Author Topic: "focus" craziness (Read 12974 times)

Pauws99 · « **Reply #50 on:** December 15, 2012, 16:03 »

The point is what would have been in focus 3 months ago isn't now and is in focus on sites such as I stock. I'm sure some would say they are OK and others not what matters is what SS think and is it consistent.

aspp · « **Reply #51 on:** December 15, 2012, 16:11 »

Is it possible that you are loosing sharpness by using very small apertures in an attempt to make up for the relatively short depth of focus at 2 feet. Many lenses are optimal at around f/8. Some DX lenses start lose sharpness at apertures smaller than about f/5.6.

At 2 feet don't you normally want the subject and the camera to be in the same plane unless you are using a camera or lens with movements ?

Interesting topic. Do post some examples.

stockastic · « **Reply #52 on:** December 15, 2012, 16:12 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 15, 2012, 16:03

The point is what would have been in focus 3 months ago isn't now and is in focus on sites such as I stock. I'm sure some would say they are OK and others not what matters is what SS think and is it consistent.

Exactly. It's obvious something has changed at SS - the question is what, and why?

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #53 on:** December 15, 2012, 16:49 »

Here you all go like I said it has happened before.

Quote

Well an SS Moderator has answered my rejection threads i started to see if we could get an answer so if you would like to see it check out the thread here in anything goes or my question to the moderators over in questions / answers.

And they are locked so no responding to them.

All of last years rejection links are right here.

REJECTIONS
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1925671#1925671

Go look and you will see it is the same thing that happens every year

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #54 on:** December 15, 2012, 16:52 »

And for those who insist there are bot reviews! As I stated in this thread earlier!

Quote

ModeratorPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 5:05 pm Reply with quote

Dear Contributors,

We work hard to improve our review standards on a continuous basis. As the Shutterstock collection grows, we want to maintain consistency and improve overall quality within the collection.

There has never been any automation in our review process. We utilize knowledgeable reviewers who do their best to provide fair reviews for all submitted content.

The fact remains, however, that the process is a subjective one. If you receive a rejection and would like a bit more information as to why, we welcome you to post your photos in the critique forum to get feedback from other contributors. With the help and input of the talented Shutterstock contributor community we know you will continue to meet the challenges of these improvements.

If you still feel that a review was done incorrectly, you are welcome to contact support ([email protected]) with your request.

Best Regards,

Content Operations
Shutterstock

stockastic · « **Reply #55 on:** December 15, 2012, 17:01 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on December 15, 2012, 16:52

And for those who insist there are bot reviews! As I stated in this thread earlier!

Quote
ModeratorPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 5:05 pm Reply with quote

Dear Contributors,

We work hard to improve our review standards on a continuous basis. As the Shutterstock collection grows, we want to maintain consistency and improve overall quality within the collection.

There has never been any automation in our review process. We utilize knowledgeable reviewers who do their best to provide fair reviews for all submitted content.

The fact remains, however, that the process is a subjective one. If you receive a rejection and would like a bit more information as to why, we welcome you to post your photos in the critique forum to get feedback from other contributors. With the help and input of the talented Shutterstock contributor community we know you will continue to meet the challenges of these improvements.

If you still feel that a review was done incorrectly, you are welcome to contact support ([email protected]) with your request.

Best Regards,

Content Operations
Shutterstock

Please read at least some of this thread, especially the posts from gnirtS. Something obviously changed a few months ago. The statement you're quoting is from May of 2011.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #56 on:** December 15, 2012, 17:04 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 15, 2012, 17:01

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on December 15, 2012, 16:52
And for those who insist there are bot reviews! As I stated in this thread earlier!

Quote
ModeratorPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 5:05 pm Reply with quote

Dear Contributors,

We work hard to improve our review standards on a continuous basis. As the Shutterstock collection grows, we want to maintain consistency and improve overall quality within the collection.

There has never been any automation in our review process. We utilize knowledgeable reviewers who do their best to provide fair reviews for all submitted content.

The fact remains, however, that the process is a subjective one. If you receive a rejection and would like a bit more information as to why, we welcome you to post your photos in the critique forum to get feedback from other contributors. With the help and input of the talented Shutterstock contributor community we know you will continue to meet the challenges of these improvements.

