pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "focus" craziness  (Read 12062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 12, 2012, 14:41 »
0
I just had another bunch rejected for "focus".  This time most were rejected on resubmission as well.

I won't bore you with the details, but the focus was in fact perfect.  I've had hundreds of shots accepted that were done with exactly the same setup.  So please don't ask me to post the photos, etc., as there's no point, I have no way to improve the focus.  The only thing I could do is apply more sharpening, and maybe that's what they actually think they want.

Does anyone have a clue as to what's going on?



traveler1116

« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2012, 14:46 »
+1
Does anyone have a clue as to what's going on?
Yep, your photos were not in focus.

What kind of answer could you be looking for if you won't post examples?

« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2012, 15:21 »
0
I can not say with certainty, but I believe there is an automated pre-screening that images go through and some - for reasons that have nothing to do with the image actually being out of focus - fail that test.

It's irritating, but has happened enough (on images accepted everywhere else; and I really do know what is in focus and what isn't) that if a downsize doesn't do it I'll submit a collage of several shots and so far that's always been accepted.

Given how large my images are, a collection of smaller ones isn't the worst thing for SS to have - and the full size is for sale elsewhere if a buyer needs it

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2012, 15:40 »
0
Sorry to be skeptical but until there's some evidence or proof that there's any Bot review for anything besides size, I'm not going down that path. Maybe some day, someone will get some, in which case I'll adjust my opinion.

The rejection says... "Focus. Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best."

So it could be as sharp as sharp, but not where the reviewer thinks it works. That looks like opinion, not Bot?

Why Images Get Rejected for Focus - Rejection Reasons #9

http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/115/article1.html

See if that's any help?

« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2012, 15:46 »
0
I don't think the process is automated (otherwise it would most likely be consistent), I'm pretty sure it is the subjective assessment of the MkI Human Eyeball.

They're not necessarily saying the image was "not in focus". The other part of the advice is "or not where WE think it works best".

As JoAnn says shrink the image down to 5MP, or even the minimum if necessary, and resubmit it. Oh, and yes, do apply subtle sharpening. If all that doesn't work then ... your image is not in focus (or where they feel it works best).

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2012, 15:59 »
+1
^they said no resubmit.
Joann's tactic of making a collage is v clever.
Usually I just shrug and move on, but I guess it depends on how big the batch is.

« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2012, 16:42 »
+1
I can not say with certainty, but I believe there is an automated pre-screening that images go through and some - for reasons that have nothing to do with the image actually being out of focus - fail that test.

It's irritating, but has happened enough (on images accepted everywhere else; and I really do know what is in focus and what isn't) that if a downsize doesn't do it I'll submit a collage of several shots and so far that's always been accepted.

Given how large my images are, a collection of smaller ones isn't the worst thing for SS to have - and the full size is for sale elsewhere if a buyer needs it


Of course, all these shots were accepted by DT, GL and Alamy.   And SS accepted, at the same time, other shots which were technically identical to the ones rejected.   

I think the problem in most cases is  subjects that just don't have sharp, obvious edges.  As I've posted in other threads, I too am convinced a software screen  is in place and it's rejecting when it doesn't find enough edges.   I can do things to enhance edges, for example high-pass filtering and selective contrast enhancement.   More hoops to jump through.   

Shutterstock's SEC filing included this statement: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."  I think the implications are obvious.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 17:05 by stockastic »

« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2012, 17:11 »
+1
Does anyone have a clue as to what's going on?

The editor (not only @ SS) don't have "Don't like this image" option so they must pick something. I guess the "out of focus" it's at the beginning of the list.

Most of the times I receive this rejection too... I think, the reason must be something else than focus.

« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2012, 17:19 »
0
The Focus Nazi strikes again!  I've had a decent AR at SS all year and then the past couple of months all of a sudden most got shot down.  Every rejection on the last two batches at SS was for focus, and almost no focus rejections of the same images at 12 other agencies.  I had one batch where 9/10 were rejected by SS, mostly for focus.  The same batch at BS was 9/10 accepted, with one rejected for focus - the only one that was accepted at SS.  Very weird.  I haven't resubmitted any in the past couple of months, but the last time I did had good luck with resizing and limited high-pass sharpening.  Now have enough rejections to prepare another batch for resubmission and hope for the best.

I think it's just a rogue reviewer, because similar batches of the same subjects and similar quality will get through with few or no rejections, then all of a sudden switch to high rejections with the next submission.  Sometimes I can understand the focus rejections, other times some that I thought were a little soft got through at SS but were nailed at other agencies.  If resizing doesn't help it will be a problem - I hate resizing and sharpening but will do it if necessary.

« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2012, 18:01 »
+1
They don't seem keen on shallow DoF.

THP Creative

  • THP Creative

« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2012, 18:05 »
0
had the same thing recently. Resubmitted and almost all approved. It's annoying to say the least, just means another week or so without those image online.

THP Creative

  • THP Creative

« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2012, 18:06 »
0
They don't seem keen on shallow DoF.

True. But when they do let shallow shots through, they sometimes turn out to be the best sellers!

« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2012, 18:07 »
0
Does anyone have a clue as to what's going on?

The editor (not only @ SS) don't have "Don't like this image" option so they must pick something. I guess the "out of focus" it's at the beginning of the list.

Most of the times I receive this rejection too... I think, the reason must be something else than focus.

