How is this possible ?

Justanotherphotographer · March 20, 2017, 08:53

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.

cathyslife · March 20, 2017, 09:22

Quote from: angelawaye on March 20, 2017, 02:36
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.

SpaceStockFootage · March 20, 2017, 09:59

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 19, 2017, 23:34
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

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

SpaceStockFootage · March 20, 2017, 10:24

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).

Artist · March 20, 2017, 11:49

Quote from: LDV81 on March 20, 2017, 02:52
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 20, 2017, 02:02
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

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.

SpaceStockFootage · March 20, 2017, 12:37

Quote from: Artist on March 20, 2017, 11:49
SS or any other agency takes microstock as a business and we photographers/designer take it as a art...

Speak for yourself!

dpimborough · March 20, 2017, 13:05

Quote from: Artist on March 20, 2017, 11:49
Quote from: LDV81 on March 20, 2017, 02:52
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 20, 2017, 02:02
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

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 !

spike · March 20, 2017, 14:07

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on March 20, 2017, 10:24
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.)

spike · March 20, 2017, 14:14

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.

Microstockphoto · March 20, 2017, 16:42

black is the new colorful

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 ?

Shelma1 · March 20, 2017, 16:55

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.

Justanotherphotographer · March 20, 2017, 17:08

Microstockphoto · March 20, 2017, 17:13

i just pointed towards those black images in my previous comment.

stockastic · March 20, 2017, 17:29

I guess it's time for another "here's what our customers are asking for", "submit only your best images", email campaign.

Nikovsk · March 20, 2017, 17:30

Well I can't remember the last time I got an image rejection. I think everything just gets through these days.

angelawaye · March 20, 2017, 17:40

Justanotherphotographer, thanks for the wonderful analysis of his work! I'm laughing and crying at the same time ...

PixelBytes · March 20, 2017, 18:00

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 20, 2017, 02:02
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.

PixelBytes · March 20, 2017, 18:09

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?

Ides · March 20, 2017, 18:41

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 19, 2017, 19:12
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

I really do not understand what's going on. Do what you want, it's OK.

Jo Ann Snover · March 20, 2017, 20:18

Quote from: Microstockphoto on March 20, 2017, 16:42
black is the new colorful

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

Ides · March 20, 2017, 20:55

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.

OM · April 17, 2017, 13:00

Quote from: Microstockphoto on March 20, 2017, 16:42
black is the new colorful

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.

Dodie · April 22, 2017, 13:25

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.

qunamax · April 22, 2017, 20:17

All aside, what is the point of bothering to upload a hundred black gradients when not a single one is ever going to sell?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

How is this possible ?

Justanotherphotographer

dpimborough

Justanotherphotographer