pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "focus" craziness  (Read 9152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rubyroo

« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2012, 10:15 »
-1
It's very hard to comment without seeing examples, but regarding shallow DOF...

Do any of you ever try testing it?  Why not take the same shot three times with the focus on different parts of the image, then submit all three.  If the rejection is actually based on the location of focus, and you get one accepted, then you should be able to work with that feedback to your future advantage.

That's what I did a couple of years ago, and I've never had a problem since.  Obviously I can't guarantee this will work for you, but I hope so.


« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2012, 11:01 »
0
Does anyone have a clue as to what's going on?

The editor (not only @ SS) don't have "Don't like this image" option so they must pick something. I guess the "out of focus" it's at the beginning of the list.

Most of the times I receive this rejection too... I think, the reason must be something else than focus.

Nail on the head

« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2012, 12:24 »
+1
It's very hard to comment without seeing examples, but regarding shallow DOF...

Do any of you ever try testing it?  Why not take the same shot three times with the focus on different parts of the image, then submit all three.  If the rejection is actually based on the location of focus, and you get one accepted, then you should be able to work with that feedback to your future advantage.

That's what I did a couple of years ago, and I've never had a problem since.  Obviously I can't guarantee this will work for you, but I hope so.

All my recent 'focus' rejections were shots of groups of small objects on a light table, camera mounted a couple of feet above and leveled with a bubble level, entire subject - corner to corner - in the same plane at right angles to the camera.  Aperture smaller than necessary to ensure DOF more than covers the entire subject.  Focus verified with AF indicator.  Since these are RAW images, some minimal sharpening was applied while viewing at 100%.  Images then checked at 100% including corners.

Every point in these images was in focus and there is nothing I could do to "improve" it, except  to enhance the edges artificially.  In a nutshell: the rejections were nonsense.

rubyroo

« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2012, 12:35 »
0
Well in that case, given your level of certainty, I would submit a support ticket and appeal the decision.  At least then you have a chance of obtaining more information on the rationale behind their decision.  You might even get it overturned.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 12:43 by rubyroo »

« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2012, 12:42 »
0
Yes, it happens often enough that most or all of a submission is rejected for "focus". These are images similar to many others that are regularly accepted. I usually resize and send them in again, or just shrug and move on.

« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2012, 12:51 »
0
Well in that case, given your level of certainty, I would submit a support ticket and appeal the decision.  At least then you have a chance of obtaining more information on the rationale behind their decision.  You might even get it overturned.

I think you're right and I may do that.  I hadn't thought about a support ticket. 

« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2012, 12:52 »
0
Yes, it happens often enough that most or all of a submission is rejected for "focus". These are images similar to many others that are regularly accepted. I usually resize and send them in again, or just shrug and move on.

By what factor do you downsize? 

rubyroo

« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2012, 12:58 »
0
I think you're right and I may do that.  I hadn't thought about a support ticket.

Excellent.  Do let us know how you get on.   :)

« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2012, 13:32 »
0
Yes, it happens often enough that most or all of a submission is rejected for "focus". These are images similar to many others that are regularly accepted. I usually resize and send them in again, or just shrug and move on.

By what factor do you downsize?

I usually drop them down to about 5 MP.

Poncke

« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2012, 13:35 »
0
6mp so they pass at 123, but I stopped uploading there. RC bullcrap made me.

CD123

« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2012, 18:50 »
0
and still no one volunteering their rejected images to be scrutinized?  :P

Poncke

« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2012, 19:09 »
0
To be honest, I dont get much focus rejections. Eventho some images might be soft.

Ed

« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2012, 19:36 »
+1
I no longer submit to Shutterstock, but, many years ago there was a discussion about this on their forum and they had a separate area on their site where they explained the rejection reason.  I know at one time there was a wiki of some sort in the submitter tools area.  I don't have a link.

The rejection reason isn't necessarily because the image is out of focus....the rejection reason is because there is no real topic in the image that grabs a person's attention or that leads the eye to something in the image.

At least that's what I remember.

Poncke

« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2012, 19:43 »
0
Its called shutterbuzz

« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2012, 22:31 »
+1
Interesting thread.

I keep a list of all the rejections and reasons (yes im that sad) and something changed a few months ago.  Previously rejections were  a fairly even spread of lighting/composition, noise and so on, no real one reason standing out.  Suddenly a few months ago "focus" started happening and looking at the stats since October onwards for me 75% of all rejections have been for focus.
Nothing has changed with my setup since then and a lot of the images were taken as part of large shoots a while ago and others from that shoot were accepted.
If it ISNT automated screening then something somewhere has changed.
Some do seem to be maddeningly inconsistent though for example 1 accepted another taken some 3 seconds later (tripod, locked exposure, locked focus, bright sunlight, fast shutter, infinity distance non moving subject) rejected.  A blue background image accepted whilst a white background made from the same photo rejected for focus and so on.
It's almost like a reviewer gets bored and rejects photos they dont like by just clicking "focus" as he goes through without really looking sometimes.
That said they really do seem to dislike blurred background shots even if the main subject is razor sharp- more often than not those get rejected for me.

