|
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
26
« on: July 04, 2023, 16:56 »
This thread is an embarassment and so pre-pubescent.
27
« on: June 25, 2023, 11:54 »
What if platforms like Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc., started valuing our human-made images more in the long run?
Thank you for my morning laugh, coffee almost came out my nose. Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, etc. care about only one thing, their profits and keeping shareholders happy. We are only a necessary financial liability toward their profit. Name one platform that has even increased the value of our work just to keep up with inflation. Things will get interesting going forward, AI generated images are not eligible for copyright and rest assured this will be exploited in the long run. I trust corporate structure as much as I trust any government.
28
« on: June 23, 2023, 08:52 »
I've been in contact with AS and Mat recently about rejections. The ones I took issue with do appear to have been approved now (now in the accepted list, image portfolio)... I'm waiting on a follow up confirming what actually happened.
I have to say I found Mat to be very understanding and balanced with his assessment. I have no issues there at all. Hopefully the rejection problem is a growing pain issue due to the high volume of images rather than a change in policy.
If I had any issue, AS should have seen this coming... we've seen how fraudsters have worked tirelessly in the Stock Industry, especially at Shutterstock, so there was bound to be a massive influx of chancers submitting dodgy work etc by the 1000's.
Personally, I'd like to see AI have its own queue away from photographs, illustrations and human pngs etc and for any delay to affect them only rather than impacting everyone. At the moment photographs seem to go through ok but png's take an age.
Thank you for your update, you are more communicative than Adobe in this fiasco. I am glad they looked into your image/s but what the real going concern is the mass rejections that totally break the pattern of years previously. I have completely halted uploading as the rejections are beyond reasonable and quite frankly a complete waste of my time. We have been assured by Mat that nothing has changed, and I think is safe to say after 9 pages of a thread proclaiming the opposite that this simply is not true. Honestly I expect more from Adobe as they are usually top shelf but lately they have dropped the ball on this issue, and for that I among others are very concerned. I am not at all concerned about a longer inspection time, this is totally understandable, volume creates delays. What concerns me is the SUDDEN extremely high amount of rejections or total rejections of quality content not meeting their quality standards. It is the polar opposite of the experience I have had since Adobe took over from Fotolia, black and white different. I just with they would a) address this issue or b) fix it.
29
« on: June 22, 2023, 08:45 »
@svh
"But I have a passion, which is photography. I use microstock to understand the value of my photography. Are people willing to buy it or not? I am obviously not in my place there because I only submit photography that I like to shoot and not what the market might actually need. And I am fine with that. It is not my goal to be the best. I am just measuring for myself."
What you are saying is, you are an amateur photographer with no interest to understand the actual needs of the customers.
That is why it is unlikely you will make reliable money from stock.
Stock is a service oriented business, not a self discovery journey. We don't make the content for ourselves, we make it for the customers and their projects.
You come into a professional business forum then proceed to judge and lecture the people that do this for a living.
You might as well enter a forum that supports the techs who sell and repair washing machines. Then proceed to criticize and belittle people while they are actually working.
And you don't even notice how out of place you are.
But we get your kind all the time, usually male, retired, bored and in love with their overpriced camera gear.
Have fun, while you are here, but you will get bored and move on sooner or later.
While we will still be here in 20 years.
eta:
Just as an example
my eyeem port
https://www.eyeem.com/u/cobaltstock
my eyeem lifetime earnings - How did I do that?
Why post your lifetime earnings? It's a bit juvenile. That said it's decent income for basic and random snack photos. Imagine how much more it would be if you submitted real quality. I took a look at your port and my only comment is before microstock started and dropped the bar in quality, you would have never made it into the "closed shop" of macro stock.
30
« on: June 21, 2023, 14:30 »
Well... so far this week it has been 100% rejection. Not a single file accepted (photographic). Bear in mind my lifetime rank is around 520 and I've been submitting to them for about 10 years so it's not like I'm a new contributor with no experience.
