|
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 - Lowls
27
« on: November 30, 2023, 03:16 »
I will not ever discuss portfolios of contributors that are not actively involved in a public discussion and are not asking for a critique. Personally, I feel that is a weak way to make an argument about your own portfolio and why your content should be online. I would rather lift others up and encourage, than the opposite. Regardless of the subject you are shooting and submitting, you should be seeking the WOW! factor for each and every image. It's a highly competitive space and you should be doing everything you can to create the best content possible.
Focus on what you can do to improve YOUR own portfolio with unique, sellable content that meets current trends. Autumn leaves sell well every year. That said, there are a LOT of images of Autumn leaves in the collection already. Focus on finding content gaps. Create what isn't there, but should be.
Good luck,
Mat Hayward
It isnt a weak argument at all stop talking nonsense. It is a fact. I showed clear rules breaches. Nothing more nothing less. Being the ardent defender of the contributer no doubt you'll be rushing to correct that "rare" anomaly. You misunderstood. I couldn't care less. 1. It bloats Adobe's catalogues. 2. It is against your policy. 3. It hides gems in a sea (no pun intended) of duplicated dross. I don't care about it, it isnt my money being wasted on storage. Have at it. But the advice you gave is patently false. It couldn't be more false clearly. The portfolios I picked on aren't some list I have ready to throw out there. That was an educated guess. Swimming pool water photos on your platform number in the millions. That is in no way the worst offender. One user had 117 pages or more of just looking at pool water. And your response is "poor show" ... really? That's got a wow out of me. Dirt, clouds, grass, hills, toys, food, every subject you can think of has users that have at least a whole page of of exactly the same subject. I only showed the yellow swimming pool inflatables. They have other colours in that port alone lol. I've said this before that the similars rule is rediculous. It doesn't spawn creativity it hampers it. You cannot light things differently to create a sinister look and then a sunny look with happy warmth. You can't do any of that. You can't join in with photos of Autumn leaves because "they need the wow factor" another rediculous generalisation. What is the wow factor with leaves that will "raise them up" ... colour them neon blue and affix a cowboy hat perhaps? It's as if the "new content tab" doesn't even exist or filters for colours. But we can leap into A.I. and churn out elephobsters, avocinaples, and sunny family BBQ shots with dear gran proudly displaying her extra arm growing out of her nether regions as she holds a glass of wine with her rabbit paw. Flipped. cropped, sunrise, sunset and wearing a different dress. As has been already stated but obviously too subtly - rules are great. Let's all follow them or don't. It can't be both. Don't try and shame me for pointing out provable facts on a significant scale over a significant time scale.
28
« on: November 29, 2023, 17:35 »
I know that AS has a very strict policy on similars. I seem to recall that a change of angle is usually not acceptable when submitting more than one photo of the same subject. Though what if I changed the distance? For example, with a small subject, I stood further back for the first photo and then moved 1 - 3 feet closer for a second photo. Would this be acceptable?
You need to make sure that each asset you submit offers unique value to a potential customer. If the changes you describe in your post could be just as easily accomplished by a customer with a simple crop, then it's likely too similar. If it's a genuine difference in the image that could prompt a customer to buy both variations, then you are fine.
-Mat Hayward
So its all about the money. 6 pages of money all in the same port, calculators and clocks? So similar but not, but near but far enough different ...  okie dokie
30
« on: November 29, 2023, 09:09 »
Yeah this doesn't apply to autumn leaves. Golden and Red maple leaves are too similar apparently. Rejected.
31
« on: October 04, 2023, 13:02 »
When a builder makes an appalling mess of your house some owners have taken to locking their tools up to give an incentive to do the job prepaid for or rectify the mistakes. The law prohibits "removing access to the tools that someone relies upon to work and make an income"
Locking your copywritten images up and your earnings is going to breach some laws. Terms of use or terms and conditions do not constitute laws only a contract. You can't break lass to enforce a contract.
I suspect they're going to do this to the wrong person and then there will be trouble.
Laws have been created to protect actors from A.I. so it won't be long before Adobe jave their toys taken off them.
32
« on: September 22, 2023, 11:10 »
🤣 🤣 🤣
omg the latest failed submission rejected for
meh ... we no likey
🤣 🤣 🤣
non aesthetic or commercial appeal. Stock photography. Where you can buy photos of a used cat litter tray or worse. Ok lol. SS thanks you.
33
« on: September 20, 2023, 17:02 »
what's the specific similars rule you're referring to? i get lots of rejections in shutterstock for similars but not as many on adobe.
rejection reason Similar Images already submitted. Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image. Unfortunately, during our review we found that it's similar to another image(s) you've already uploaded, so we can't accept it into our collection. Images must be different enough to provide additional value to our customers. We can't accept more than three color variations of the same image or similar images, and models must appear in different situations or with different expressions to be considered. Please be selective and submit only the very best from each image series. To learn more about the reasons we decline certain images, including similarity to other images, please visit this page: https://www.adobe.com/go/stock-contributor-help
35
« on: September 18, 2023, 09:52 »
Sales are doing really well. Not on here which is dead. But the other agencies are doing well. Up on last year.