The vast majority of the time i'll resubmit the rejected focus ones (no note left, done as a new submission) and they'll be accepted.

« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2012, 04:34 »
+1
Their reviewers are very inconsistent to say the least. Under the guise of 'focus' and 'trademark' and others put off those photos that do not like

« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2012, 15:38 »
0
...
I keep a list of all the rejections and reasons (yes im that sad) and something changed a few months ago.  Previously rejections were  a fairly even spread of lighting/composition, noise and so on, no real one reason standing out.  Suddenly a few months ago "focus" started happening and looking at the stats since October onwards for me 75% of all rejections have been for focus.
...

Wow.  Thanks for the sanity check and the very interesting statistics.  As far as I'm concerned, you've removed all doubt - a piece of software is doing a pre-screen for "focus" and is simply kicking out a ton of false positives.  It's being confused by subject, texture and color.  It's inconceivable that human reviewers could be responsible.

I've decided to stop submitting to SS for now.  At some point they might make a change, or even issue a statement acknowledging what's going on.   But realistically, I doubt that they care very much about rejecting good images because they have more than enough as it is, and the overriding goal is to cut reviewing costs.





« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2012, 16:40 »
0
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?

rubyroo

« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2012, 16:54 »
0
I've decided to stop submitting to SS for now.

Why not try raising that support ticket?  You have nothing to lose by doing so, and you might gain something.

RacePhoto

« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2012, 22:20 »
+1
SS does not use any computer generated pre-screening programs!

"We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."

This is what SS said - are you saying they don't know what they're talking about or lied  to the SEC?

True but that doesn't prove that the pre-filter looks at sharpness and is responsible for these reviews. It could look at size or EXIF or look for camera model, or another 100 things and never be pre-checking for focus.

All we know from the report is they use something. Lets not jump to unfounded conclusions.

As for part two, I agree that they should disclose parts of it to us, but if it's some trade secret, then I can understand why the details aren't being handed out at this time.

I also agree that it's one of the open ended rejections, like the one for lighting that has this or that or maybe something else. And if a reviewer can't find a real reason they can click Lighting or Focus. Or focus isn't where we think it should be.

Lucky Oliver still had the best reviewers. You could write and ask, what was the specific problem and they could educate us, so we would learn not to do the same things over and over, without knowing what the reasoning behind the rejection actually was. Problem with the big four is, you get a rejection and basically that's the end of the line. No details and no help with what to avoid in the future. Just guess and maybe get it right? Not helpful.


« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2012, 23:38 »
0
I've decided to stop submitting to SS for now.

Why not try raising that support ticket?  You have nothing to lose by doing so, and you might gain something.

Mainly because I'm ticked off and it's just more hassle.  And if I got a canned reply including a link to "Tips on how to focus your camera" I think I'd lose it.

Hopefully after I walk away for a while and calm down, I'll do it.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2012, 23:45 by stockastic »

« Reply #46 on: December 15, 2012, 02:27 »
0
Well I have always had a 90% acceptance rate here and never any with focus issues., I can guess though that they might have been slight out of focal plane. However why dont you just post some, impossible to judge otherwise. :)

« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2012, 03:03 »
0
In the last couple of months my focus rejections have gone through the roof theres a definite issue here. Waiting to see what happens to my next batch! ;)

« Reply #48 on: December 15, 2012, 11:10 »
0
However why dont you just post some, impossible to judge otherwise. :)

Because you won't be seeing the images @ 100% full rez. And as stated earlier.....most of our re-submitted images are accepted after being rejected the first time around so your opinion becomes irrelevant. That's why.  ::)

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #49 on: December 15, 2012, 15:28 »
-1
Yes you will!

If posted properly we can see a full resolution image at 100% it is quite easy.

Would you like for me to post you the links explaining how it is done?

The newest is so easy a frigging Baby could do it!

However why dont you just post some, impossible to judge otherwise. :)

Because you won't be seeing the images @ 100% full rez. And as stated earlier.....most of our re-submitted images are accepted after being rejected the first time around so your opinion becomes irrelevant. That's why.  ::)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
8088 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
4 Replies
6898 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
6729 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
4 Replies
2962 Views
Last post March 08, 2014, 20:34
by w7lwi
0 Replies
452 Views
Last post February 19, 2021, 12:46
by cloudvisual

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle