How many photos i need to upload to make money

[Worker404]

Welcome

I want to ask how many images are required to start making a profit from Adobe Stock 

I don't mean that I make a big profit, but I mean the beginning 

I know there is no specific number but would two hundred photos  about pollution and, business and be a good start?

And i this photo in my portfolio can get If you complete the work?

https://stock.adobe.com/eg/contributor/211720406/worker%20404

I would like you to answer all my questions, thank you

[daniellei4510]

One can probably start making regular but minimal sales with 2000+ images. But that's assuming the assets in question are what buyers are looking for. So sales could be higher or lower. There's really no way to know. But you probably wouldn't see much activity with only 200 assets..

[Worker404]

thank you for your reply

If you don't mind, how many photos do you have and do they make you a good income?

For me, I can consider that the good income is  around  $20. Is 200 photos enough to get 20 dollar per month ?

[Jill_C]

There's no way to know if 200 assets will generate $20 per month. If the images represent a topic that is in high demand or one that has little competition, I suppose it's possible. But if they're in a category that already has a lot of competition, such as flowers, puppies, sunsets, you might have $0 sales.

[daniellei4510]

I suppose it's possible but highly unlikely. Most images sell for .33 each. At worst, you would have to sell 60 assets per month to make $20. Your 200 assets would be competing against millions of others. You'd be a small planet in a huge galaxy.

[Abambo]

For me, I can consider that the good income is  around  $20. Is 200 photos enough to get 20 dollar per month ?

By @Worker404

You would need more pictures for that. 200 pictures would give you may be $20 a year. 

[tahir_0593]

hello

[Worker404]

Welcome

[Jill_C]

Do you have a question for the community?

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

Despite what the Internet says, don't quit your full-time job.  Stock is a nice way to earn a little extra income on the side. But it won't make you rich.

It takes time to build a diverse portfolio of commercial-ready assets that customers will pay for.  Focus on producing the highest quality artwork you can on a wide variety of subjects. You'll soon see which ones sell and which ones don't.  If you do everything right for a year or more, you should start seeing a steady passive income from your efforts. 

Pay attention to trends and watch what's selling currently.  Adjust your content to satisfy current customer demand.  Look for fresh new ways of expressing old ideas.  In other words, be a trend-setter instead of a chaser.

Hope that helps.

[Abambo]

I looked into your portfolio and I've seen some assets, that should have been rejected, and I saw the issues at the small preview files. I even saw one that should have been rejected on quality issues and on IP grounds.

[Worker404]

I think that the errors in the photo not a big problem

If you designed photo without Ai It will also contain errors

I tried to make abstract photos to get over those errors 

[Abambo]

I think that the errors in your assets are a problem.  And no, photos do not contain errors. And if they have errors, they get removed from the database. As a stock customer, I expect correct assets, not assets that I first need to correct. 

You need to correct the errors, and having a low quality asset accepted is not the guarantee for keeping that in your portfolio. Having a lot of assets in need to be removed will get your account blocked. I can assure you, if I would stumble as a stock customer over your fake iPhone, I would report that asset.

[Worker404]

I understand your response, but I am not completely devoted to this work alone. I have tasks in life and when I have any free time I try to create pictures and upload them. Of course there are many pictures that contain errors, but I do my best.Creating images with artificial intelligence without errors is very difficult. I do my best and try to generate images without errors, but as humans or even robots, everyone makes mistakes.

I do not have a lot of time, and I prefer creating many average images rather than creating only 25 images a month with excellent quality. Whatever the quality of those 25 images, in the end, they are not enough to sell, and they do not cover many topics. 

At a rate of 25 photos per month, you will find that your life passed away without earning any thing. Also, a good picture with an average picture on several topics somewhat covers the problem. I hope you  you didn't reported the low quality images in my portfolio.

I value your opinion and try to create high-quality images. I may delete images with defects and poor quality, but after collecting a good number of images on my portfolio 

[Jill_C]

Submitting poor quality images degrades the database and your portfolio in particular and frustrates Buyers. Spend the time to prepare and submit the highest quality images, and you will be rewarded for it.

[Abambo]

I understand your response, but I am not completely devoted to this work alone. I have tasks in life and when I have any free time I try to create pictures and upload them.

By @Worker404

So because you do not have a lot of time, you think you are allowed to upload bad assets.

Next time, you buy a car, the vendor will sell you a car with errors built in. When you complain about the errors, the vendor will say, sorry, but of course, building a car with no errors is very difficult, and our people in manufacturing do not have a lot of time. They will remove the bad cars after they have built more cars to sell.

You will now say that a car and an asset to licence are not the same, and you are right.

But:

As a professional, I'm searching the database for the ideal image. I spend easily a day or two researching the correct topic. I create a model (or several models) to be presented to the customer. The customer, after internal consultation with his bosses, gives me the OK for one design. I licence the full-scale image, and I detect your multiple errors. That's for a small job easily a creative week, that I can scrap. Let's say that that is $2000 or more of lost earnings. Because the customer will not pay for my work, and to the contrary, they will be angry because they just convinced their boss of my concept. They will need to go back to the boss and tell them that I can't deliver before the deadline because you think that uploading bad assets is OK. I will lose the customer, or I will need to do some magic because you did not devote the time you should have devoted to correcting the assets.

