 2023, 17:18 »
I also like Adobe,and I'm also sure they have to look after their own interests first,otherwise they can't even support the artists.
I think their shareholders come first. They don't support artists at all. None of these micro stock agencies put their priority to supporting artists. To think otherwise you are only foolinig yourself.
93
« on: May 25, 2023, 17:10 »
NO!
94
« on: May 14, 2023, 14:59 »
I trust Adobe.
So so so naive.
95
« on: May 02, 2023, 18:50 »
Not a chance. Ended years ago When Getty Images launched Premium Access. Since then it's been a race to the bottom.
Actually it started long before that. It started when Istock created Istock and a ton of cool newbie hipsters swarmed to the celebration of selling their work at low prices -but in volume. It was at this time "editors" got replaced with "inspectors". It was at this time the race to the bottom started more or less. The whole crowd sourcing model was great for a few for a few years but that particular model destroyed the industry for all of us.
And to answer the original post - not a chance.
no, it was the invention of royalty free
no it was the invention of stock photography instead of custom
no, it was the invention of photography
no, it was the invention of the printing press
As far as the original question, it is possible for an individual to do well and make money, but it will require a lot of work or originality or research or better access or something. Gone are the days of just shooting a bunch of pics and making good money for it. Even if what we get per sale doesn't continue to go down, inflation will erode our take, and the competition will continue to grow.
WOW that is a lot of hair splitting you are doing. You must exhaust yourself.
96
« on: May 02, 2023, 17:41 »
Not a chance. Ended years ago When Getty Images launched Premium Access. Since then it's been a race to the bottom.
Actually it started long before that. It started when Istock created Istock and a ton of cool newbie hipsters swarmed to the celebration of selling their work at low prices -but in volume. It was at this time "editors" got replaced with "inspectors". It was at this time the race to the bottom started more or less. The whole crowd sourcing model was great for a few for a few years but that particular model destroyed the industry for all of us. And to answer the original post - not a chance.
97
« on: April 25, 2023, 12:57 »
I remember a few years back I had a special folder named "SS Resubmit" due to the randomness of acceptance and rejection for reasons that defied logic.
I can proudly say I have since deleted that "special folder" and have now renamed it "AS Resubmit" due to the very same reasons.
98
« on: April 24, 2023, 16:43 »
Adobe is hit and miss. I go from getting complete batches rejected, or most of the images rejected then on a total waste of time for everyone re-submit they all get accepted. It's a complete crapshoot at Adobe the last several months. There is no rhyme or reason why the reject these images. The problem is that this pattern of rejections is so random.
99
« on: April 21, 2023, 15:39 »
So you would encourage Getty to send their exclusive media content to Adobe, to increase their business? It would be an advantage for them?
I would encourage Getty to make being exclusive a thing again with all the advantages that used to come from being exclusive. Being exclusive has no meaning or value anymore and the result is they shot themselves in the foot. I used to do incredibly well with them as an exclusive and it was motivational. The ever changing goal post of reaching the next level is a joke. I even went as far as closing my Getty Images account because they started paying the same rate as Istock. That said, the whole industry is a sinking ship.
100
« on: April 21, 2023, 13:58 »
If Getty sends their exclusive images over to Adobe, why would anyone still buy from Getty? Every buyer uses Photoshop, Getty would literally lose them all if their content was available.
You are as usual very ill informed. Every buyer does not use Photoshop. Many do, but not all.
I bow to your superior knowledge oh wise on and thank you for enlightening me.
The world is now a better place.
The people that use photoshop often also buy stock on Adobe. They are our paying customers.
Those who prefer free or nearly free software are like the people who use free stock photo sites or create free files with ai.
Not my target group.
So for Adobe it would be a bonus if the exclusive content from Getty was added, but then the Adobe collection will overall be more attractive then what Getty has.
Without their exclusive content, what would Getty do to attract buyers?
Do they have any other unique selling point?
They are not a software house, selling digital media is their only product.
This has nothing to do with "superior knowledge". I was merely informing you that not "every buyer" uses Photoshop, which simply is not true. Adobe has some nice products but they are not the only game in town regardless if it is free or cheaper. Also of note, ill informed again, Getty provides custom photo services for corporate clients around the world, so no, their only product is not only digital media. For sure they are not a softward company. Getty dishes out assignments all the time.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