+1

« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2012, 18:18 »
+3
To forum: for future reference, do not post rants about keywords or focus or lighting or ... without examples.  Thx.

CD123

« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2012, 19:13 »
0
To forum: If all top agencies accepts certain images and another constantly fail the same images for a specific reason, feel free to inquire if other contributors are experiencing the same, without samples. (Not all want their images to be judged, but all have the right to ask questions about other contributor's experiences - the ones who does not want to respond without examples do not have to - freedom of speech I think).

To the OP. Just had another bunch refused for the same reason, while accepted at Alamy and other large agencies. Agree, there is something up with it. Going with  icefront's opinion.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 19:17 by CD123 »

« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2012, 19:13 »
0
The question is not "would someone like to critique my photos?".  The question is, "does anyone know what's behind this statement in SS's SEC filing?":

"We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2012, 19:17 »
0
I can not say with certainty, but I believe there is an automated pre-screening that images go through and some - for reasons that have nothing to do with the image actually being out of focus - fail that test.

It's irritating, but has happened enough (on images accepted everywhere else; and I really do know what is in focus and what isn't) that if a downsize doesn't do it I'll submit a collage of several shots and so far that's always been accepted.

Given how large my images are, a collection of smaller ones isn't the worst thing for SS to have - and the full size is for sale elsewhere if a buyer needs it


Of course, all these shots were accepted by DT, GL and Alamy.   And SS accepted, at the same time, other shots which were technically identical to the ones rejected.   

I think the problem in most cases is  subjects that just don't have sharp, obvious edges.  As I've posted in other threads, I too am convinced a software screen  is in place and it's rejecting when it doesn't find enough edges.   I can do things to enhance edges, for example high-pass filtering and selective contrast enhancement.   More hoops to jump through.   

Shutterstock's SEC filing included this statement: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."  I think the implications are obvious.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm


I spotted this statement as well and based on a few of the higher end submitters that are reporting mass focus rejections I tend to think they have said proprietary technology in place.


« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2012, 19:22 »
0
The use of software screening technology is inevitable, and reviewing costs are an obvious issue.  Focus evaluation technology already exists - it's in your camera, driving the multi-point AF.   Edge detection exists. 

The problem isn't that an agency is using this technology - the problem is that they're doing it in secret.  If they want to reduce their costs, why not make this evaluation tool available to contributors? Then we can do our own screening and if an obviously good photo fails, we don't waste everyone's time with automatic rejections and resubmisions - we either change the photo or bring it to the attention of a live reviewer at SS as an example of how the screen isn't working properly.

« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 19:50 by stockastic »

rubyroo

« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2012, 19:24 »
0
I'm trying to picture a 'Focus-Nazi'.... I'm just seeing a monacled, goose-stepping pedant.

If only the real *N-words had been merely pedantic...

*forum won't allow the N-word in isolation.  Sorry.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 19:26 by rubyroo »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2012, 21:14 »
0
SS does not use any computer generated pre-screening programs!

You got hit by Attila ;D

Happens every year.

« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2012, 23:01 »
0
SS does not use any computer generated pre-screening programs!

"We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

This is what SS said - are you saying they don't know what they're talking about or lied  to the SEC?

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2012, 00:07 »
-1
So when they went public this is what they said?

Strange because Anthony and others say they dont use this kind of technology?

SS does not use any computer generated pre-screening programs!

"We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

This is what SS said - are you saying they don't know what they're talking about or lied  to the SEC?

« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2012, 01:41 »
0
I just had an image rejected because of "focus". I sent it in for a second opinion and the SS reviewer asked that I resubmit and include a comment that I copy and paste in the "notes to reviewer" box. I did that....and guess what? The image was rejected again because of "focus" issues. Did the reviewer miss the comments included with the resubmission? Is it an automated system? Who knows. I've resubmitted the image a third time with the same note hoping the reviewer will see it this time around. Very frustrating. I submit no more than 2 images at a time now. Almost all are rejected for focus problems and almost all are accepted after a second reviewer checks it out. This has been going on for months.

« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2012, 02:47 »
+2
maybe it was out of focus?

Let us see them.
Else its kind of a meaningless discussion.

« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2012, 10:11 »
0
I just had an image rejected because of "focus". I sent it in for a second opinion and the SS reviewer asked that I resubmit and include a comment that I copy and paste in the "notes to reviewer" box. I did that....and guess what? The image was rejected again because of "focus" issues. Did the reviewer miss the comments included with the resubmission? Is it an automated system? Who knows. I've resubmitted the image a third time with the same note hoping the reviewer will see it this time around. Very frustrating. I submit no more than 2 images at a time now. Almost all are rejected for focus problems and almost all are accepted after a second reviewer checks it out. This has been going on for months.

Your experience matches mine. All my 'focus' rejections in the past were approved on resubmission - I just added notes saying "I don't see the problem".  But last time: I submitted 3, all were rejected for 'focus', I resubmitted them and only 1 was approved.

If there is an automated screen (I'm convinced there is), and it's being applied on resubmissions too, then it's really getting tough - maybe impossible for some subjects. 

This new screen wasn't put in place because customers were complaining about out-of-focus images, or because images need to be even sharper than a year ago; the purpose is to cut reviewing costs. 



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
9660 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
4 Replies
8948 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
8697 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
4 Replies
3709 Views
Last post March 08, 2014, 20:34
by w7lwi
0 Replies
1428 Views
Last post February 19, 2021, 12:46
by cloudvisual

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors