here is a "dilemma" I have been "torn" about for some time now and wondering if others have similar questions to themselves: I have many old photos - going back say about 7-8 years - that I took with a decent (back then) "pocket camera" and depicting good subject matters, but naturally they can't stand up to todays photo technology! but these photos sell quite well at other sites! (they are fine in terms of digital size (8-10-12 Megapixel), is it worth to gamble acceptance (especially considering the recent very stiff "standards") or forget them and be happy that they sell elsewhere (for pennies though)? My angle that keeps me from "gambling" with such submits here is that I don't want to risk the 51% required acceptance rate required by Adobe for handing out the free annual Photoshop subscription! i.e.: I can produce a perfect (near perfect) technical quality, but the substance may not be there (so what's the point of submitting)? I can't possible recreate or duplicate those old photos. any thoughts? Tx.!
If you are certain that they meet the quality standards, upload a few, perhaps 4-6, and see if they're accepted. If they're rejected you'll know that your own assessment of quality doesn't match Adobe's.
I've never read any specific policy about whether acceptance ratio is calculated on a perpetual basis or annually.
As I understood Mat Hayward's message years ago, when they started handing out free subscriptions, the acceptance rate criteria was an overall, total rate. As the criteria for receiving this complimentary subscription have been modified two or three years ago, and now are based on your annual sales. It is inconceivable for an individual to have a high number of sales and meet all other criteria, yet be rejected by a 50% threshold on the year, when their overall acceptance is significantly below that threshold.
You can manually calculate your threshold, by counting pages of assets. You have a 100 pictures per page in your portfolio, and you can sort by date of submission. Rejections are also 100 per screen. And they are sorted by date too.
There is no problem with older assets, I also have some assets that I took with my 20D or 40D, and they pass. I even sometimes resubmit older rejected material because I can today address the issues better (better noise cancellation software and more experience).
I agree with @Jill_C to start slowly and wait for acceptance. You also should carefully select, what you want to submit and submit the best assets first.
that's very helpful Abambo, thank you. I wasn't certain if the 50%+ acceptance (silent) criteria was for the last year. now I know. and sorting by acceptance (rejection) date is clever. thanks. I should be O.K just by a gut feeling, because before I used to get about 6 or 7 in out of 10. but lately it happend that 9 out of 10 was rejected. which promted me to take a breather and not rush it. besides, I reached a self-set threshold of certain portfolio size, so the "creator" can rest : ).
we were referring to the requirements to receive the free Photoshop or Lightroom subscription from Adobe. I am almost certain it was a criteria for getting that last year.
did you not used to post at the old shutterstock forum before it was shut down?
The criteria for receiving free bonus subcriptions is based on how many of your qualifying assets were downloaded in a calendar year.
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html Scroll down to Bonus Program.
I wonder who has those numbers. Some people must! I am happywith 30 a week if it comes in steady.
Some have that, others are near. If the current trend persists, they will once again set a new standard.
wow! that must feel good! I can't imagine. so how many photos would a top seller have? I know! many sales don't necessarily require many photos (videos). but ballpark? any guesses? I have been trying to calculate from how many contributors may submit here and from my position, what tear would I fall into? but nobody could provide any reasonable number. based on Dreamstime though, they seem to have a lot (!) of contributors. supposedly 1 million (for 200 million images, vectors and clips). sounds a bit high.
Some generative AI contributors have 10K assets in their portfolio and contribute hundreds more each week, it's a safe bet they're selling at high volume, too.
Thank you Nancy. Not sure how to close the thread, but if somebody does, please do so. Thank you.