|
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 - wds
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 33
176
« on: October 26, 2022, 17:13 »
This is scary for sure, but will there be a backlash against "photos" of fake people, fake scenes....fake wildlife?...who knows.
177
« on: October 25, 2022, 09:40 »
My fear is that if an image is opted in to "train" the AI, what does that exactly mean? Will I see AI images generated that have AI people that happen to look a lot like a model in one of my images? or image concepts that are reused in AI generated images?
178
« on: October 23, 2022, 16:07 »
Adobe Stock just continues to decline for me despite continued uploading (as the trend line shows). Shutterstock is running at 537% better that Adobe in this current month.
Interesting, for me, SS has showed a slow long term decline, while AS has showed a slow long term increase in $$. AS now earns more overall than SS for me....and that is with SS allowing a greater range of editorial.
179
« on: October 19, 2022, 08:32 »
I have first had experience of making the mistake of exporting in Adobe RGB and having to correct this frustrating mistake.
The answer is that only a couple of sites do accept the format, but I know for a fact that Adobe themselves do not. HOWEVER, stock sites which don't support it will still show the image with the colour profile when it's for sale, but then sell it without...
If you upload an Adobe RGB image to a site which doesn't support it, a buyer will receive an image without the profile and the final image will look horrendous. I've had a couple of buyers contact me directly to say that the image they purchased online looks nothing like what they received.
I can't stress enough not to do this unless you want unhappy customers and refunds.
I have submitted aRGB images to adobestock. I would hope they do the proper conversion if they sell the image with a different or no profile (in this case convert to sRGB). Hard to believe they just ignore color profiles. I hope that's not the case.
180
« on: October 19, 2022, 08:27 »
Yes, the interesting question is "how low can they go?". The agencies that literally pay you nothing generally don't have the quality of released content that the agencies that pay you "something" (no matter how little that "something" is in some cases) have.
The question is where is the line between being payed "something" and "nothing" relative to the "quality of content"? If an agency is paying you $.08 per download is that "something" or is that "nothing" with regard to getting quality content?
Will the agencies that push the lower limit on average payouts start to see the "quality of content" submitted start to deteriorate to the point they lose market share and their revenues decline?
If that happens would they reverse and start increasing payouts?
The fact that the "agencies that literally pay you nothing" don't have quality released content says there is a lower limit.
181
« on: October 13, 2022, 09:10 »
Does it show somewhere in our stats whether a customer downloaded the PNG or JPG version of an asset?
182
« on: October 10, 2022, 12:10 »
Did we make the wrong decision uploading early? Sales already trailing off for the first pngs I uploaded (got some sales of the jpegs). I assume rather than getting a first mover advantage (as it was sold) older images are just going to be buried in the searches/ old news by the time sales start in earnest (assuming they do).
Hopefully customers "just don't know about" png's being available yet. Time will tell.
183
« on: October 10, 2022, 08:40 »
Have to say, so far not knocking my socks off in terms of additional sales. Hopefully when the marketing kicks in that will change.
184
« on: October 06, 2022, 10:04 »
I agree that it would be great for contributors to see how many PNG vs JPEG downloads there were for relevant items.
There is a new way to search - a filter called Background where you can pick All, Transparent or Isolated Assets. If you click the helpful information icon you see an explanation of isolated vs. transparent (bonus points to Adobe for choosing two adorable dogs to illustrate)
If I give someone a portfolio link, they can't filter by transparency (just images, video, 3D, etc.) but the PNG uploads show with a checkerboard background which is great.
This is nice, but does the average customer even know about this search feature? Would it make more sense to promote PNGs in a more upfront way?
185
« on: October 05, 2022, 12:02 »
Heads up! PNG downloads are now available on the Adobe Stock customer facing site. Thanks to all of you who have submitted this content to make it happen. Keep it coming!
Without you, there is no us.
-Mat Hayward
Great news! Is there a way for the customer to explicitly search for PNG's?
186
« on: September 30, 2022, 08:31 »
Would be nice to have a "dark mode" option for MSG!
187
« on: September 16, 2022, 11:50 »
What makes SS very scary is the huge range of "commissions" for an individual sale. For example, could be 10 cents or $200...that is a factor of 2000:1! My question is "when it is all said and done" does SS also see that huge variability to their bottom line? How would SS be doing if what the contributor sees as "big sales" slacked off quite a bit?
What SS will be doing - and what I do - is to look at what the averages are rather than individual sales. So they will be looking at things like total volume, rate per download, margin per download, etc.. When you have a huge volume of sales, as SS does, it all averages out.
Yes, but I guess my question is are the "big sales" as important relative to the "small sales" for SS bottom line as they are for the contributor's bottom line.
188
« on: September 16, 2022, 08:34 »
What makes SS very scary is the huge range of "commissions" for an individual sale. For example, could be 10 cents or $200...that is a factor of 2000:1! My question is "when it is all said and done" does SS also see that huge variability to their bottom line? How would SS be doing if what the contributor sees as "big sales" slacked off quite a bit?
189
« on: September 14, 2022, 12:05 »
I've been on for a few months and frankly, not impressed in terms of sales so far...certainly no better than FAA.
