|
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
51
« on: May 25, 2023, 17:10 »
NO!
52
« on: May 14, 2023, 14:59 »
I trust Adobe.
So so so naive.
53
« 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.
54
« 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.
55
« 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.
56
« 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.
57
« 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.
58
« 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.
59
« on: April 21, 2023, 10:29 »
The reason Getty is a sinking ship is for a few reasons. You can only screw contributors so far before they move on. Getty used to be good as was Istock. I still do contribute to them but in all honesty they are low on my upload list for a few reasons, the disambiguation process is very time consuming and the 0.02 sales do not justify my time. The overall ownership/management is perhaps the most disrespectful of all the agencies out there.
60
« on: April 21, 2023, 10:22 »
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.
61
« on: January 16, 2023, 18:33 »
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm  No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it
Yes a total waste of time for everyone. I did however resubmit and they all got accepted on second go. Usually a reject here or there does not bother me, but having total rejects or a stupid amount of rejects is an on the inspector not doing their job. Why do something once when you can do it twice?
62
« on: January 16, 2023, 18:27 »
Every country has different rules in regards to drones. Rarely does the actual weight of the drone make a difference and at times it does.
Quoted from FAA. "You will need to get a Remote Pilot Certificate ( RPC ) issued by FAA to fly your drone as the pilot in command ( PIC ) . The FAA does not currently recognize any foreign RPC or equivalent."
I am registered and certified in my country (Canada) but can't fly in America. I am currently travelling and got certified where I am, but the next country I am travelling to is a root canal to get a permit. I have noticed some countries make it more difficult for foreigners to fly.
In my view it's not worth the additional expense cause it's an either you can fly or you can't fly scenario.
63
« on: January 02, 2023, 02:43 »
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
We would need to see some examples to provide you with valid feedback. If you are a Creative Cloud member, you can share your files by clicking the blue "Share" button in the upper right corner of Photoshop. From there, you can create a link to the image that we can all view and provide comments on how to improve your chances of success for future uploads. Viewers don't need to be CC members to participate.
-Mat Hayward
Thanks for your reply and Happy New Year to you and yours. I have decided that Hildegarde is the most accurate in response. This crazy rejection situation happened several months ago as well on Adobe and after re-submitting I had gone from 80%-100% rejection rate to the polar opposite of 90%-100% acceptance rate on the exact same images.
64
« on: December 28, 2022, 19:26 »
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
65
« on: November 18, 2022, 17:31 »
still the most boring poster on this forum. no one cares what you have to say mate. give it up,
What an utterly arrogant comment. If you don't care about the post then just move on, and while you are moving on get a step ladder to get over yourself and try to consider that maybe, just maybe some people do care what he has to say.
66
« on: October 23, 2022, 10:06 »
derby, I'm not convincing anyone here. I answer questions and write my opinion. The topic was opened by adobe representatives and they are also in it, why should I write to them when they already read everything.
I have many thousands of videos in my portfolios, of course, even for $ 1 it will be a huge amount.
Read me more carefully, I already wrote that I get the main income from agencies that sell my videos almost for free, for a few cents. And I don't have to believe it, it's a reality that has been around for many years.
You have cured my insomnia. Thank you.
67
« on: October 15, 2022, 13:06 »
I don't want my files being downloaded in droves and then uploaded to other sites by stalkers and leechers. Much less for 8$. I would be tempted for 30$/file. But 8$ is laughable.In my case they have selected over 200 files 
Or the corporation that in effect is using your asset for $8 and the unlimited usage is for their sole marketing purpose could let you nominate your asset for 'free' and the corporation could then pay you the minimum subscription rate per 'free' download. But we know corporations don't work that way. You'd have to be delusional to think this benefits the contributor/s in any way.
68
« on: October 14, 2022, 10:48 »
Free "slag" is very likely be preferred by many "buyers" as an alternative to paid quality stuff.
Free distorts the market and competition, because free is not used, but is abused
Your statement is very controversial and reflects only your opinion. You have no evidence or calculations.
"Slag" at Adobe may be selling well at other agencies.
No one is forcing you to participate in this program. The more people who opt out, the more my videos will end up in collections and the more money I'll get. 
Very short-sighted.
Here are a few examples from my eligible clips:
1. AS: 0 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $199
2. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $391
3. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $562.55
3. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $143.91
4. AS: 1 sale - Total earnings across all agencies: $371
.... and more
So, if I allow these clips to be given away for free, in exchange for 8 bucks, I'm not only shooting myself in the foot, but I may also shoot you in the foot if we both cover the same topics.
That is how my math adds up as well. My best selling image on AS hardly sells on other sites. On other sites my best selling images hardly sell on AS and are on offer for free if I nominate them. But I won't. I also have multiple content that does well across all platforms. Interestingly enough if I do a Google image search for my content more often than not there are links across all platforms. Why would I take a paltry offering of $5-$8 dollars. It makes no sense. Now Stoker2014 on the other hand appears to not understand basic economics and is enthusiastic about making poor business decisions. There is a reason some of us make it and some of us don't. I also suspect they are a troll and love getting a rise from posting such gibberish.
