Usually it varies from 5 days to 10 days. It can take a bit longer sometimes.

The money came in 3 days ago.

In my case the data is correct for almost all of my images - exept for some newer ones. But I don't know what this data is good for.

Quote from: pic_pom on December 03, 2021, 09:29

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 02, 2021, 16:35

Quote from: Wilm on December 01, 2021, 22:49

Quote from: pic_pom on December 01, 2021, 13:15
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

That's my answer too. Just downsize and move on. Giving away 50MP images for a dime is not going to make more than giving away 10MP images for a dime. And if the 10MP images come from that 50MP camera (what the heck is that?) and you are downsizing, you'll have almost no rejections for focus, pixelation, grain, soft or any of the other absurd rejections from the SS Bots.

I have also bigger sales at SS, actually these bigger sales drive the overal revenue, why should I not have the chance to have them?

now, in the last days I did not have any rejections anymore, weirdly exactly after opening this thread, perhaps a coincidence?

Bigger sales come in - no matter if you upload 50 MP or 10 MP images from my point of view.

What I was getting at is that both buyers and agencies are shrinking our revenues more and more. At the end of the day, all buyers want all images for free. And based on that, from my perspective, they have no right to expect contributors to go to expense to be able to produce huge photos.

I myself have only photos in my portfolio that were taken with a compact camera. So my investment in equipment is dwindling and that leaves me with more money.

My three best-selling photos, with a combined 10,000 downloads at SS, are 8 MP, 7 MP, and 5 MP. It's quite possible that I would have even more sales with them if the images had a resolution of 50 MP. But I would need an estimated 4,000 more downloads to recoup the price difference for the camera. I don't think I would have had that many additional sales because of the higher resolution.

Quote from: pic_pom on December 01, 2021, 13:15
but i produce 50 MP pictures and it a shame to downsize them to 20 or less.

In my view, this is the wrong approach! You get between $0.10 and $0.20 for most downloads, and with the revenue you worry about the generous buyer only getting a 20 MP photo? How many downloads do you need to even begin to recoup the cost of an equimpment that allows 50MP?

From a financial point of view, I think you need to rethink!

Quote from: cascoly on December 01, 2021, 20:17

Quote from: Level6 on December 01, 2021, 16:19....
Even if an agency offers to pay for your images or videos at a fair price to make up their free collection, unless you're planning to retire and walk away from the business it's not worth it.

Media companies and large production companies will use free if they can get it especially if the quality is ok and it fits their needs.

What's needed is an end to free anything but also a forensic accounting of all these deals agencies have and that won't happen and that's why this has become a ticket to bankruptcy.

maybe the future of microstock is going to be ALL free images for consumers, with photographers getting 1-time payments of $5 by agencies to build their collections.

I'm not sure I got that right.

Here in Central Europe, no one can produce an image for $5, upload it and create keywords. This contributor would starve.

A portfolio of 20,000! images would bring $100,000. That is nothing compared to the time and cost to create that amount of images.

If that were the future, and I've said this before, the microstock business would be dead in many countries from a contributor perspective.

It shocks me every time I see your brutallyhonest numbers, Alexandre!
So many agencies, such a large portfolio. The numbers are sobering!
But thank you for the insight you give us!

Second WME.

Only AS and iS performing normal.

DT dead. 123rf nearly dead. CS dead. DP lousy RPD. SS lousy RPD.

What shutterstock is doing at the moment is total nonsense from my point of view!

The mistakes of the last few years have been recognized. Much to much garbage has ended up in the database. That is a good realization.

To save on staff and let the AI take over the selection of the images is wrong!

But shutterstock will recognize that just like they recognized the garbage problem. It will just take another year or two - then they will take countermeasures there as well.

Quote from: Diana Herrmann on November 30, 2021, 13:54

Quote from: Wilm on November 28, 2021, 21:36

Quote from: cascoly on November 28, 2021, 20:59

Quote from: Wilm on November 19, 2021, 23:12


I did my personal  math and came to the conclusion that Adobe's free selection is a losing proposition. It flushes money into the cash once and then brings losses for the remaining 11 months. That is the reason why I do not participate....

what 'math' leads to that conclusion? even for those with reduced sales (and many are reorting no reduction in sales), correlation is not causation

I checked how many of my images that Adobe Stock had selected for free selection were downloaded from AS over a four-week period and what revenue I generated. I extrapolated the revenue over a 12 month period. If sales continue like this for the remaining 11 months, I will not make a financial profit by releasing them in free selection.

