|
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 - Jaggy
26
« on: September 01, 2023, 10:24 »
Not as good as July but July was exceptional.
At SS, downloads slightly on the low side but decent revenue. At AS, good downloads but a little weak on revenue.
27
« on: September 01, 2023, 08:37 »
I don't really understand why Adobe would block an account for this. Why not simply reject the images? Seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
28
« on: August 25, 2023, 16:30 »
Instead of suspending the entire account, why don't they just remove all the images generated by artificial intelligence from the portfolio and block future uploads of AI-generated images from the contributor?
I would speculate that Adobe are overwhelmed by the number of Generative AI submissions, they are understaffed and/or overworked, review times have become far too long and it's much quicker to suspend an entire account than go to the effort of deciding which images to remove.
29
« on: August 25, 2023, 15:37 »
Seems to me that Adobe have got themselves into an almighty 'pickle' with this Generative AI stuff.
30
« on: August 09, 2023, 19:16 »
Seems a bit better now (maybe famous last words). Of my batch of over 20, one rejected for quality (I can live with this one), two for similar (ridiculous), two still pending (it's only been 15 days) and the rest accepted. I'm going to resubmit the similars and then feed in a bunch of others I have waiting.
31
« on: July 31, 2023, 06:34 »
So, three of my batch were reviewed, one accepted and two rejected for 'similar'. One of the 'similars' was a windmill in the Netherlands. Now, I've only ever photographed one Dutch windmill and that was it. So I'm at a loss to know what it's supposed to be similar to.
It will be resubmitted along with the other rejection.
32
« on: July 27, 2023, 16:32 »
I have over 20 submissions which have been waiting for two weeks now. In my opinion, they are a step up in quality to the work I did in the past because my new camera/lens combo is that much better. All have been accepted on other sites too.
Anyway, I made a copy of the title and key words for all of them so I can resubmit real fast and with a minimum of effort. If Adobe want to play 'silly buggers', so can I.
33
« on: July 15, 2023, 10:08 »
Well, last month, Adobe revenue leapt ahead of Shutterstock revenue with the $5 payments for the free collection plus a $66 sale.
This month, the 'empire' struck back with a $192.10 sale.
So my historical ratio of revenue - SS around 65% and Adobe around 35% - continues to hold true.
34
« on: June 24, 2023, 05:43 »
AI seems to be the 'big bet' right now. But is that what the customers want?
One thing ... now that everything will be accepted one way or another, no point in doing resubmits.
I'll be watching closely to see if everything starts getting rejected. I might opt-out till I see which way things are going.
35
« on: June 23, 2023, 06:36 »
I just had a look and, right now, it looks like everything is still going into the regular stock catalog. I don't see any option to view a 'data catalog'.
"Starting next week, Shutterstock will be introducing Data Licensing"
Missed that bit.  I shall be interested to see what proportion of submitted content goes into the regular catalog and what goes into the data sets.
36
« on: June 23, 2023, 05:59 »
The way I understood it, the content that's only part of the Data Catalog will be compensated via the already existing contributor fund. Content accepted for the regular stock database will be compensated via the regular and also already existing commissions.
Contributors should be able to filter out the assets which are only accepted for the data catalog soon.
Needlessly to say that contributor fund compensations are neglectable for individual images.
I just had a look and, right now, it looks like everything is still going into the regular stock catalog. I don't see any option to view a 'data catalog'.
37
« on: June 23, 2023, 05:56 »
As I understand it, rejected content will now be retained for inclusion in the datasets, presumably to help train AI as they have already done for other content.
Begs the question as to whether they will now start 'rejecting' most content (a bit like Adobe are) but retaining it for their 'datasets'.
My other thought is that we - and probably Shutterstock - don't really know how ready the market is for AI generated content. That remains to be seen.
38
« on: June 20, 2023, 19:52 »
I found that Commercial was getting reviewed fast but Editorial less so. All my recent submissions were accepted but, historically, most of mine have been.
39
« on: June 19, 2023, 05:15 »
So how is it going guys? Is there anyone still trying to submit real photos and can share some insights? I already have another batch of several hundred photos to be added, but I am afraid of getting all of them rejected and wasting my time. Is it still the same as in last couple of weeks?
I just had another batch rejected by Adobe for "quality issues" having been accepted by Shutterstock. It's beyond a joke now. I'm done uploading to Adobe.
40
« on: June 17, 2023, 12:57 »
...
And have a "burger with egg" for breakfast while you're here 
...
burgerw egg is not uncommon, but it's usually under the bun. more curious is the dripping egg yolk when the yolk is unbroken
Good spot on the yolk Still, I'm sure it meets Adobe's stringent quality standards (no sniggering at the back).