I've deleted the files that were waiting to go to them and for now, I'm going to pause submitting photographic content as I don't want to damage my acceptance rate. I'm waiting on a reply from AS when I contacted support about the problem.
I really like AS and I'm sure they'll sort it out but the radio silence, I have to admit, is rather concerning.
Edit. I've also asked for feedback as to what, "Quality Issues" because if there is problem, I want to resolve it. It's just that they pass everywhere else so it's a bit confusing as to why just AS. Hopefully someone will reply.
I have done the same thing and won't submit any new work until I see this nonsense is remedied.
31
« on: June 21, 2023, 10:31 »
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.
I'm guessing Mat hasn't seen this thread because I don't think he checks the general forum. If this thread was moved over to the Adobe Forum, he'd probably jump in....which would be nice
I am going to presume that Mat has not chimed in because his employer has directed him to not chime in. Lest we forget that Mat is not on this forum of his own free volition, he is a salaried employee of a corporation and has a set of parameters of what he can and will say.
32
« on: June 20, 2023, 17:41 »
From the Bigstock site...
"The landscape of creative opportunity is continuing to evolve, and technology is playing an even more instrumental role. We recognize that Bigstock has not enjoyed many of the platform advances we have introduced in recent years on Shutterstock and were making changes to address that. While we explore future improvements, starting on June 30, 2023 Bigstock will no longer accept new content submissions.
If you are an established contributor with Bigstock, despite no longer having the option to upload new content to Bigstock, your portfolio will remain active on the site. You can continue accruing earnings from downloads and requesting payouts once your earnings reach the minimum threshold of $30.
For those interested in accessing greater opportunities as a content creator and reaching our global customer base, we invite you to join our growing community of Shutterstock contributors. You can learn more about Shutterstock Account and Submission Guidelines here.
We will communicate further changes to our Bigstock contributors as soon as those updates become available."
Looks like they are slowly shutting the site down.
33
« on: June 19, 2023, 14:32 »
Mine havent been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, theyre been declined as similar because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, dont worry, Everest summit will do they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands prefectly why your submissions are being rejected 
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs.
Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
And I do understand the mountain problem. "The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video" (quote Mat).
So obviously within those two seconds of watching your photo or video and reading your title, those mountains must look the same
It's like ultra fast scanning with collateral damage.
Thanks Adobe for taking your time on our curated submissions!
Edit:
Maybe Adobe can get some classes from Getty's which (unlikable as they might be to some) do a thorough review, give you the abillity to revise stuff, if possible, and otherwise explain very clearly why your submission is rejected. And they do it within a week.
The best review process I experienced was Corbis. They were thorough but you knew a pass was a pass and a decline was a decline. Get this, you actually dealt with them over the phone as well and could chat about any problems! I'm probably showing my age now 🤣
The Image Bank, Tony Stone, First Light, Masterfile, and even early Getty all used to do that and get this... take 40% commission for representing your work. That's right the contributors received 60%. Yes, you are definitely showing your age. I went through the very same rigorous editing process and took my lumps as they were usually designed toward improving my craft. The Adobe rejections of today are laughable from my perspective and experience. When multiple respected platforms take 90%-95% of submitted work and only one respected platform suddenly, and I do mean suddenly rejects 90%-100% of my submitted content with no explanation other than "quality" issues you can safely assume there are internal issues that need resolving.
34
« 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.
35
« 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.
36
« 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.
37
« 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.
38
« 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.
39
« 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.
40
« on: June 13, 2023, 11:57 »
They look away from anything that doesn't concern their financial interest, universal business rule.
[/quote]
Exactamundo!!!
41
« 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.
42
« 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.
43
« on: June 08, 2023, 11:45 »
$5 for allowing them to use your content for corporate marketing... Shame on them? or shame on you?
44
« 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.
45
« 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.
46
« 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.
47
« 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.
48
« 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.
49
« 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.
50
« 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.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