I based this on the numbers I know from many other providers. So I can get an approximate idea of what percentage of the images AS has selected from my portfolio for the free selection would be accepted.

In addition, the images will continue to be purchased from other agencies. So there would be the additional risk that they no longer bring in anything there when the buyers see that they cost nothing at AS.

Adobe doesn't select images for free, we do. I only picked those that didn't have sales. Now I have money instead of nothing.

Diana,

Adobe selects images as "eligible for free selection".
For me, that's 68 images. All of them had at least one download, as I have shown in the screenshot.

Quote from: cascoly on November 29, 2021, 19:19

Quote from: Wilm on November 28, 2021, 21:36

Quote from: cascoly on November 28, 2021, 20:59

what 'math' leads to that conclusion? even for those with reduced sales (and many are reorting no reduction in sales), correlation is not causation

I checked how many of my images that Adobe Stock had selected for free selection were downloaded from AS over a four-week period and what revenue I generated. I extrapolated the revenue over a 12 month period. If sales continue like this for the remaining 11 months, I will not make a financial profit by releasing them in free selection.

first, thanks for supplying some details.

i'm confused though, AS said the images selected for free were those that HADN'T generated any income. also, how did you decide which 4-week period to use?  given how stochastic the market is, extrapolating is unlikely to be statistically significant over any such period.   

Quote

In addition, the images will continue to be purchased from other agencies. So there would be the additional risk that they no longer bring in anything there when the buyers see that they cost nothing at AS.

as has been discussed many times, there's little evidence buyers shop across agencies, esp'ly if they have subscriptions.

Since my downloads at AS are relatively constant, it doesn't really matter which 4-week period I choose.

Here I have made a screenshot. 68 images were suggested by AS for the free section. How many of them would be accepted, I don't know either, of course, but I assume about 10% - according to what I have heard from other contributors. That would be 7 images. Would bring in $35 for a year.

All 68 images had at least 1 download - up to 40 downloads as you can see. Together there were 513.

The red dots show the images that were sold at AS this month.
This year my RPD at AS is $1.23. Extrapolated to a year, 120 sales x $1.23 = $147.60. To bring in the same money, 30 images would have to be accepted in the free section. That would be 44% of the images selected. That many were not accepted at any of the contributors I know.

In addition, there is another important calculation factor that should be taken into account. Many of the selected images have very similar counterparts in my portfolio, many of which were also purchased this month - about 75 times. I am very sure that most of them would not have been bought if there was the very similar image in the free section.

And this is true only for AS. You may be right that customers at other agencies will not look in the free section at AS if they have a subscription elsewhere. But the On Demand, Enhanced and SOD purchases are more interesting anyway. These would then possibly also be omitted if the customers see that they can get the image elsewhere for free.

Quote from: cascoly on November 29, 2021, 19:19

Quote from: Wilm on November 28, 2021, 21:36

Quote from: cascoly on November 28, 2021, 20:59

what 'math' leads to that conclusion? even for those with reduced sales (and many are reorting no reduction in sales), correlation is not causation

I checked how many of my images that Adobe Stock had selected for free selection were downloaded from AS over a four-week period and what revenue I generated. I extrapolated the revenue over a 12 month period. If sales continue like this for the remaining 11 months, I will not make a financial profit by releasing them in free selection.

first, thanks for supplying some details.

i'm confused though, AS said the images selected for free were those that HADN'T generated any income. also, how did you decide which 4-week period to use?  given how stochastic the market is, extrapolating is unlikely to be statistically significant over any such period.   

Quote

I do not know the source of your information, but it is wrong.

I currently have 68 images that are eligible for free selection. And these images have reached more than 500 downloads so far.

Quote from: cascoly on November 28, 2021, 20:59

Quote from: Wilm on November 19, 2021, 23:12


I did my personal  math and came to the conclusion that Adobe's free selection is a losing proposition. It flushes money into the cash once and then brings losses for the remaining 11 months. That is the reason why I do not participate....

what 'math' leads to that conclusion? even for those with reduced sales (and many are reorting no reduction in sales), correlation is not causation

I checked how many of my images that Adobe Stock had selected for free selection were downloaded from AS over a four-week period and what revenue I generated. I extrapolated the revenue over a 12 month period. If sales continue like this for the remaining 11 months, I will not make a financial profit by releasing them in free selection.