If you still feel that a review was done incorrectly, you are welcome to contact support ([email protected]) with your request.

Best Regards,

Content Operations
Shutterstock

Please read at least some of this thread, especially the posts from gnirtS. Something obviously changed a few months ago. The statement you're quoting is from May of 2011.

Sure so if it has changed then they need to come forward and let everyone know.

stockastic · « **Reply #57 on:** December 15, 2012, 17:23 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on December 15, 2012, 17:04

Sure so if it has changed then they need to come forward and let everyone know.

And you saw the quote from their SEC filings, about using "proprietary" technology to "pre-filter images" before reviewing? Proprietary means the details are secret.

If enough contributors start to demand an explanation for that statement, and for the increase in 'focus' rejections, they might have to say something. But I doubt they'll give us the whole story.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #58 on:** December 15, 2012, 19:18 »

Or easy enough and not giving away trade secrets, if they could confirm that they Do Not use computer assisted sharpness in the pre-filtering process? That way they wouldn't give anything away, but we'd at least know if it was the Bots or the Reviewers. That would make me happy.

If they do use some automated sharpness testing, they can continue to not answer, keep us in the dark, guessing.

I think their best position for contributors and clearing the air, would be a denial. (assuming it's true of course)

Quote from: stockastic on December 15, 2012, 17:23

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on December 15, 2012, 17:04
Sure so if it has changed then they need to come forward and let everyone know.

And you saw the quote from their SEC filings, about using "proprietary" technology to "pre-filter images" before reviewing? Proprietary means the details are secret.

If enough contributors start to demand an explanation for that statement, and for the increase in 'focus' rejections, they might have to say something. But I doubt they'll give us the whole story.

OM · « **Reply #59 on:** December 16, 2012, 07:03 »

Just happened to notice this 'USP'? looking at Feature Pics:

Human-reviewed pictures

gnirtS · « **Reply #60 on:** December 20, 2012, 11:10 »

Something odd happened there - review times have dropped from 7 days exactly to me to 4 days (last week) and latest batch 3 days.
Acceptance rate has gone down by over 25% as well for those 2 batches. No "focus" at all this time, every single one is composition instead.

Im also wondering if they could say EXACTLY how many reviewers they have and what the criteria is for hardware. Im getting more and more convinced by the white balance/lighting rejections that some of them don't have properly calibrated and brightness profiles screens.

The sudden drop in review time is surprising, either less people uploading this time of year or they're just trying to catch up on a backlog of photos by giving a cursory glance/rejected a lot to clear the queue before the new year.

CD123 · « **Reply #61 on:** December 20, 2012, 11:19 »

Quote from: gnirtS on December 20, 2012, 11:10

Something odd happened there - review times have dropped from 7 days exactly to me to 4 days (last week) and latest batch 3 days.
Acceptance rate has gone down by over 25% as well for those 2 batches. No "focus" at all this time, every single one is composition instead.

Im also wondering if they could say EXACTLY how many reviewers they have and what the criteria is for hardware. Im getting more and more convinced by the white balance/lighting rejections that some of them don't have properly calibrated and brightness profiles screens.

The sudden drop in review time is surprising, either less people uploading this time of year or they're just trying to catch up on a backlog of photos by giving a cursory glance/rejected a lot to clear the queue before the new year.

This is sooo funny! My last batch also, no focus rejections this time, just white balance. Must be the rejection reason of the week. Wonder who gets to pick next weeks?

rubyroo · « **Reply #62 on:** December 20, 2012, 11:26 »

I can only speak for myself, but over the years I've found it's not worth it to upload between mid-December and mid-January. If others have found the same it may be that there's a big drop in uploads just now.

That might explain the faster review times.

gnirtS · « **Reply #63 on:** December 20, 2012, 12:12 »

Im just going to resubmit them in a few weeks. Obviously standards differ but all 57 got accepted on BS,RF123,Alamy and even IS.

Some interesting ones like one photo accepted last week and another taken on identical settings 0.5 seconds later submitted this week (the subject had turned slightly) rejected for (i) white balance (ii) composition (iii) noise.
Odd given they both went through the same batch process with identical camera and develop settings!

The problem is the reasons are so generic and so overused its impossible to tell what they are/aren't looking for. If there was a "we just dont like it" button it would at least tell you where you stand and that's fair enough as the process is subjective.

