Quote from: fotografer on April 01, 2008, 15:38
I think that what maybe happens is that if the find the same fault on the first few images they don't bother looking at the rest of the batch but just refuse them all.  Although I don't think you will find anybody admitting to doing this.

Yes but in the case I cite there was no noise or pixelation in any of the images concerned - the assessment was pure fiction.

The reason I ask is that one site I tried (shutterfarm) rejected almost an entire batch of images using exactly the same reason for each image: 'excessive noise or pixelation'.

The images concerned had neither and have been successfully submitted elsewhere.

This makes me very suspicious about the methods used to assess the pictures.

Just wondering if anyone knows if some libraries use some kind of automated assessment of submisions.

Shutterfarm is a newish library which offers a payout of $0.50 per 'credit' where the number of credits required to buy an image is set by the artist.

Anyone have any experiences to share about Shutterfarm please?

Interested in any 'rejection' stories.

Thanks.

 
I'm fairly new to microstock libraries, but I've tried 2 - Shutterstock and Shutterfarm and I get the distinct impression, especially after reading other posters' comments, that these libraries are perhaps using some kind of automated assessment system. A whole batch of mine were rejected with exactly the same reason - 'image contains noise or pixelation'.

First question would be "well, which is it - noise or pixelation?"

I've checked the images in question and they are neither noisy - very clean digital images, and neither do they have any kind of pixelation.

I can only assume that these pictures had not actually been reviewed by a human being.

Can anone out there confirm this theory or otherwise please?