190
« on: September 14, 2022, 07:39 »
For those (me included) who were hoping they would open up their "proper" editorial section (from the likes of Reuters etc) to the rest of us, be aware they closed that down a couple of months ago. Here's a report on this from PAN (Photo Archive News).
https://photoarchivenews.com/news/adobe-stock-closes-editorial-photo-feed/
Interesting, I wonder if this may be a precursor to opening up editorial (beyond illustrative) to all contributors?
191
« on: September 13, 2022, 15:43 »
I've never been able to embed metadata in PNGs in PS and don't use LR. Maybe some day.
You embed metadate in PNGs in PS the same way you do it for jpgs.
Open your png, click on File -> File info, fill out the form that pops up with yout metadata and then go to File -> Save as copy and select png in the drop down menu below the name field. Do not use the export feature to save the image, that will remove the metadata.
Maybe it is a version issue. All of my PNGs are made from JPEGs that already have the metadata included. When I save them as PNGs the metadata does not get included. Canva used to let you upload the JPEG versions so they could extract the metadata - that was a nice way to do it. I am still using PS4 so maybe that was changed in later versions.
When you save the file as a PNG in Photoshop, perhaps there is a checkbox to include metdata?.....I know they have several checkboxes in the save dialog box.
192
« on: September 10, 2022, 12:21 »
There is too much variability among reviewers. I have been submitting PNGs with transparent backgrounds of JPEGs that were submitted years ago. On my last two batches, one was accepted 100% and the second was 90% rejected for "Quality" - even though the actual quality was very similar in both batches, all were accepted as JPEGs originally, and many of those that were rejected have sold very well as JPEGs so clearly don't have any quality issues. The real problem seems to be in finding quality reviewers. If they were JPEGs with embedded keywords I might resubmit, but with the PNGs, having to paste in the title and keywords manually it is too much trouble to bother. I'll go through my whole collection of PNGs, but only once - it is just too bad that likely good sellers get rejected because of poor-quality reviewers. On the bright side, it kind of proves that they aren't relying exclusively on AI for reviews.
You should be able to embed metadata in PNG's. That has been my experience with Lightroom.
193
« on: September 06, 2022, 11:19 »
Any news on when the PNG service is likely to go live?
...or even when we will find out when it will go live?
194
« on: August 26, 2022, 08:46 »
Regarding keywords, what is the latest recommendation on keywords such as "transparent", "transparency" etc. Should they be included or not for PNG files?
Thanks!
As a side note to contributors. It seems when you save a file in Photoshop as a PNG "copy", you must explicitly tell PS to include the color profile by checking a box in the save copy dialog....otherwise it will save the file untagged regarding color space.
195
« on: August 24, 2022, 21:20 »
Not sure why PNG files we have uploaded and have been accepted are being sold as JPGs until the official launch. A customer may download a file that says it has a transparent background (as a PNG), but in fact they get a JPG that does not have a transparent background until the official launch. Not good for the reputation of the contributor nor Adobestock. Why not let these be downloaded as PNG's from the "get-go"?...would that really harm the launch?...there is no great secret here, competitors know that Adobestock will in fact be offering PNGs, so why the holdback of the files as a PNG? It would be better at least if the files were just not customer visible until the launch instead of misleading the customer who thinks they are getting a PNG but in fact get a JPG.
196
« on: August 19, 2022, 17:57 »
For photographers, I don't see how the Art Board doesn't come into it. The Canvas Size will be your Image Size, so reviewers should be looking at 100% of your image.
When you upload image jpg's you never see any reference to "Canvas Size" or "Art Board" (which is why I asked the question above). ...and thanks for the answer to my question above Morganddl!
197
« on: August 19, 2022, 13:46 »
Hi everyone,
This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.
To avoid this while were working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.
For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.
thanks again,
Mat Hayward
Mat. I have been submitting images to AS for quite some time without any real issues. My question is: What the heck is an "Art Board"?
198
« on: August 17, 2022, 08:30 »
This point may have been raised above, but I noticed that accepted PNG files are currently offered to customers in JPEG format, presumably until the official launch of PNG availability. If the file description states it is '"XYZ" on a transparent background' (because in the PNG file it is), but in fact it is currently offered as JPG, the customer may be confused....because in the JPEG version, there is of course no transparency. Not sure how big an issue this is, but it could turn a customer off to an image or contributor ("why is it stated that the background is transparent when it is not?").
Maybe it would be best to just hold off on any availability until the actual launch where PNGs are available rather than confuse or irritate the customer?
199
« on: August 16, 2022, 15:31 »
I have a few hundred object isolations in my portfolio so I did a couple of tests. The PNG renditions from my photoshop/raw files yielded tiff sized results. I had to reduce image size a bit to get them below 45 megs. Reworked jpeg results were far smaller - about 5 megs. Is higher res/less compression a selling point for the PNGs? If so will 45 megs remain the limit?
Overall it would take quite a bit of effort to rework a few hundred files. (I tend to polish as I go.) I'm wondering if it will be worth the time. If so.. I'd like to get started.
In Photoshop when you save as PNG, it should give you the options of "large", "medium" or "small" file size at the expense of the time it takes to encode the image. My understanding is PNGs use lossless compression for all three file size options (look it up to be sure).
200
« on: August 14, 2022, 12:43 »
I think there is a lot more inconsistency in their reviews than there used to be. You may submit an image and it gets rejected for "not in focus" when there is no focus issue. Then you resubmit it and it gets accepted. Lots of inconsistency in general.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
