MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => General - Top Sites => Topic started by: chess1master on March 19, 2017, 12:18
-
I've got an interesting feedback one of my customer, that she is hardly find suitable conceptions at stock agencies, due to tons of overhelming same conceptions, or same images in various crops, filters etc.
For example on Shutterstock ID: 433880728, 436619266, 437470180, 447365770, etc.
Second thing is worst. From this style (examples above) are tons of photographers (or maybe stawmans?) with different countries of upload, who copy this style - sometimes with international faces - on local professional market I dont know personaly anyone of them, but those models acting professionaly, not just first shooters - the pictures are hardly filtered, fake flared etc. as at main uploaders.
Why agencies allowing this ?
-
Provide a link.
-
Provide a link.
Well I've just learn't something you can search SS using image Id :-). I don't know what the problem is with the image? Too many similars or copied?
-
Provide a link.
Well I've just learn't something you can search SS using image Id :-). I don't know what the problem is with the image? Too many similars or copied?
Same images in various crops, then filtered versions. Filtering, cropping, stop motion moving means variability when the conception is the same ??
-
I've got an interesting feedback one of my customer, that she is hardly find suitable conceptions at stock agencies, due to tons of overhelming same conceptions, or same images in various crops, filters etc.
For example on Shutterstock ID: 433880728, 436619266, 437470180, 447365770, etc.
Second thing is worst. From this style (examples above) are tons of photographers (or maybe stawmans?) with different countries of upload, who copy this style - sometimes with international faces - on local professional market I dont know personaly anyone of them, but those models acting professionaly, not just first shooters - the pictures are hardly filtered, fake flared etc. as at main uploaders.
Why agencies allowing this ?
Wow. And from such a big supplier. I'd definitely report this to shutterstock.
-
That's nothing. Click "next page" at the bottom to see more than 400 of the same icon with slightly different color backgrounds. All uploaded and approved at the same time.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2 (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2)
-
That's nothing. Click "next page" at the bottom to see more than 400 of the same icon with slightly different color backgrounds. All uploaded and approved at the same time.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2 (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2)
Just ridiculous I find it hard to believe its worth doing......
-
Looks like automated "production"
-
I would love to hear how many sales they get from this kind of image spamming. There must be some reason to continue uploading similars?
-
I would love to hear how many sales they get from this kind of image spamming. There must be some reason to continue uploading similars?
You have to assume its worth doing or they wouldn't do it I guess but it just seems bizarre
-
Wasn't there some website that showed sell through rates of this portfolios and it was something less than 1%
-
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.
Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.
-
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.
Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.
I don't buy it. There are too many of these portfolios. My guess would be that there must be some kind of sanction for this in particular cases. It can't be under the radar with this volume of work.
-
But there's got to be a method behind the madness. They can't be doing this just to fill up a portfolio. And they're not making money with the images themselves. But whoever is mass approving these is making a lot of money saying yes to five hundred nearly identical icons in seconds.
Remember, it took months and months, thread after thread and a petition with thousands of signatures for SS to notice keyword spamming. Now it's image spamming.
-
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.
Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.
Why do you assume that all reviewers are human?
Have you seen a starling swarm? They're fascinating and there's a good reason why some birds fly in swarms.
Now, if successful contributors decided to flood the agencies with similars, there must be a reason behind it.
And I think this is the final stage of microstock.
The "old school" approach was that submitting too many similars dilutes your sales, because you compete with yourself, and your files cannot advance in the most popular ranking. Now, it looks like flooding the search results with a swarm of images yields better results than producing high quality images.
By flooding, some images will earn crumbs, but at least you're getting something. If you produce unique, high quality images there is a high chance that they will sink and you won't earn anything. 0. If you take into account production costs, you make a loss.
It's sad, but if it has come to this, there is no future in microstock. You may penalize some contributors for doing that, but it doesn't matter. You can't change the overall climate.
I don't think that the flooding strategy is the real problem. It is a diagnosis.
I don't care anymore. I don't invest in MS anymore. I am moving on to something else.
-
All I can think is that somehow a contributor and reviewer know each other, and somehow the contributor can submit hundreds of identical icons to this "friend," who then gets paid for "reviewing" 500 images in two seconds. There's got to be a reason for it, because lots of contributors from certain countries are doing this on a regular basis.
Or a reviewer is getting in touch with friends in his geographic review area and telling them to submit so they can split the profits.
It has to be something like this. Remember the 'marijuana guy' with 10s of thousands of nearly identical pot photos? No way is this stuff going through the real review process; someone is just slipping it in. It's a business that's drifting out of control.
-
Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true)
Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.
-
This kind of image spamming makes it so hard for people like me who only upload 2-3 BEST shots from a session. It is so frustrating...
-
Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true)
Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.
There are over 2000 files of "colorful abstract gradient" all just a simple two color gradient. Fascinating!! I would go over the edge just producing them.
-
And look at the last 10!!! those are the one shuterstock accept from this contributor to get accepted as a shuterstock contributor???? really???
Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true)
Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.
There are over 2000 files of "colorful abstract gradient" all just a simple two color gradient. Fascinating!! I would go over the edge just producing them.
