You are right ShadySue, trust online is not given easyto anyone.

but in a public forum, guess I have to keep my posts polite.

I just tested it out. In my test of 2 images I think it is surprisingly decent. That is when compared to Google AutoML, Amazon Rekognition and Microsoft Azure. I've test the service of all 3 big tech firms within the last month for auto keywording. As others have pointed out, it is still not as good as a "knowledgable" human would do it. Back when stock photos was more profitable, like back in 2012, I use to send out keywording to be done in India. They speak English there and they wages were cheap, but I'd get questions all the time asking what things were in my photos. Sometimes they didn't understand the context because they didn't take the photo, and sometimes they didn't know what the objects were or didn't know the name in English.

Anyway, keep refining your software. It is only a matter of time before image recognition software is as good as a human.

Now, you can attribute files in a few clicks. Literally!

We have updated the Everypixel DAM interface to make the content attribution simpler and faster. Just upload your photos or videos to the system and click on the "Auto keywording" button to automatically match the keywords to the entire content of the folder. Also, you can to keyword every single document and quickly edit them: you need only one click to delete each keyword.

The update affects not only the interface but also the neural network for auto keywording. We've expanded its video recognition capabilities: now it can find from 20 to 49 keywords, depending on the content and duration of the video.

Try it right now: dam.everypixel.com

Interesting idea - I know why everyone would love to automate keyword generation - but it really isn't up to the job. At least my experiments with several of my own stock images showed that in terms of keywording as well is the "stock photo score" the tool doesn't really know enough about what it's looking at to be useful.

I ran through a couple of kitchen remodel images  and a couple of external shots of places where the important information was where it was in the world, not just what was in it. As these images have all been sold - in one case just shy of one thousand times across several agencies - I have an idea of what the important keywords actually are, primarily using SS's sales info that tells me the keywords often used for purchases.

In no case did the tool identify the place on the exterior shots and in the kitchen remodel cases, it missed all the key what-is-going-on elements and just picked up the filler - Residential Building, Home Interior, Architecture, Wood - Material...

In the case of one image, that was of an island ferry dock, it concluded that there was a Pipeline, a Factory, Construction Industry and Fuel and Power Generation - all totally incorrect. Plus it put the scene in Europe (it was off the west coast of the USA. Adding keywords like Nautical Vessel for boat may work with Getty's CV, but it's worse than useless elsewhere. No user types in these awkward terms and other sites don't translate them into the type of English real people speak.

Oh, and one of my really solid long-term sellers rated a stock photo score of 11.6%.

I think I tried enough different images to give the tool a fair evaluation, but I wouldn't use it.

LOL Joanne, I tried it with one of my top selling images from Adobe (high 100s not 1,000s of downloads). The number one keyword was "nautical vessel."

It's a small sailboat sailing near Newport, Rhode Island and the Newport Bridge, with a single passenger. Other keywords include "famous place," but no guess as to where it is. "Dusk" and "sunset" but not "sunrise," "blue" but not "orange," which is a very dominant color, and a few more iStock sounding phrases that I can't imagine anyone using in their search such as "mode of transport," and "man made structure." No mistakes, other than "yacht," but no mention of the man in the boat, no "boat," at all - there's "sailing ship," but not the number one keyword, "sailboat."

It got a 50.6% score. Not bad for a photo I took around 2009, which still sells regularly, but not like wildfire. It may be a fair assessment given its evergreen content. Or maybe it's ranked way too high. Joanne's should be much higher.

Interesting demo. I know I only tried one photo, but I can't imagine it helping me, though I don't really find keywording to be a chore, it's pretty simple. On the plus side, it could help non-English speakers (especially if they clear out the iStockspeak) and spark some ideas for newbies. It's more accurate than the AI suggestions that show up when you upload to certain stock sites, even if a few of the accurate words words and phrases are useless. And it doesn't seem spammy, which is a big plus.

IMHO, the real shortcomings here are the shortcomings I've noticed in all language-based AI that I've experienced - a lack of imagination -  no concepts, and a surprising inability to pick out and identify the key feature in my photo using a word that real humans would use in their search: "sailboat"   It's like Data, as brilliant as he is, tried his hand at keywording.

My guess is it will get better. But I think we experienced humans, with a good vocabulary and imagination, still have the edge.

To the OP, I hope these observations help.

However, as much as I'd like to see better, more accurate, and less spammy keywording, I'm not interested in paying for the privilege of uploading all my keywording expertise to help build the database, which seems like the real buy in here.

Decent job though. But that ship has sailed for me (couldn't resist) 

https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/85630579

OK, I knew I shouldn't waste more time, but I tried an illustration, one with a few 100 downloads. It tends to sell a lot in February and March, since it's for Pi Day 3/14 (My daughter's a mathematician who works in AI - I designed it on a mug for her and eventually tested it out on stock).

Anyway, I'm crushed. It got a score of 0.00% and then, as if absolute failure wasn't enough, it told me, "This photo is very bad." (I nearly fell off my chair laughing so hard).

To be fair, I would give it a low score for saleability since it's such a niche illustration (not a photo) but it's among my top sellers, hitting 80 sales the first year it was online, and it's evergreen if quite nerdy, and niche, but reliable for its short shelf life each year.

I bet the coders would feel bad if they knew how mean their AI was to a mathematician's mother. 
(and they need to teach it about Pi Day!)