I based this on the numbers I know from many other providers. So I can get an approximate idea of what percentage of the images AS has selected from my portfolio for the free selection would be accepted.

In addition, the images will continue to be purchased from other agencies. So there would be the additional risk that they no longer bring in anything there when the buyers see that they cost nothing at AS.

Quote from: marthamarks on November 28, 2021, 19:23

Quote from: Wilm on November 28, 2021, 12:02

Quote from: marthamarks on November 28, 2021, 00:55

Quote from: Wilm on November 28, 2021, 00:48

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 23:26

Quote from: Wilm on November 27, 2021, 13:30

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 06:51

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 16:44

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog...  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago.

Römerstraße - it must have been called ,,Mark Twain Village". ,,Patrick Henry Village" was located some miles away- as far as I remember...

I used to play tennis there. 

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Römerstraße. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing.

There was a bridge built by the Romans (German translation = "Römer") in Heidelberg to cross the river Neckar and get to Ladenburg (founded in the year 40 after *) - a former Roman fort. So you were living on historical ground.

Wilm, I remember that bridge very well. Even have a photo that my mother took of me standing on it, with the Schloss behind me, I think.

I also remember the medieval Red Ox student tavern in old-town Heidelberg. Roten Ochsen... I just looked it up! At age 6 or 7, I was too young to drink the beer on tap, but I remember eating there!

That was a very happy time in my life. Thanks for bringing the memories back to me.

Hello Martha,


I am glad that I could revive your past.

I must correct you on one point: the bridge that the Romans built has not existed for countless centuries. There is only a memorial stone that reminds us of it.

The bridge you remember, the "old bridge" originally dates back to the early Middle Ages.

However, I would like to write a few lines on the subject on the occasion of other discussions in this forum.

When I was young, I was often at the "Neckarwiese" - the Neckar meadows would perhaps be an apt translation. This was full of people of every culture, ethnicity, religion, skin color, origin... It was a multicultural, peaceful, lively and usually sun-drenched place. Endless US Americans were there and the contact with them was friendly, positive and lively. Heidelberg had 130,000 residents, a great many students, and an additional 36,000 or so residents who were part of the U.S. Army. It was an open coexistence without resentment.

I would wish if such social coexistence would continue to prevail in all countries - including the USA and Germany. Unfortunately, this is disturbed today by multiple factors. I personally find that an infinite pity!

We should all make the greatest effort that a peaceful coexistence on earth is possible. I contribute with pleasure my part to it!

Quote from: Wilm on November 28, 2021, 12:02

Quote from: marthamarks on November 28, 2021, 00:55

Quote from: Wilm on November 28, 2021, 00:48

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 23:26

Quote from: Wilm on November 27, 2021, 13:30

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 06:51

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 16:44

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog...  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago.

Römerstraße - it must have been called ,,Mark Twain Village". ,,Patrick Henry Village" was located some miles away- as far as I remember...

I used to play tennis there. 

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Römerstraße. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing.

There was a bridge built by the Romans (German translation = "Römer") in Heidelberg to cross the river Neckar and get to Ladenburg (founded in the year 40 after *) - a former Roman fort. So you were living on historical ground.

Quote from: marthamarks on November 28, 2021, 00:55

Quote from: Wilm on November 28, 2021, 00:48

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 23:26

Quote from: Wilm on November 27, 2021, 13:30

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 06:51

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 16:44

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog...  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago.

Römerstraße - it must have been called ,,Mark Twain Village". ,,Patrick Henry Village" was located some miles away- as far as I remember...

I used to play tennis there. 

I don't remember it being called Mark Twain Village or anything like that.

But yes, it was Römerstraße. I remember that spelling now. It's the first street address that I remember memorizing.

There was a bridge built by the Romans (German translation = "Römer") in Heidelberg to cross the river Neckar and get to Ladenburg (founded in the year 40 after *) - a former Roman fort. So you were living on historical ground.

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 23:26

Quote from: Wilm on November 27, 2021, 13:30

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 06:51

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 16:44

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog...  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe and quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago.