-
SS has to be losing respect from buyers and contributers with stuff like this
Once upon a time it was the model micro agency
Now every week seems to be a notch down for one reason or another, esp after going public
-
Those gradients are the best (worst) yet. Why do they bother! Wonder if a plain white background would be accepted. Then black, then red......
-
I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.". So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.
-
I doubt anything will get done. They are too focused on numbers (not quality). I wonder if anyone is brave enough to submit a blank white or black photo and see if it gets accepted ...
-
I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.". So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.
Meanwhile at Shutterstock: 1.269.450 new stock images added this week :o
When I started, I think it was around 50K/week.
-
Has that gradient port been taken down? I am getting a "can't load" message sometimes when I try to change page then it's back again.
-
I doubt anything will get done. They are too focused on numbers (not quality). I wonder if anyone is brave enough to submit a blank white or black photo and see if it gets accepted ...
I sure as heck would never be able to get anything like that accepted. I think its like jsnover said. They have to have an "in" with the reviewing process.
-
Those "Happy Runny Nose Day" on facet backgrounds are bad enough, but how about nearly 2700 gradients - no text no nothing!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/PixelartGallery?searchterm=colorful+abstract+gradient&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=newest&safe=true)
Based on the image numbers, this rubbish was uploaded late January/early February. This is current policy or practice - I'd love to know if they intend this or if they're just asleep at the wheel.
Gets even worse when you click on one of them, and then you see the similar options available! For example...
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572025952?src=CZReB7YFiIpdTylY44mTOw-1-91 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572025952?src=CZReB7YFiIpdTylY44mTOw-1-91)
-
I've just had a crazy idea. Probably wouldn't be possible with today's technology, but all the elements of it are currently possible... so might work in the future.
At present, if you want an image of a lady, with blonde hair, sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee... you either have to draw/paint it, photograph it, or use computer graphics. What if you could have a program that will automatically generate a high resolution image with completely random colors for every single pixel. That would result in billions of quintillions of images or something, so not very feasible. 99.99999999999999% of those images would be completely unusable, but if you had every possible combination of colors in every possible combination of pixels... somewhere in there would be a pixel perfect picture of Bruce Willis riding a blue whale, Mars crashing into the Earth, and a blonde lady sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee.
So Google can recognise items, and faces and all that kind of jazz... so what if you had an element to the program that would automatically eliminate the results that don't contain recognisable objects or that don't contain a lady with blonde hair and coffee?
So the storage power, the processing power and the object recognition software aren't there yet, but say in 25, 50, 100 years It's not outside the realms of possibility that I could go into Photoshop CC 2067, go to 'file', 'generate new image' and enter the terms, "lady, blonde, table, coffee", and I'm presented with hundreds of photo-realistic images to choose from. You could then click on the green dress to say you like it, alt-click on her bag to say you don't like it... and you're presented with a a different bunch of hundreds of images to choose from.
Maybe a basic version of that is what these guys are doing with their gradient backgrounds. Maybe this is an old idea and I'm late to the party. Maybe everyone has had this thought at some point. Anyway, I should name the concept anyway, just in case, for my legacy and all that. Something classy, understated, elegant. How about "Robo-Image 3000XL Max"? Or Photorealistic Image Generation Software (PIGS).
-
I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.". So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.
Meanwhile at Shutterstock: 1.269.450 new stock images added this week :o
When I started, I think it was around 50K/week.
If SS filters and exclude the spam images, they will be left from 1.269.450 to around 60.000 -100k a week and that will not be good to display to the investors.
SS or any other agency takes microstock as a business and we photographers/designer take it as a art, so no agency cares about it.
-
SS or any other agency takes microstock as a business and we photographers/designer take it as a art...
Speak for yourself!
-
I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.". So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.
Meanwhile at Shutterstock: 1.269.450 new stock images added this week :o
When I started, I think it was around 50K/week.
If SS filters and exclude the spam images, they will be left from 1.269.450 to around 60.000 -100k a week and that will not be good to display to the investors.
SS or any other agency takes microstock as a business and we photographers/designer take it as a art, so no agency cares about it.
ART! What!? You have got to be kidding ! ::)
-
I've just had a crazy idea. Probably wouldn't be possible with today's technology, but all the elements of it are currently possible... so might work in the future.
At present, if you want an image of a lady, with blonde hair, sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee... you either have to draw/paint it, photograph it, or use computer graphics. What if you could have a program that will automatically generate a high resolution image with completely random colors for every single pixel. That would result in billions of quintillions of images or something, so not very feasible. 99.99999999999999% of those images would be completely unusable, but if you had every possible combination of colors in every possible combination of pixels... somewhere in there would be a pixel perfect picture of Bruce Willis riding a blue whale, Mars crashing into the Earth, and a blonde lady sat at a table drinking a cup of coffee.
So Google can recognise items, and faces and all that kind of jazz... so what if you had an element to the program that would automatically eliminate the results that don't contain recognisable objects or that don't contain a lady with blonde hair and coffee?