There does seem to be "reason of the week" though with Composition winning this weeks ballot - it is the ultimate generic though for "i just dont like it". Consistency i should imaging would drastically reduce their photo workload as pretty much everyone i know is resubmitting half the rejected stuff for the above reasons. With no consistency its impossible to actually "learn" *exactly* what they're after.

stockastic · « **Reply #64 on:** December 20, 2012, 12:27 »

I've stopped submitting entirely. Don't know when/if I might resume, because obviously something is going on at SS. Maybe they've recently outsourced their reviewing to a new low bidder :-) or they're experimenting with automated filtering in a careless way. Whatever it is, it's nuts and I'm not going to participate. This is still just a paying hobby for me and although I can use the money, I don't need this level of aggravation.

I feel for you guys who rely on SS for income and are trying to figure out what to do.

I'll quit posting in this thread, to leave space for people to jump in with "You must be doing something wrong because my approval rate is 95%, please post examples..."

Gimmerton · « **Reply #65 on:** December 22, 2012, 02:43 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 20, 2012, 12:27

I've stopped submitting entirely. Don't know when/if I might resume, because obviously something is going on at SS. Maybe they've recently outsourced their reviewing to a new low bidder :-) or they're experimenting with automated filtering in a careless way. Whatever it is, it's nuts and I'm not going to participate. This is still just a paying hobby for me and although I can use the money, I don't need this level of aggravation.

I feel for you guys who rely on SS for income and are trying to figure out what to do.

I'll quit posting in this thread, to leave space for people to jump in with "You must be doing something wrong because my approval rate is 95%, please post examples..."

+1.000.000

OM · « **Reply #66 on:** December 22, 2012, 19:47 »

Quote from: gnirtS on December 20, 2012, 12:12

The problem is the reasons are so generic and so overused its impossible to tell what they are/aren't looking for. If there was a "we just dont like it" button it would at least tell you where you stand and that's fair enough as the process is subjective.

There does seem to be "reason of the week" though with Composition winning this weeks ballot - it is the ultimate generic though for "i just dont like it". Consistency i should imaging would drastically reduce their photo workload as pretty much everyone i know is resubmitting half the rejected stuff for the above reasons. With no consistency its impossible to actually "learn" *exactly* what they're after.

Aha, that's it. Must have got caught between two 'rejection flavour of the week' weeks. Got rejected on focus first, reprocessed and downsized a little and on resubmission (with note on focus) got rejected again for 'composition'. I guess they just didn't like it.

It does occur to me that as reviewers get paid so little per review and have to process as many as possible per hour to make money, rejecting just about everything is the fastest way to make the money.....and by rejecting you have no more responsibility. When you accept an image, there's a lot more responsibility involved. It has to comply with all the parameters laid down by the agency and should you let one through which later receives a complaint from a customer, then, no doubt, it's your head on the chopping block.

JPSDK · « **Reply #67 on:** December 22, 2012, 20:16 »

Sharpness is an illusion based on focus.

Means, there is more to sharpness than focus and DOF.
Your photos might be in fine focus, and with well placed dof, but they may lack contrast and clarity, or other things.

Therefore. It would be nice to see examples, instead of everybody sit here and agree on something on a hear say basis.

cascoly · « **Reply #68 on:** December 23, 2012, 14:21 »

Quote from: modviz on December 14, 2012, 16:40

98% of my video clips are accepted yet ALL of my still images have been rejected recently (last 4 months) because of focus issues. I use the same equipment to capture video as I do with still images. .

Do videographers have a lesser standard? Do they tolerate video that is slightly out of focus?

video agencies doo seem to have looser standards, probably to build their libairies. i'd expect them to becom more rigorous as they mature - we saw the same thimg with many new agencies for stills which at one time accepted juast about all submissions, but later tightened their reviews

another factor may be the meidum itself - buyers may not use the entire clip, and they can remove less focused sections, lighting problems, etc

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: "focus" craziness (Read 12974 times)

Pauws99

aspp

stockastic

ruxpriencdiam

ruxpriencdiam

stockastic

ruxpriencdiam

stockastic

RacePhoto

OM

gnirtS

CD123

rubyroo

gnirtS

stockastic

Gimmerton

OM

JPSDK

cascoly

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors