Hi, I'm new to contributors and a beginner photographer trying to figure out how to do things right. I aim to a commercially effective work process instead of shooting and uploading material by trial and error. I have several questions about it.
1. What are the tools or the recommended way to check if there is a requirement for a certain photography subject?
2. How do you know if the topic has already been flooded with countless photos?
3. Is there a certain rule of thumb or logic in finding a topic or niche with high demand and low competitiveness?
4. Is it even worth starting with uploading photos in 2023 (because of the AI and the competition) or is it better to start with video?
I have no intention or expectations of making a living from stock sites, just want to avoid frustration from uploading hundreds of photos that no one will view or buy.
I have several dozen photos of beauties (an example is attached) and a few nature/ landscape.
shooting with Sony A7C + prime lenses.
1. Look at the Artist Hub and Insights links in your Dashboard page. Follow the Adobe Stock blog. https://blog.adobe.com/en/topics/stock
The Adobe stock discord channel also has an Inspiration Corner where you can see curator's picks and sometimes a "call for content".
2. Go to the Buyer portal and search in the keyword category you're thinking of contributing. If there are already tens of thousands of assets in that category, don't bother unless you have something unique to add that is searchable with keywords.
3. I'm not aware of any such "rule of thumb", but keep in mind that fresh content is still desirable in many subject areas, and the Buyers can search for new or previously "undiscovered" assets.
4. Photos and videos are still selling. I submit only photos ( no AI) and my sales are up 40-50% this year.
Good luck in your stock journey. Start by reading ALL of the Adobe Stock Learn & Support pages which will improve your chance of success.
I'll address a couple of your questions.
I don't believe photography competes with AI on Adobe Stock. In fact, it is just the opposite, since users can choose to ignore AI is their search results. Contributors who would disagree with this assessment appear to have a personal bias against AI in general, which is certainly up to them.
As per your example image, while we can't read the minds of moderators, it's possible they might reject this it on the basis of the parking lot in the background. Were it my own image, I'd crop it just to the right of what appears to be a palm tree and edit out the remaining white areas, the telephone pole, and the silver bar on the ground just behind the iron fence. This would give the buyer of the image a chance to use it in more various contexts. You'd be left with an image that could have been taken on a remote coastal island rather than what might be construed as just a motel in front of a city parking lot. I'd also copy and paste one of the shutters over that unshuttered window, but that's probably just me.
As far as your equipment is concerned, it doesn't matter if the image was taken with a cell phone or a $35,000 Hasselblad. If it's technically correct and has commercial potential, it will be accepted.
A look at the histogram shows that some darker areas could be opened up just a tad.
As per your example image, while we can't read the minds of moderators, it's possible they might reject this it on the basis of the parking lot in the background.
I do not think that the parking lot is a problem. I would expect exposure being a rejection reason, as the asset seems to be on the darker side (without having checked, I feel the model should get more attention).