So the storage power, the processing power and the object recognition software aren't there yet, but say in 25, 50, 100 years It's not outside the realms of possibility that I could go into Photoshop CC 2067, go to 'file', 'generate new image' and enter the terms, "lady, blonde, table, coffee", and I'm presented with hundreds of photo-realistic images to choose from. You could then click on the green dress to say you like it, alt-click on her bag to say you don't like it... and you're presented with a a different bunch of hundreds of images to choose from.
Maybe a basic version of that is what these guys are doing with their gradient backgrounds. Maybe this is an old idea and I'm late to the party. Maybe everyone has had this thought at some point. Anyway, I should name the concept anyway, just in case, for my legacy and all that. Something classy, understated, elegant. How about "Robo-Image 3000XL Max"? Or Photorealistic Image Generation Software (PIGS).
Neural networks can already (sort of) do this, and that's a much more efficient approach than generating all possible combinations. But that's besides the point. It's a (imho) good idea, these are just implementation details.
(for example, in you implementation, image recognition might not be able to detect artifacts etc.)
-
Here's something you might find interesting: https://affinelayer.com/pixsrv/index.html
Just draw in the input field and you get a unique cat or whatever have you.
As you can see, the implementation is far from perfect, but give it 10 years.
-
black is the new colorful
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14)
haha
and then the similar images, all the same black gradient, unbelievable that this gets through without help on the inside, or it has to be a machine
which reviewer lets through a black image with the title colorful ?
-
I really don't get it. Here I am arguing with SS over ridiculous rejections of my illustrations (they're claiming "German Shepherd" is a registered trademark, for example), and these things get accepted en masse.
Why would my images be reviewed by a human but others' be reviewed by a bot?
It's clear the same subset of contributors figured out they could make tons of quick sales with keyword spamming, and when that was taken away they figured something out some way to make quick money with image spamming, but I'm not sure what it could be other than certain reviewers making the money by accepting everything.
-
I think this one is quite good:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401)
But then again his earlier work has more flair, like this piece:
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569488585 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569488585)
....that is lacking in this phase of his career:
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572018122 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572018122)
And then of course there's this series from the middle period:
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569763580 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569763580)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572012527 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572012527)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569755954 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569755954)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-571998538 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-571998538)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572011675 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572011675)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569757397 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569757397)
Which was reworked in his 2016 exhibition "Into the Void":
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569740909 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569740909)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572016430 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572016430)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-571994116 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-571994116)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572019715 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572019715)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569858347 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569858347)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569740873 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569740873)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569875261 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569875261)
https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569763526 (https://www.shutterstock.com/pt/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-569763526)
-
i just pointed towards those black images in my previous comment.
-
I guess it's time for another "here's what our customers are asking for", "submit only your best images", email campaign.
-
Well I can't remember the last time I got an image rejection. I think everything just gets through these days.
-
Justanotherphotographer, thanks for the wonderful analysis of his work! I'm laughing and crying at the same time ...
-
I posted on Jon's FB feed, and he said "We are working on it.". So, I guess it isn't going unnoticed.
I hope they really are working on it, but it sounds more like a canned response. Something Sean Spicer says 20 times at every press conference.
-
Won't this approach backfire for SS? Buyers arent going to wade thru this dreck when they can go to Adobe, DT, etc. and save time looking at a leaner, more curated collection. Presumably?
-
That's nothing. Click "next page" at the bottom to see more than 400 of the same icon with slightly different color backgrounds. All uploaded and approved at the same time.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2 (https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=World%20health%20day&sort=newest&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2)
I really do not understand what's going on. Do what you want, it's OK.
-
black is the new colorful
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14)
haha
and then the similar images, all the same black gradient, unbelievable that this gets through without help on the inside, or it has to be a machine
which reviewer lets through a black image with the title colorful ?
I never thought I'd say this, but it makes you nostalgic for iStock's old "We're sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock" rejection :)
-
I asked to the Shutterstock about this process of spamming images simple and practically the same as each other. And I mentioned my case in which I contribute for more than 10 years and I didn't reach 2600 images yet, adding (images + vector + videos) all together less than 2600 working hard all days. Being that only images gradient by the same author, surpassed the 2600 images, practically the same.
Well, let's see what the answer will be, if they will answer me.
-
black is the new colorful
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14)
haha
and then the similar images, all the same black gradient, unbelievable that this gets through without help on the inside, or it has to be a machine
which reviewer lets through a black image with the title colorful ?
Remarkable that all the similar images appear almost identical and from the same contributor. They only started serious uploading around the end of 2016 (image numbers from 52........ onward) and they already have 35K images in portfolio. As far as I can see, their technique is now find a 'celebration day' and add that to 100+ standard backgrounds that have different colours.
-
I was always convinced that these contributors are insiders, reviewers, moderators and alike. I was following the evolution of one of them, I saw how his port jumped from 2k to 9k in one week (but I won't say).
I wonder how none of you has noticed this yet.
I just uploaded two abstract backgrounds, one red, one blue. One was accepted, the other rejected for similar.
-
All aside, what is the point of bothering to upload a hundred black gradients when not a single one is ever going to sell?