Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Exit
aartturi
Participant
aartturi
Participant
Activity
‎Aug 23, 2023
04:13 PM
2 Upvotes
Yeah, made me bit sad to delete those, but that was right thing to do. Thanks 🙂
... View more
‎Aug 23, 2023
03:58 PM
They've been public for very long already. Some of them even have downloads. And yeah, the category of the files is nowhere visible in the dashboard. 😕
... View more
‎Aug 23, 2023
03:46 PM
1 Upvote
I've been contributor quite a while, but now I learned how to filter images from my own page by using " &filters[content_type%3Aphoto]=1 " That made me understand that I have some files that I have actually submitted accidentally to photo category, even when they are 3d-renders. I guess that's not a huge issue, since the categories are filled with such problematic images, but it also is not what I wanted to do, so I would like to fix it if possible, but how? Should I just delete the files and start their story over?
... View more
‎Apr 13, 2023
06:46 PM
1 Upvote
I feel like that the review team is constaly letting through ai images without correct labes. It's so common issue, that I don't know anymore what's going on. It's so common nowadays that I don't know if it's done by purpose or what's going on? Adobe staff on discord used to say that there will be a correct category for Ai-generated images, but it seems to be taking very long? I have nothing against these people, but it feels unfair that some people are kind of enforced to follow rules and then other people are let slip thogh so easily. It feels like that everyone are just giving up and collapsing completely over this. There is now listed only few of those accounts with recent uploads. You can easily search and report more of those with the follow up search term. Every ai generated images that you find with search term -ai, is tagged wrong and you can add more additional keywords to this if you want to. https://stock.adobe.com/fi/search/images?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&k=-ai&order=creation&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=-ai&get_facets=1 Account with non-labeled ai images: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211280256/ebad?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=570977920 Another account: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211269377/posterfy-ai?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=589562154 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211108081/%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80-%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BB?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=589858834 Another Ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/209908675/ecrafts?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=556934257 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/206073011/pvl0707?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=59202429 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211086203/christianvsauer?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=585902114 Another Ai account withour correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/search?creator_id=211317947&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&search_page=2&get_facets=0&search_type=pagination&asset_id=577201083 Another Ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211144022/melipo-art?load_type=author&prev_url=detail Another Ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211276099/boma?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=591874222 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211269896/rmi?load_type=author&prev_url=detail Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/search?creator_id=211309863&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&search_page=2&get_facets=0&search_type=pagination&asset_id=583465018 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/201404747/gabi-d?load_type=author&prev_url=detail Another ai account without correct labels, also this image is not from James Webb. https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211301544/shkamran?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=580541452 Another ai account without correct labels https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211194703/damian-sobczyk?load_type=author&prev_url=detail Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/188674/melinda-nagy?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=579163672 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211292128/lvivlions?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=587568775 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211249687/suplim?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=589328994 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211349876/chrishamesworth?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=589862293 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211304558/ttonaorh?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=589804506 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/contributor/211255339/alhaitham?load_type=author&prev_url=detail&asset_id=591341092 Another ai account without correct labels: https://stock.adobe.com/fi/search?creator_id=211326570&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=3&search_type=pagination&get_facets=0&asset_id=591333843
... View more
‎Jan 15, 2023
03:21 AM
2 Upvotes
The problem with the currently popular ai generators is not how people use them, but how the generators themselves were created. It's very much on grey area to have billions of images without asking them to create a tool based on their likeness, their art works and labor. No one should be forced to be part of some tools like that, which directly will drop the value of their actual work. With this system I could be taking photos rest of my life and they could be taking my photos and converting them to neural networks that are designed to clone my style and overall photos after every time little bit better. It's not okay as far I didn't opt in to such system. If I opted in, then it would be ethical and okay.
... View more
‎Jan 01, 2023
09:28 AM
7 Upvotes
I would love to agree with you, but sadly ai image generator tools have become only a powerful art steal tools. People can basically take any image online and create variations of it to be sold. And that's visible on AS also. It seems no one is interested to stop it, because now it looks like that it's generating money for while. Soon it's very hard to see which image is human made and which one is made by computer. What is happening is basically wrong in my opinion and it is not empowering artists. It's empovering art theft. In the other hand, ai tools that for example sharpen images or do color corrections etc. Those are in my book on the good side of ai usage.
... View more
‎Jan 01, 2023
09:19 AM
Is there a way to report such image that is not tagged correctly as an ai? I constantly see some over optimistic people sneaking their ai images to photography or what ever wrong category.
... View more
‎Aug 28, 2021
02:06 AM
Oh, I see. There is 2 ways to select photo. Either click the photo or click the checkbox. I have no idea why didn't I see this before. I also figured that I cannot delete collection that I featured when I tried to manage it. Thank you very much! 🙂
... View more
‎Aug 28, 2021
12:30 AM
I don't seem to undestand how to manage the collections in Adobe stock. I already have 2 collections here, but I don't know how to create new collection or add more photos into those, or even remove old collections because the delete feature is grayed out. I also cannot change the collection name or anything on those lines. Here is a tutorial that is trying to help with those, but I don't have such buttons shown in the post: New For Adobe Stock Contributors: Customized Portfolios
... View more
‎Aug 27, 2021
10:56 PM
As a 3d-artist I think I can say something to this too. I agree with previous commenters that it's quite cluttered and there seem to not be a main target in the image where we could focus. I believe very big part of these problems could be fixed by just adding better lighting in the image. However, the topic of the image is not very typical of what the customers are looking for. I think there are not many who would be looking for a dark story book images (altought there might be some of them too) Also, artistic renders, say traditional paintings or landscape renders, or even landscape photos do not do very well in this kind of sites. I speak from an experience. I've Uploaded here few works that I've worked with for weeks and I've just found out that no one seem to be interested of such renders. Lucky for you, often the stuff that is being sold is way less complex than the image you uploaded.
... View more
‎Aug 27, 2021
09:20 AM
There is camera noise in the image, which I believe is the reason for rejection.
... View more
‎Aug 26, 2021
11:46 AM
Yeah, I agree with that. I have an account in multiple sites and Adobe sales pay more than most of the other ones. I believe Adobe have put their analysts do some work to calcualte the max producing price for photos which the customers still are ready to pay in this kind of time we are living.
... View more
‎Aug 25, 2021
11:13 PM
This is just my opinion, but I think making everything cheaper is not a proper marketing plan for our services. It's just undervaluing our own product and only a sign of the desperaton the photographers are in with. Of course I understand that people are tempted to lower their prices and "if I use worse tools and old car, maybe I can make it work" -type of calculations. And there certainly are "too many" photographers and designers. The CEO of one company where I used to work said "everybody are graphical designers". I think that was little bit an insult to graphical designers... In the end of that "lower the price" -road, there is the same problems as we are having with the stock photos. Somebody always is ready to take the photos as a "hobby", for free, just like we are here uploading our work to these stock sites as a "hobby", to get some cents back. And then some other folks are uploading quite much similar photos for free to free stock sites where only the site owner earns from ads. Adobe is trying to fight this with the same "tools", and part of their catalog is given away for free after they paid of those. I know some old news photographer whos been talking for years of where this industry is going. If you are doing some work, it's completely okay to earn from it properly. And I think these stock agencies are going to wrong direction with ther "lower the price" -plans. I am quite much sure that very big amout of the buyers are designers themselves who are selling some products to their own clients. Products like websites. So if the website costs, let's say 2000$, who cares if there is 5$ more to get some quality photo as a header?
... View more
‎Aug 25, 2021
04:50 AM
There are contributors who sell more than some other contributors.
... View more
‎Aug 24, 2021
08:27 PM
That's little shame. It really makes very big part of all generic photography to be almost pointless excersice, of what is coming to work opportunities with that. And those which still are working as a career plan, such weddings and sports etc. are also having quite much competition.
... View more
‎Aug 24, 2021
08:32 AM
Yeah, I didn't mean the "scam" in it's literal form. I was talking about something that might look very good at first glance and the negative sides of it maybe are not being talked very much. So when someone test it themselves, they realize that the impressions they had, maybe from marketing etc. are maybe not as realistic as they believed. It's hard to imagine in what scale this business runs, but I believe quite big amount of new people join monthly and upload something here. Later they see that no one is buying the photos which they used to be proud of. Sorry for not being very clear with this. I'm not native English speaker, so I do speak little broken English. I used to be master collection subscriber, but I had to stop it, because I realized that in my current situation it's not worth it. I would of course subscribe again if I first figured something where I could use those tools without it being net negative.
... View more
‎Aug 24, 2021
08:13 AM
It kind of makes sense, but if you are a commercial photographer, it's hard to see many real reasons to start fighting of cents in places like micro stock websites, expect if you are in quite desperate situation. Not getting clients or something. Or if you did, that probably happened years ago. Some people might have because of some reasons already a library of thousands of photos their own that they are allowed to upload here.Still it feels quite big leap of faith to actually start uploading those all here. I think many "big names" of this business started as amateurs, maybe around 10 years ago when this was way less competitive and easier to get started. During these years they might have gathered huge libraries. I agree very much with you about those shareholders etc. Those are of course the people they want to please. In fact, for the stock website owner it mignt be good situation if everyone in their suplly chain just uploads only some good quality photos and then never earns enough to get their money out from the system, so that money could also be used for something else.
... View more
‎Aug 24, 2021
04:38 AM
Thank you for the clarification. That's also what I was afraid of after doing few months of hard work with this thing. It sadly makes this whole micro stock business model feel to be a little scam, because we are in an impossible situation. We have to do unrealistic investments to be able to earn only very little of those back. Also, doing quality graphical work takes lots of hours to be made, so our hourly wages from that work will become awfully low.
... View more
‎Aug 23, 2021
08:02 PM
1 Upvote
If someone wanted to do only stock photos, what would be the steps to be able to live from it 2021? Is there many who are living from stock photography? It feels like that for most of the photographers this just is an expensive hobby and then they get only little back of their own investmnets from these stock agencies. That's why I try to divide my question into sections. Kind of a checkpoints between your currecnt situation and the final goal. CP 1. Be able to earn back the costs of taking photos or doing images or videos by other ways. Sometimes you need to travel to your photography destinations, which sometimes costs something. Also you are a subscriber of CC and you wanna earn at least 10$ monthly to be able to pay Adobe photoshop and Lightroom. Side note: I myself decided that I don't wanna subscribe to CC before I can at least earn that 10 $ monthly, because it would just endlessly add into that cost of this hobby without me being able to earn anything from it. So I bought Affinity Photo. I know it's not as good as Photoshop, but if I cannot earn the CC price montlhy, then there is no point subscribing it. - Your next goal is to earn your camera gear price back by selling photos or other images in Adobe stock. You have an old camera body and some sort of a lens. Not the sharpest one, but okayish and some sort of a tripod. So, goal is to earn back in long term $ 1300 + additional 1000$ that you paid of your editing PC. - Your final goal is to earn minimum, 1000 $ monthly from Adobe Stock, to be able to pay your living costs and be able to eat something.
... View more
‎Aug 23, 2021
03:43 AM
1 Upvote
Hi, there is technical problems in the photos that are already mentioned here, but I would also point out that you probably wanna learn some composition work for your future photos too. Also, when you have figured out the essentials and start having something accepted in the stock, its only small step closer of being succesful. Most of us are having here hundreds of photos that never have been sold and probably also never will be sold even once. And I am sure you wanna sell photos here. And that's the hard part. You need to select your topics carefully and think about the industries that are buying photos. Also, how cempetitive some specific topics are. If you for example search "cat" or "dog" and see the overall quality of the photos, you need to be able to create images with same quality and better. Some topics are also very crowded. The skill would be to find a topic that will be very popular soon and you are early taking photos of that specific topic. Good luck. 🙂
... View more
‎Aug 22, 2021
11:36 PM
Sorry, I realized that Adobe reduces the size of the photos for this forum. The real size of your photos seem to be 4608 x 3456, which is completely okay! The reason for rejection is completely in some artifacts there are in the photos.
... View more
‎Aug 22, 2021
11:09 PM
Because I think this is an important thing to understand, I decided to upload some of the other photos too, which also are rejected because of the technical reasons. Maybe someone is able to crack the code and explain what the reviewer was thinknig.
... View more
‎Aug 22, 2021
07:51 PM
I add additional comment here, since I don't wanna lead anyone astray and the stock agencies really don't advertice this side of the story. So, I am struggling with this stock stuff. I've sold only 36 images in over year I've been here, from which I've earned $31.45 which is not much. Still, I am able to make quite okay photos with good quality, see the portfolio: Artturi photos, images, assets | Adobe Stock However, as said, I am not getting much sales, which I believe means that I still have not been able to record topics that are needed, or maybe my tagging has not been good enough, or maybe something else? There just is so much photos in this kind of photos, that something super special has to be done to be recognized. Anyways, it's a tought job and you really need to invest time and effort and probably also money to be able to live from stock photography.
... View more
‎Aug 22, 2021
07:27 PM
Hi! The images are quite small. Adobe contributor guide says that images should be more than 4 megapixels, but these images are smaller than that. The file size of 2048 x 1536 makes the image to be 3.15 megapixels. If you cannot use other camera, you need to make panorama photos. The next problem is camera artifacts. That is, camera noise. You can reduce it with Photoshop, or 3rd party tools such Topaz denoise Ai. One of your photos 08.jpg has a camera shaken slightly during when you took the photo. You can try to reduce that problem by using shorter shutter speed, or camera stand. Then we have the sharpening artifacts, that is too strong unsharp mask filtering. Some camera models make very strong unsharp masking when it's trying to prosess the imagees to look sharper, but if it's too strong, it's being seen as an artifact. If your camera allows you to record RAW files, make it do so so and then you can with image editor such Photoshop make all colors and other details of your photos be as good as possible. However, the biggest problem I think still is the camera you've been using. It's produsing small files that are not very good in quality. If you wanna take this job seriously, you need some better camera. I really recommend checking some old used cameras, to make it not too expensive (I'm myself using 10 years old Nikon D7000, which is recording completely okay photos for this purpose), and look some expert advice in some expert camera forums. You would also need to have some proper lens, which can be expensive. Also, it's very hard and often impossible to earn with stock photography back the investments we've done into our camera gear. These stock agencies do not pay very well from the sales and you need to have an exceptionally good quality in a photo and professional editing to be able to have many sales with it.
... View more
‎Aug 22, 2021
12:28 PM
Thank you, it might be something related on the things you said with the raspberries. I also think I should make the white balance little colder in that one. In fact all these fruit photos have quite warm colors because of the lighting of where I took them. So its in the limit of possibilities maybe, that the reviewer wants me to fix that?
... View more
‎Aug 22, 2021
11:52 AM
Can you look at the 2 images already provided and say about those, if you have some clear idea of what exactly made them so unpleasing to you so much that they are not okay? We can also see the composition in preview images, so if they don't follow the rules of the old masters, we should be able to see it from those without going to 200% pixel level. None of these are out of focus or that easy stuff we typically have as a problem. I also understand that probably none of us in this forum actually know all the methods the moderators are using to select the photos, so we probably are all just doing educates guess work, but I still don't understand why this has to be so confusing?
... View more
‎Aug 22, 2021
10:16 AM
I'm still being very confused of what the problem actually is. Can anyone give me additional info about this?
... View more
‎Aug 21, 2021
04:19 PM
These 2 were also rejected here. I really need to know the exact reasons, because I literally have no idea how to avoid wasting my time with tagging here. stock-photo-lots-of-green-limes-in-a-market-to-be-sold-good-source-of-juice-and-an-ingredient-for-various-2025552440.jpg (1500×1095) (shutterstock.com) stock-photo-ripe-allium-onions-and-leaves-for-sale-in-the-market-2020792877.jpg (1500×1225) (shutterstock.com)
... View more
‎Aug 21, 2021
04:04 PM
I've also had similar photos as the raspberries being rejected. But in those I only had fruits. So full image full of fruits and nothing else. What might be the unpleasant thing in that kind of photos? These are an examples of such photos. Sry I link shutterstock, but I don't wanna be uploading everything in this forum. stock-photo-red-hot-chili-peppers-in-a-market-display-chili-pepper-is-a-spice-with-lots-of-capsaicin-that-2026588487.jpg (1500×1095) (shutterstock.com) stock-photo-bunch-of-yellow-bell-pepper-paprika-vegetable-fruits-in-grocery-market-to-be-sold-good-nutrition-2025492923.jpg (1500×1093) (shutterstock.com)
... View more
‎Aug 21, 2021
04:00 PM
Okay, thanks. Can you explain what exactly makes them unpleasant composition and how do I avoid such composition happening in the future?
... View more
Copyright © 2024 Adobe. All rights reserved.
AdChoices