36
« on: September 13, 2023, 07:11 »
37
« on: August 05, 2023, 12:50 »
It's not just this area. I sent an email to the dog food supplier saying they'd taken the money and could they let me know when they're gonna send it because normally its the day after. The email shows in sent. But today ... the A.I. has read the contents of my email and thought to itself hey this is important the dog needs food so it has sent me an email entitled "Note To Self" with the details of the email ... so I don't forget 😳
I mean wtaf.
38
« on: July 16, 2023, 03:18 »
Well this explains a lot. So I always look for niche areas I can exploit. This is one that I'll leave to others.
Testicular Cancer is on the rise and this is the offering for it with A.I. One image ...
Aside from the obvious complete lack of medical accuracy ... this is the description.
A.i. images are not reviewed. End of story and please don't abuse it ... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 ... I'm sure it won't be abused.
39
« on: July 16, 2023, 03:08 »
40
« on: July 07, 2023, 08:42 »
Interviewer: Good to catch up with you again DJ so since SSs new payment tier system and the introduction of A.I. and free give aways, have you found that your bottom line has moved south at all.
DJ For sure but you know because I listen to my own advice ... via my online course ... I have managed to diversify to soften the blow. And my average income from stock is a modest $348.00 per hour.
Interviewer Only Fans right?
DJ *smirk ... feetfinder ... bunions and calves like canned corned beef next to a bar fire, who knew.
Interviewer Before you discovered your new audience what kept the money rolling in?
DJ Well it was being modest and quietly humble. I think having someone to look up to in the industry really was what saw my meteoric rise in popularity with the gullible iPhone owners of Bangladesh struggling through their formative years. And of course they saw a famous, rich, videographer who's talent bordered on prodigy and yeah, they thought collectively, they wanted some of that. Of course I was duty bound then to rise to the heights of the pedestal everyone I had ever met put me on. And I exceeded their expectations. Obviously. I taught them they needed three things to equal my success.
1. My course.
2. State of the art computer.
3. A Shutterstock profile.
That's it.
Interviewer What about a camera?
DJ I don't count that because I already had a camera.
Interviewer A camera set-up worth in excess of $60,000.00+ bucks.
DJ Whinging about equipment wastes my time. If you want to be a successful stock videographer then you'll buy professional equipment but not before you've bought my course.
Interviewer You've also got access to regular rocket launches and regularly film and TV location contracts.
DJ Right and the money I make from stock footage is just stuff I would film anyway even if I didnt have those press passes and contracts. I would just do it from much, much, further away.
Interviewer Well thanks DJ it has been my honour to catch up.
DJ If anyone does want to change their life and become a less worthless human for once and excell please find my course at alphamalesnapper.com/ronburgundy and remember ... you're only one snap away ... ☝️😉 ... from the top.
41
« on: July 05, 2023, 11:49 »
And don't label body parts when they're (a) inaccurate and (b) gross - warning: don't click on this if you're squeamish.
Ah now see Jo this is actually completely accurate. This is exactly how the internal organs of a human are. If you take a pensioner and fire them out of a space station air lock. Then drag them back in using a hook on a pole, and return them to earth .... free fall from high earth Orbit and they arrive on the Earth's surface at terminal velocity and land in a strategically placed trash can, that's being used to burn plastic cups, then as long as you allow a teenage crack addict high on miracle grow and kerosene to have at it with a glue gun, bag of walnuts and a brown condom ... ta da ... this is totally accurate.
42
« on: July 05, 2023, 09:13 »
Prawn cocktail was a very popular starter in the UK in the 70s. Small prawns mixed with rose marie sauce or thousand island dressing. Then a large wine glass was layered with lettuce and the prawn mix layered in and finished off with a pinch of cress and a lemon slice. The top then dusted with paprika for colour. Unless you knew that already some may or may not.
The A.I. however had created something horrifically different lol. gag worthy.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPYgw0wX4AAlBSW.jpg
No, I didn't know that. But it sounds gag worthy to me too, to be honest. 
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 brilliant. Later they replaced the wine glass with an avocado to make avocado prawn. Was very posh if you were working class. I can remember my mum ordering one and well all ghasped at the splendor of it on our last meal of the holiday. On the car journey home we must have pulled off every slipway and side road as she had it coming out of both ends. She never touched prawns again lol. I however still continued until I watched a documentary on where most prawns come from. Its a real eye opener and if you do watch it be warned you are very unlikely to ever eat another prawn ... up to you ... 😊... https://youtube.com/shorts/8Xu-4PUI1AU?feature=share4and https://youtu.be/UxlkTk2w7BU
43
« on: July 05, 2023, 05:45 »
Finally "We began with prawn and an avocado lemon squeezer"and awoke to find the paramedic performing an ermegency colonoscopy to remove the alien tapeworm that had survived the cooking process.
