|
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 - ttart
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
1
« on: December 04, 2024, 15:29 »
In 2025, I plan to reduce microstock. I am a small home studio shooter, producing to much variations.
I hate do shoot up to 10 variations, its boring. No variation, less work thats my goal.
2
« on: December 02, 2024, 11:57 »
Some $26 DL at Nov 2018. Best month of 2018.
RPD $1,94
3
« on: November 25, 2024, 16:55 »
Shocking numbers.
AI photo uploads 5 times compared to real photos.
AI illustration uploads 33 times compared to real illustrations.
4
« on: November 22, 2024, 15:26 »
There are around 40% AI portfolios, at the Adobe best sellers of the week,
So i think AI content is a big competition now and even more in future.
As Cobalt told, $100 more income a month can bee a game changer in some countries.
AI content Producers could reach this level within a few months.
So i think competition will grow a long time.
Its some kind of gold rush going on.
5
« on: November 09, 2024, 05:29 »
Its the season for Xmas and New Years images.
These images are quite easy to copy with AI. So i think that there is much more competition because of AI nowadays.
6
« on: November 09, 2024, 02:29 »
Don't think that spamming is the future.
On average lightning, composition and colors of AI images is better than classic microstock images.
Before AI most of the images have been just good enough for sale. With AI lots of the images are at the level of best sellers.
There is no change in algos, it has been always like this. Images are replaced in search results with better performing images.
Spamming is just more low quality of the same.
7
« on: October 05, 2024, 04:39 »
Years ago i paid 20 per hour. Nowadays only tfp.
8
« on: September 26, 2024, 12:32 »
Congrats Mat.
AI seems to bee a big transformation.
In 2019 there have been around 10500 contributors with silver Level at Fotolia. It took 15 years for this number.
At the moment i guess there are around 50.000 contributors wich would reach silver level.
It took 15 Years for 10500 contributors to reach silver level at Fotolia. Nowadays it would take around 1,5 years for that number.
There is a tsunami of AI contributors on the way and you should manage to get it work. No easy job, i wish you all the best in your new role.
9
« on: September 22, 2024, 06:40 »
I'm surprised this seems rather confusing for a lot of people? I believe I even read where it stated what the weekly sales rank is?
It's simply your rank, in terms of downloads - relatively to ALL the other contributors - for that week. Lifetime rank is simply for all contributors over the LIFETIME.
So, if you get more downloads than more people - your rank goes up. If other people get more downloads than you, your rank goes down.
So you 'could' be ranked #1, if for example you had '3' downloads, and 'everyone else' had 1. Or, you could be ranked #10000 if you had say 1000 downloads, but 'everyone else' had 1001+...
Really quite simple. Your weekly ranking is just simply how many downloads you've had relative to everyone else in the system.
of course,but why is there anyone who thinks the opposite? 
I think we all bounce between 2 values in the rankings.
if your ranking value is an average of 30,000 you can probably bounce between 40,000 and 20,000
if your average value is 20,000 you probably bounce between 15,000 and 25,000
if your average value is 1000 you probably bounce between 800 and 1200
the higher you go,the less variation you have in the rankings,simply because there are fewer contributors at the top.
I don't know whether the ranking follows sales or money,I have some doubts about it,it probably follows both the number of sales and money.
I don't think that there is such a small range. For a rank below 10.000 there is no large portfolio needed. It is no rocket science to reach a rank around 5000. But it will take some time to built a good performing portfolio for a rank below 3000. There are three things. Portfolio size, quality and upload volume compared to your competition. There is no such thing like an Adobe sale system.
10
« on: September 08, 2024, 04:34 »
So... I upgrade to multiple lenses of the new Zeiss Milvus line which produce the sharpest clarity at 1/1 viewing and best color rendering I could have ever hoped for. Not cheap to do. I upgrade to a full frame body. I do storm chasing for unique landscapes not covered well by competition for a niche subject matter... especially in my region for editorial type use of seasonal severe weather. Most of my sales are for subject matter in my region which is what I try to concentrate on... for more sales like I already get. I upload 16 images and after over 3months of waiting 14 are failed and 2 are passed. The sharpest highest quality images I have ever produced since 2005.
The main one that failed was the highest megapixel panoramic city shot I've ever done. One of the sharpest images I've ever done. I waited over a year for the perfect lighting and surronding stormy conditions.
4 other ones that failed were during tornado formation under a rotating wall cloud. Literally right in front of me. Very unique conditions and subject matter... and dangerous actually.
At any rate, I am done with stock. I am done being a sheep. My images sell regularly but I have no control over my portfolio or any kind of sales strategy. You follow and exceed their standards of quality and they punish you. They pass your worst images easily and fail your best. Try it for yourself. More editing maintains more Adobe software subscription fees which is their goal. Keeping everyone on that hamster wheel.
Best of luck to you all.
High resolution camera and lens is not a good combination for microstock. I think the reviewers use PS scripts in pre selection to see some problems in image quality. The Zeiss line is very sharp but with some CAs not easy to get rid of it. Even more visible by use of high resolution cameras. The other thing is the weather. About 30 years ago i have send some 6X6 landscape slides to a Swiss macrostock agency. Technicaly Ok, but al were rejected. Nice images but they wanted landscape images with blue sky like postcards. My images were taken at stormy weather. Nowadays there is a huge oversupply of landscape images.
11
« on: August 31, 2024, 05:26 »
I have become partially reliant on microstock in recent years.
It has helped me to do some things in life I would not be able to do without it and I have a full time job - and I'm not talking about splurging on indulgences here. Rising costs and cost-of-living pressures has eroded my day-job discretionary income quite significantly.
Some people still make a living from microstock and I have to say you have my sincere respect. Clearly you have worked hard and smart to achieve this.
Others, like myself, have microstock as a supplementary albeit necessary side-income. Others have microstock simply as a hobby and making a bit of extra income, at whatever amounts, is like a small reward.
Also have a full time job. Its enough for a living and will retire in a few years. Microstock ist not reliant for me in case of income. But maybe stock photography will became reliant for me to keep a daily routine at retirement.
12
« on: August 25, 2024, 02:10 »
What I was talking about is the fact that Ai reviews are prioritized and rest of us are simply NOT PRIORITY for Adobe.
I have stoped uploading to Adobe, doesn't make sense anymore. Maybe their review team will recover, maybe not.
13
« on: August 21, 2024, 04:13 »
I did not say slots are a bad idea.
But the numbers you suggested are way to much.
There are thousands of new AI content creators every month.
AS probably needs to go down to slots of 50 for everything.
How difficult can it be to write an algorithm with a few adjustable parameters so the queue is always at maximum two weeks or whatever their desired target range is depending on the content?
Isn't that exactly what software is for?
They are not a tiny mom and pop shop. They are ADOBE.
And yes, perhaps the limits in some cases should be 50 files a week for certain media types.
But even if they want to aggressively grow the ai collection, everyone will benefit if it can be done in 2 weeks.
There is also no reason for other media types to suffer.
If normal photos is currently not their thing, limit it down to 50. It forces people to be more selective and only upload their best work. Hell, limit it down to 20 if needed. As long as the stuff goes live in a reasonable time that would be better than waiting months.
And like I said, they can always add factors like portfolio success and let the people who can attract sales have higher limits.
But a system with an over 5 month wait time...I really don't understand.
Timing is so crucial with uploads, such a long wait time will severly depress sales.
The issue is not that contributors upload more. The problem is that there are more AI contributors that upload. Its just like a bank run. To many people want money from Adobe. So if Adobe limit the uploads of photography to 50 a month. Around 80% would not be affected, because they usually don't upload more. The review time also won't be much faster. But around 10% of top contributors would be hurt. Customers who are not using AI photos finding 99% new AI images without no Ai Filter. With AI filter there are some new images, but maybe only 1% of the exiting new images that they find at istock or Shutterstock. So are lot of these customers probably will change to Shutterstock or istock. Because they only find a flood of new boring AI images at AS. With or without slots. Not what most costumers are looking for. Authentic images are not just shoot like authentic, it are authentic.
14
« on: August 19, 2024, 08:23 »
I did not say slots are a bad idea.
But the numbers you suggested are way to much.
There are thousands of new AI content creators every month.
AS probably needs to go down to slots of 50 for everything.
15
« on: August 19, 2024, 07:31 »
Upload slots will not change much.
I guess 80% of microstock photographer upload less than 50 images a month.
With AI thousands of nerds have found the way to microstock.
Like the time of first affordable DSLR for amateur photographers 20 years ago.
16
« on: June 29, 2024, 04:38 »
This week things are picking up. I think I sold one people image every day for the first time. Several older files had their first ever sale and even two easter sales.
pos 3970 5280 files
must do more people and more food
looks like the dog days are over
Congrats. I also do some food images, but non AI. There is such a huge amount of AI food images at AS. I think my income on food images will go down in future. May i ask how much production costs are for one AI food image and how much time consumption. I fear its much below my costs.
17
« on: May 25, 2024, 03:56 »
Microstock is mass production there everyone copies in some way images of other contributors.
Now there is also a copying machine called AI.
So give away in free collection is not such a big problem. Its paid well, so its OK.
18
« on: May 20, 2024, 09:13 »
Ouch, horrible month.
Hard to imagine that around 2-3 years ago iStock used to be my best earnin agency. Now it's getting closer to one of the minor agencies for me.
That's what I've been trying to say for a while now.
Istock is an agency that doesn't give any certainty,maybe next month it will be better,but you never have a stable income that increases over time like with Adobe Stock.
I say it again,continuing to upload to this agency only serves to ruin the future of microstock.