69
« on: October 13, 2022, 20:26 »
The math here is simple. The more videos that are initially nominated, the more videos will be included in the free collection and the more money will be transferred to you.
The math here is that this is an initiative by a publicly traded company which you can guarantee will have a set budget, which will result in a set number of selections for the free collection. If 100% of people nominate 100% of their eligible clips, then I'll put good money on Adobe not select all of those clips. Sure, if a total of only 1% of eligible clips are nominated then that changing to 2% will mean more clips in the free collection... but a change from 99% to 100% isn't going to increase anything. And while the more videos that are selected, the more money will be transferred to you, that's based on them all being selected which they probably won't be... nominating more doesn't automatically mean more money.
Adobe is selecting the content with their needs in mind and not the contributor's needs. Just sayin.
70
« on: October 13, 2022, 20:24 »
Coincidentally one of my "eligible assets" that has already sold twice on Adobe Stock just sold again for over $50. I should accept and nominate their offer of $8. It should be noted that this particular clip has also sold five times elsewhere. That $8 just keeps looking better and better. That $8 would essentially wipe out my income producing asset for the sole benefit of a corporation and it's marketing needs.
This is not even the main issue.
Every free clip or image is an alternative to paid images or videos created by other contributors.
It's hard to compete with free. Even if other paid images/videos are better, many "buyers" will choose a free option.
It is short-sighted to selfishly look only at the immediate little gains obtained from allowing your free assets to be downloaded for free, without looking at the bigger losses from your other assets, when free competitive alternatives are offered by other users.
As a community, we shoot ourselves in the feet. 
I totally agree this is not even the main issue. The main issue is much bigger than any one individual. As a community we are not only shooting ourselves in our foot, we are shooting ourselves in the other foot as well. I will never opt in to one of these offers. They do not benefit the community at all, they do however benefit a billion dollar corporation. I have enough confidence in the quality of work I produce that I will NOT give it away. Just because it does not sell on Adobe does not mean it's not a best seller on another platform and vice versa. Free is the kiss of death.
71
« on: October 13, 2022, 15:51 »
Coincidentally one of my "eligible assets" that has already sold twice on Adobe Stock just sold again for over $50. I should accept and nominate their offer of $8. It should be noted that this particular clip has also sold five times elsewhere. That $8 just keeps looking better and better. That $8 would essentially wipe out my income producing asset for the sole benefit of a corporation and it's marketing needs.
72
« on: October 11, 2022, 12:49 »
In principle, I find the FreeCollection offers quite good, but $8 for a video clip does not seem to me to be in proportion to $5 for a photo.
I will definitely not participate in this programme with my videos.
Agree.
8 for one year is really poor for what clips could generate. I'm a little disappointed
I'd have a heck of a lot more respect for this 100+ billion dollar company if they gave us the choice to use our content for "free" and offer us 0.33 per download per image and $2.80 per video per download rather than a one time $5 and $8 respectively. The reality is they offer chump change to us for their sole marketing purposes. We see no direct benefit for giving our work away for so cheap. I really do like Adobe Stock but this "free" section is not right. I too am thankful they give us a choice to opt in or opt out. I will 'donate' my work for a charity, but not a publicly traded multi-billion dollar company.
73
« on: October 11, 2022, 10:25 »
How exciting! Another shoot yourself in the foot opportunity.
74
« on: September 21, 2022, 10:49 »
...
If they want a merlot grape on a vine they will most likely search for "merlot grape vine". So you don't use "wine" as a keyword, yet so many do.
The five W's Who What Where When and Why.
but you'll lose those who search for 'grapes for wine' 'growing grapes for wine', etc
you need to tag both for a very specific interpretation of the image and how a more general search might interest the buyer. using 'cat' on a 'dog' image is obviously spam, but including both 'elk' and 'deer' accounts for biologically confused users who just want a pic of a large ruminant
not if you use an accurate tag of 'wine grapes' or 'wine grape', but point noted. all elk are deer, but not all deer are elk. this is why I am such a stickler for accuracy in keywords. blunders like the link below are preventable and discredit our entire industry. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/02/rubio-canada-and-the-dangers-of-stock-footage-in-campaign-ads.html
75
« on: September 20, 2022, 15:27 »
[/quote]
What words do buyers actually use to search for images?
[/quote]
Probably they use keywords for the content they are looking for. Better to have 20 accurate keywords than get imaginative with keywords that are in effect not relevant to the image AKA keyword spam.
If they want a merlot grape on a vine they will most likely search for "merlot grape vine". So you don't use "wine" as a keyword, yet so many do.
The five W's Who What Where When and Why.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