Not that just the very idea of putting PRAWN in a cocktail wasn't already highly questionable.
Prawn cocktail was a very popular starter in the UK in the 70s. Small prawns mixed with rose marie sauce or thousand island dressing. Then a large wine glass was layered with lettuce and the prawn mix layered in and finished off with a pinch of cress and a lemon slice. The top then dusted with paprika for colour. Unless you knew that already some may or may not. The A.I. however had created something horrifically different lol. gag worthy. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPYgw0wX4AAlBSW.jpg
44
« on: July 04, 2023, 10:08 »
OK folks today's lucky finds begin with lady with cracked heals. Who appears to have solved the pain of cracked heals by putting her hands and toes into a car door whilst someone repeatedly slammed it shut. Looks like she split a nail because some bright yellow puss is leaking into shot
Then we have pretty flower feet and a rather nasty case of hammer toe
Trip out the the country where we spend a lovely autumnal evening gathering Horse Chesconkercherries and some P. Never forget your P when making a chesconkercherry coating
Finally "We began with prawn and an avocado lemon squeezer"and awoke to find the paramedic performing an ermegency colonoscopy to remove the alien tapeworm that had survived the cooking process.
45
« on: July 03, 2023, 23:47 »
...I know Jo. It's tragic. But if you're in the market for Pintomatapples, avocana Orangebeets, or a dear child wielding a monkey paw clutching a Qwetty keybone then look no further than Adobe house of hilarity.
I thought I'd put Firefly beta to work - you might be onto a really hot new market segment there  Click for larger size
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 You've turned it on itself 😲😲😲 careful Jo ... we don't want this to happen ...  Jo Ann Snover?😳 Yes ....
46
« on: July 03, 2023, 08:31 »
...Which then begs the question how is this shower of sit possible ...
... not only is the image nonsense ... there is a lot of nonsese permitted ... no rejection for similar Matt???
...
I have a collection of examples of massively repetitive similars from genAI images approved in the last week or two.
It's not just a few times it happens. It's many more than 5 or 6 similars.
Even when the images are not "mistakes", when a photographer gets a rejection for similars when there are only 2 or 3 alike, it seems absolutely clear that there's a completely different rule book for the genAI submissions
Here are just a handful from those I've seen
35 yellow suitcases
79 overhead shots of peaches (there are some pie shots I couldn't exclude because the keywords are spammed)
129 sunset on a beach with palm trees
220+ marble wave abstracts
I know Jo. It's tragic. But if you're in the market for Pintomatapples, avocana Orangebeets, or a dear child wielding a monkey paw clutching a Qwetty keybone then look no further than Adobe house of hilarity.
47
« on: July 02, 2023, 05:15 »
No doubt Matt will say its just teething problems.
A.I. gingivitis vs actual gingivitis
* almighty. What concept teeth did it borrow that off. I wouod suggest that gingivitis is the least of its worries.
48
« on: July 02, 2023, 05:00 »
And this ... one can only imagine what their 'Skull' looks like. Its not funny, it's pathetic. Would you like a large fries with your skull ...
49
« on: July 02, 2023, 04:51 »
Adobe is letting itself down in more than one way ...
I have submitted images of gummy bears and Adobe has rejected each for poor focus and yet shutterstock have since accepted and sold most of them and a couple repeatedly. I also have some beautiful autumnal leaf images which are dissimilar enough from the 3 I have been permitted thatbthey should be allowed. And yet rejected for similars. Which then begs the question how is this shower of sit possible ...
... not only is the image nonsense ... there is a lot of nonsese permitted ... no rejection for similar Matt???
Not only are they similar they're so similar they look like the same.photo. A joke.
50
« on: June 10, 2023, 02:08 »
There are 3 potential answers.
They are all A.I. They are all.not A.I. or there is a mixture.
It would be pointless to ask of they were all a.i.
Dropping to 2 answers. Instinctively I guess they all are but in the interest of actually leaving my mind to see if it suspects any images of being fake beyond being photoshopped to death with various filters which are probably a.i. as well
1- AI shadows aren't realistic.
2- AI foreground light is false
3- AI man's weight distribution looks wrong. Bag looks wrong.
4- Reality / AI both She looks right but the Bokeh looks jelly like.
5- AI looks like a computer game
6- Reality
7- Reality
8- AI
9- AI
10- Reality
11- AI hahahaha his eyes are wrong and so are his fingers LOL. Badly wrong.
12- AI light on ball looks wrong
13- AI face looks fake. Looks squeezed. Her expression isn't correct.
14- AI
15- Reality
16- Reality
17- AI
18- AI
19- AI
20- Reality
21- Reality
Fascinating. Some just felt fake or flat. LOL well this will be interesting. Thanks for doing this.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
