Have had stuff on Pond5 since like 2009 and shutter stock from like 2012ish. Probably still average like a couple hundred a year these days.
That shit got me through high school and college, funding all my photography needs at the time. Peaked at 2k/year on both for a while. Game changing money for a youngster.

>>4306743
Lucky you started early. So saturated since around 2015. Can still make decent side income with videos though on pond5 and shitterstock

File: DSC01917.jpg (2.64 MB, 5000x3333)

2.64 MB JPG

>>4306474
all of them promote AI shit and even offer creation services, it's a fucking waste of time for photographers, especially since there are still such high requirements for anything photography to get accepted
>had an abandoned soviet era swimming pool's diving board image rejected over 'intellectual property' despite the ussr having collapsed 40 years ago
>adobe stock rejected a simple photograph of trees in fog over 'quality issues'
doesn't help that shit like unsplash exists for photographers to get good boy points in the form of views and likes while offering everything for free

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Capture One Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	127 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1000 dpi
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	11.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Image Width	5000
Image Height	3333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft

>>4308034
Had another image rejected on Adobe Stock over 'quality issues'. A pretty simple shot of a rose in sharp focus with an 85mm F1.8. Nothing wrong with it, got accepted on every other platform uploaded to.

Took one look at the images that are supposedly performing well on Adobe Stock and they're all AI with fucked anatomy. Pretty telling on where things are going for this industry.

>>4308628
Adobe is very strict with images. always have been

File: 1000_F_778030126_SrUmzrg1(...).jpg (327 KB, 778x1000)

327 KB JPG

>>4308631
Clearly not. Here's something they're happy to approve. But actual photography? Nah, fuck you.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: 1000_F_765294517_XmQ3p2EW(...).jpg (199 KB, 1000x571)

199 KB JPG

>>4308636
More of that Adobe Stock quality. Note the dress. But they'll make up your photography might have some issue that doesn't warrant approval.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: 1000_F_775789307_jJejdwPY(...).jpg (229 KB, 1000x1000)

229 KB JPG

>>4308637
Title: glass of water

Wow, great stuff Adobe!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>4308636
I am talking about photo submissions. Ai is different and less strict

>>4308642
Yeah it's frustrating. There can be absolutely nothing wrong with an image and they'll reject it, you go on the marketplace and see absolute shit getting approved.

Other platforms aren't so bad, but they're all promoting the AI nonsense. I think it's getty that is the only one that doesn't allow AI submissions whatsoever.

>>4308644
stock photos don't pay for shit anyway so I don't care. video is where it's at now

>>4308645
>video is where it's at now
It is, but only a matter of time until they promote the AI shit and claim the real stuff has quality issues.

yeah. just so I can join the coming class action lawsuit for them using my photos to train their shitty gen ai

>>4308636
that's because they use AI to vet their application process and it doesn't notice it's own gaussian noise bs. You basically need to use AI upscaling tools to get approved on their garbage stock site

>>4309604
you probably agreed to it when you signed up dumbass

>>4309605
yeah it's pretty clear that's the case, especially with shutterstock; had videos both rejected and approved at the same time, had to contact them and have them fix it

>>4309604
most probably have you already agreeing to it, others would defend themselves like shutterstock by giving you a payout if your photograph was used to train generative pajeetshit