41
« on: June 12, 2023, 09:04 »
A week ago, I had 4 photos rejected by Adobe for "quality issues". Generally, I don't resubmit but I thought I would try resubmitting one of them as a trial.
Predictably, this photo has been accepted by Adobe.
Does this mean that, in the last week, Adobe has reduced their quality standards? Alternatively, perhaps it highlights that there is inconsistency in the review process and that Adobe's review guidelines lack the specificity to allow for consistent reviews.
Does it also mean that we must now adopt the ridiculous 'resubmission game' that has been a feature of the relationship with Shutterstock.
I had thought Adobe was better than that!
42
« on: June 06, 2023, 06:53 »
Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe.
Same here. They changed review process, not necessarily criteria. I am certain they reject whole group (batch) without even looking at the rest if single photo is flagged. In other words like Alamy. I also believe AI does pre-processing and if it flags a file, human QA doesn't even look at anything.
Try to submit rejected photo as single. Just upload 1 photo, keyword, submit, before uploading another. I had rejected photos approved this way.
(btw I also never fully understood their Editorial criteria. I don't think most of their QA reviewers do either, so rejections are random, depending who you run into)
I'm going to try resubmitting with one of the four. We'll see what happens.
43
« on: June 05, 2023, 07:33 »
Just had 4 shots rejected for 'quality issues'. A bit surprising really as I rarely have photos rejected by Adobe.
But Shutterstock accepted all four so Adobe's loss I guess. I won't bother resubmitting.
44
« on: May 06, 2023, 20:10 »
Personally, I think the concerns over AI are overblown. AI has been around for some time but, has it really revolutionized anything? Not really. Does it have that potential? Maybe but, equally, it may just sit alongside traditional techniques. Good for some things not so good for others. (...)
This sounds more or less like 2002 "digital will never replace film" 
For what it's worth, as soon as I saw the first digital cameras, I knew film was doomed. That was around 1997. One of my clients was a film processing lab and I told them their days were numbered. They didn't like it ... lol. I don't feel that way about AI.
45
« on: May 05, 2023, 14:47 »
Personally, I think the concerns over AI are overblown. AI has been around for some time but, has it really revolutionized anything? Not really. Does it have that potential? Maybe but, equally, it may just sit alongside traditional techniques. Good for some things not so good for others.
At the end of the day, will it be easier and cheaper for a customer to buy or generate an image from SS or will it be easier and cheaper to do it themselves? It's the age old business question (MBA 101) whether to make or buy.
Markets get jittery all the time and especially in the current climate. But that doesn't mean they are right. Of course, I don't own any shares in SS and, should the business fail, it would be a very minor hit to my income stream. So it's easy for me to be sanguine.
46
« on: May 03, 2023, 09:28 »
I've got an extra $3.53.
Hopefully it doesn't disappear as quickly as it arrived.
47
« on: March 07, 2023, 18:02 »
Okay, so help me out here.
Suppose someone on Twitter ... Elon Musk or someone else .... posts my photo. How does anyone know who I am or where my portfolio is?
Do they credit me? Do they post a link to my port?
Customers that would like to use your art and know that they have to respect copyright will find your art and pay for it. Sure some blogger will fetch it from Elon Musk's tweet but who cares? I think both artists mentioned (I was reacting to the latter case) will have seen their income increase multifold by this commotion. But that is a guess because I don't know them personally offcourse.
Sounds hit and miss to me. Mostly miss. I think I'll pass.
Sure thing. So president Biden places my photo and not yours on a tweet without credits. Let's see who's income gets boosted. I am pretty sure it will be me and not you. But you go ahead with your own reasoning.
You really think President Biden is going to use one of your photos? Can I have some of what you are smoking?
48
« on: March 07, 2023, 17:42 »
Okay, so help me out here.
Suppose someone on Twitter ... Elon Musk or someone else .... posts my photo. How does anyone know who I am or where my portfolio is?
Do they credit me? Do they post a link to my port?
Customers that would like to use your art and know that they have to respect copyright will find your art and pay for it. Sure some blogger will fetch it from Elon Musk's tweet but who cares? I think both artists mentioned (I was reacting to the latter case) will have seen their income increase multifold by this commotion. But that is a guess because I don't know them personally offcourse.
Sounds hit and miss to me. Mostly miss. I think I'll pass.
49
« on: March 07, 2023, 16:56 »
Okay, so help me out here.
Suppose someone on Twitter ... Elon Musk or someone else .... posts my photo. How does anyone know who I am or where my portfolio is?
Do they credit me? Do they post a link to my port?
50
« on: March 07, 2023, 14:08 »
One of the reasons why I'm very careful about what I post on Twitter (or any other social media) and almost never post images that I have up on SS or AS.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