Römerstraße - it must have been called ,,Mark Twain Village". ,,Patrick Henry Village" was located some miles away- as far as I remember...

I used to play tennis there. 

Quote from: Level6 on November 27, 2021, 17:13

Well, that's a different perspective, so some are still making living off SSTK?, that's good to hear, I left them a few months ago, sales went from $800/month to around $12/month if that.

That is an extreme decrease! 

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 06:51

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 16:44

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog...  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 04:33

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 16:44
Thank you very much, Martha! 

You're very welcome! I just wish I could speak or write your language (whatever it is) as well as you write (and probably speak) mine.

Thank you - once more - very much for your kind words, Martha! My mother language is German. And I usually use deepl for the translation. From my point of view it's the best translating software. Nevertheless I often have to correct the translated passages because they are translated in the wrong context.

Quote from: marthamarks on November 26, 2021, 16:24

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 07:20

Quote from: marthamarks on November 26, 2021, 04:02

Quote from: Wilm on November 25, 2021, 21:12

the child's scheme,

That's a brand-new term/concept to this old timer. Can you explain a bit about it?

Thanks!

Hello Martha,

you probably know this, but I translated it badly. I don't know exactly how it is correct in English.

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics.

It is not easy for me to describe it accurately in English.

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Nature designed babies this way to activate our protective instinct.

In addition to human babies, this also applies, for example, to puppies, kittens, chicks, etc.

In product design, the VW Beetle could be mentioned as a design example. Or the teddy bear. In graphic design, the Mario Brothers from Nintendo or anime characters are an example.

Thank you for that, Wilm! I get it now.

And yes, you're right. There seems to be a universal human reaction to the "cute, helpless little" baby, puppy, kitten, etc. Maybe it's an evolutionary thing that helped to keep the big and powerful from destroying their own young.

The term Americans use is "the cuteness factor." The Brits and Aussies may have another term for it, but that's ours.

And actually, you did very well in describing it!!!

Thank you very much, Martha! 

I guess that the success Firn has with the dog Images is also due to this scheme.

Quote from: marthamarks on November 26, 2021, 04:02

Quote from: Wilm on November 25, 2021, 21:12

the child's scheme,

That's a brand-new term/concept to this old timer. Can you explain a bit about it?

Thanks!

Hello Martha,

you probably know this, but I translated it badly. I don't know exactly how it is correct in English.

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics.

It is not easy for me to describe it accurately in English.

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Nature designed babies this way to activate our protective instinct.

In addition to human babies, this also applies, for example, to puppies, kittens, chicks, etc.

In product design, the VW Beetle could be mentioned as a design example. Or the teddy bear. In graphic design, the Mario Brothers from Nintendo or anime characters are an example.

For those who want permanent updates, the CC subscription is probably financially advantageous.

Anyone who bought a CS product back then and felt they didn't need every update would have been better off with the old model.

A Photoshop update was about $300 - I don't remember exactly. Anyone who didn't want new features every year, but felt that an update every 3 or 5 years was enough, would have saved a lot of money.

Even after less than 1.5 years, the old paid model would have been cheaper.

But I don't have the exact sums in my head anymore.

But to put it very roughly: if you would't update for 5 years, you would have saved just under $200 per year on the old Adobe CS model versus the CC.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 25, 2021, 19:19
Microstock is not fine art photography, it is useful images. Sure better quality and photography will make the images more attractive, but content is #1.

As for forum advice, I could post my best selling image and ask why it doesn't get downloads and get a half dozen replies explaining what's wrong with it.

We are different, see different, shoot and edit, design and styles are personal, interests vary, and that's good.

What you write is basically correct, Pete.

Nevertheless, there are commonalities of aesthetic feeling that apply all over the world - in every culture, in every society, in every religion, and in every ethnic group. These principles have been discussed and stated over and over again and in detail in the shutterstock forum, among others.

The aesthetic laws of symmetry, the golden ratio, the child's scheme, and many others apply everywhere on the globe. It is beneficial to know them and you don't have to have studied to use them.

Nevertheless, you are right with your thesis: every bestseller would be criticized mercilessly. But a bestseller is not necessarily an objectively good picture. Because many factors influence the sales success. I also don't believe that an algorithm follows the laws of aesthetics. My bestsellers are - from a purely photographic point of view - just about acceptable. Nothing more.