Unfortunately they know how to keep the hamster in the wheel running,so that they continue to make money,that's all that matters to Istock.
then when you no longer serve them,they remove or lower your content from the search engine to make room for other new contributors,so they can squeeze new contributors too.
when I started with Istock,after just 4 months with less than 1000 contents,I was already earning an average of 150 USD per month,do you know why?
because they positioned some of my content at the top of the search so I was happy that I kept uploading and so they could squeeze me.
leave them alone,they use you,squeeze you and throw you away.
Adobe is the only agency that guarantees an increase in earnings over time as long as your portfolio continues to grow,no other non-exclusive agency guarantees this.
I think there has been some kind of bonus for new contributors at istock in search rank long time ago. April was below average for me at istock.
19
« on: May 04, 2024, 02:57 »
Even at the WSJ they know that AI is destroying what little is left of the stock photography business.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-last-stock-photographers-await-their-fate-under-generative-ai-822d1e6a?mod=hp_minor_pos1
I guess AI is not destroying stockphostography industry. Its just the beginn of mass production for everyone. As you look at Adobe Stock, never before so much new portfolios have reached first $1000 income at short time. With AI you don't need an expensive equipment or studio, or take much time to make an expensive shooting with 4 models or more. With AI everyone in the world can make at least a few $1000s a year without much effort. But i think the sales won't rise as much and fast than new images.
20
« on: April 21, 2024, 04:50 »
The unwritten rules were for a select few, and most of them are BS. $2 RPI is one of them, that is quoted, but not for all. Yes, for some people, who had really good work and concepts and collections, maybe. But for everyone else, it was just, RPD and not big numbers.
I think there is no unwritten rule. So some of my early numbers. RPD average RPI average (month) I was going exclusive at istock mid 2009. 2008 RPD 1,0 - RPI 0,19 - makes $190 month per 1000 images online 2009 RPD 1,4 - RPI 0,23 - makes $230 month per 1000 images online 2010 RPD 2,4 - RPI 0,32 - makes $320 month per 1000 images online 2011 RPD 3,0 - RPI 0,23 - makes $230 month per 1000 images online 2012 RPD 3,6 - RPI 0,23 - makes $230 month per 1000 images online RPD did go up 2009 because of exclusivity, later because of more E+ images at Getty. DL per Image did go down. What actually did matter was stable RPI because of rising RPD, so income increased with larger portfolio. I must day that i am a rather average photographer and don't shoot lifestyle. So everyone could reach these numbers in early days. Because of a contract with a German Makrostock agency I canceled exclusivity at 2013. I am not allowed to tell any numbers about the Makrostock agency because of company confidential.
21
« on: April 20, 2024, 04:11 »
I am working for a large company with more than 80.000 Employs.
Customers and employs gets nearly every week newsletters, loaded with lots of generic microstock images.
Since we are a tech company there are more and more AI images.
In next years contributor maybe can benefit from AI hype. But in long term art department will produce AI images by themselves.
22
« on: April 20, 2024, 03:43 »
There are two trends for microstock producers.
An exponentiell trend of decreasing DL and a linear trend of portfolio growth for producers.
The exponential assumption that the number of download per photo will halve in about four years.
For beginners ist possible to follow the exponential trend. But with time they will hit a wall.
With an larger portfolio the portfolio growth will get more and more linear. But the exponential trend of decreasing DL will continue.
Maybe there have been some niches for high quality Composing and lifestyle producers.
But with AI there are no niches anymore in future.
23
« on: March 10, 2024, 05:39 »
1) Because I have a day job and (stock) photography is just a hobby.
But i have reduced uploading at microsotck already. Its getting boring somehow.
So in future maybe
2) or
3) or
4) anyway.
24
« on: February 17, 2024, 06:48 »
Same here, no longer get anything more than $1.01 My last $1.42 was on 1/14/2024
Now overwhelming majority are 0.32 cents. My downloads are growing, but % of $ that I get are getting lower and lower.
Plus my bestseller sales disappeared in January.
Mat, I will sent you email with my files as well. Thank you in advance for your time.
We get 200% more on Adobe Stock than Shutterstock at lowest payment. Look at the bright side!!!
Thats crazy I only contribute to Adobe. Why do people bother contributing to other stock agencies if they pay so little? Is it a habit?
Microstock is a rollercoaster. At the moment Adobe Stock is doing better. Because of AI i guess my real images outs of DSLR will get hard competition in next years at Adobe Stock. Probably not so much at istock or Shutterstock. So at the moment Adobe Stock ist doing better for me, but i guess it will change next years.
25
« on: November 19, 2023, 03:08 »
They seem to be losing customers too.
Never would of thought of saying anything like this some months ago but my shutterstock vs adobe stock port performance suggests adobe stock's customer acquisition strategy is taking customers from shutterstock.
Years ago contributors and customers left istock. Shutterstock did benefit most of this escape. Now it seems the same happens to shutterstock. But its very simply. If customers want to buy my latest images, they only get it at Adobe Stock :-)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