(To be honest, I would exclude AI from my searches because many people are thinking like you and are wanting to make the quick bucks. They would rather not invest the time needed, and unfortunately, Adobe does a bad job checking the generative AI assets. So, I will miss all the assets created by the serious contributors.)

[Worker404]

In fact my old photos were 4000*2000 , they were about 200 photo

But like you say ,because of bad quality 

170 of them was rejected,

Now i Create photos with the ratue 8000*4000

But the problem is that I create it 1024*1024 and upscale it so it has little details 

[Nancy OShea]

Aggressive upscaling of poor quality images doesn't make them better, it only make them worse.  Upscaling amplifies errors & artifacts.  

Limit your upscaler to 2 - 3 times the image's original size.  Be sure to carefully examine every quadrant and correct all problems before you submit to Stock.

[Worker404]

This is what I would like to say. The problem with 75% of AI image generation programs is that the image size is only 1 megapixel. Suppose the image is dense grass. A 1-megapixel image does not contain details, enlarging it will only increase the pixels numbers ,The details of the grass will not become better, when zoomed in, it will not allow more details to be seen, so when you take a photo at 4K size naturally, the details in it will be much better than an image that was created and enlarged up to 8K.The problem is not really that the images I provide are bad, but rather that the images generated in most AI image generators are not accurate, so when you enlarge them, the details are still somewhat faded. So I try to make abstract images.Creating an abstract image reduces the number of details required, and therefore 1 megapixel is very sufficient to contain the details of the images, and thus, as the image is enlarged, it will not appear faded.

For better explanation read this: "Creating small images with precision and then enlarging them not only results in amazing resolution, but also affects the amount of details  in the image.

Let's say for example:

Image with a resolution of 5000 * 5000: It will contain specific details, including window building details such as glosses and patterns.

Image 1000 * 1000: It will contain small details, windows and will appear as simple lines only.

When a low resolution image (1000*1000) is enlarged to 5000*5000, the image area will increase, but new details that were not present in the original image will not be measured.

Simply put, the image will become larger, but it will shade out even the finer details you capture in the (5000*5000) image."

[Abambo]

When a low resolution image (1000*1000) is enlarged to 5000*5000, the image area will increase, but new details that were not present in the original image will not be measured.

By @Worker404

You can't add detail, where no detail is. Errors in the image will be enhanced. The only thing that specific modern upscalers may do is to keep or reconstruct the hard edges (high frequency) in an image, with hopefully not introducing new artefacts. 

[daniellei4510]

I'm confused. You had 170 4000x2000 images rejected and your response was to double the upscale size? You might be creating more problems for yourself.

[Worker404]

Man, the problem of image quality in images made with artificial intelligence is not mine alone. Most image generators generate image with the quality of 1 megapixel.

Read this for more explanation:

"Creating small images with precision and then enlarging them not only results in amazing resolution, but also affects the amount in the image.

Let's say for example:

Image with a resolution of 5000 * 5000: It will contain specific details, including window building details such as glosses and patterns.

Image 1000 * 1000: It will contain real details, windows and will appear as simple lines only.

When a low resolution image (1000*1000) is enlarged to 5000*5000, the image area will increase, but new details that were not present in the original image will not be measured.

Simply put, the image will become larger, but it will shade out even the finer details you capture in the (5000*5000) image."

I also contacted support and they told me that my main problem is the lack of sharpness and poor quality of the images, so I am trying to improve that, hoping for your understanding.  

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

I'm well aware of the problems that result when upscaling AI images. I submit 100% AI upscaled to 7200 px along the longest side. I spend anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours editing and retouching each image, and sometime 3 or more if I have a troublesome asset that I'm particularly fond of. Point is, the impression I get from your posts is that, while you understand how upscaling can degrade an image, you aren't following through with the necessary editng process itself. It appears you're going for good enough (which is a mistake) or tossing possibly fixable assets in the trash. Or perhaps I'm wrong and you're at least doing your best to edit your assets before submitting. If so, then it would appear that you just need to improve upon your editing and retouching skills.

[Worker404]

It's not confusing, I take what you all say into consideration and try to work with it. Experience doesn't come all at once

[Abambo]

In fact my old photos were 4000*2000 , they were about 200 photo

By @Worker404

They were not photos, they were and are generative AI images. 

But like you say ,because of bad quality 

170 of them was rejected,

By @Worker404

That's a 85% refusal rate. A refusal rate of less than 50% is acceptable. But as said, you still have multiple assets in your portfolio that should have been rejected.

Now i Create photos with the ratue 8000*4000

But the problem is that I create it 1024*1024 and upscale it so it has little details 

By @Worker404

What do you expect? If you want to do decent money, you will need to improve the quality of your work. And that won't happen with upscaling.