MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "focus" craziness  (Read 7330 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 12, 2012, 14:41 »
0
I just had another bunch rejected for "focus".  This time most were rejected on resubmission as well.

I won't bore you with the details, but the focus was in fact perfect.  I've had hundreds of shots accepted that were done with exactly the same setup.  So please don't ask me to post the photos, etc., as there's no point, I have no way to improve the focus.  The only thing I could do is apply more sharpening, and maybe that's what they actually think they want.

Does anyone have a clue as to what's going on?



traveler1116

« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2012, 14:46 »
+1
Does anyone have a clue as to what's going on?
Yep, your photos were not in focus.

What kind of answer could you be looking for if you won't post examples?

« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2012, 15:21 »
0
I can not say with certainty, but I believe there is an automated pre-screening that images go through and some - for reasons that have nothing to do with the image actually being out of focus - fail that test.

It's irritating, but has happened enough (on images accepted everywhere else; and I really do know what is in focus and what isn't) that if a downsize doesn't do it I'll submit a collage of several shots and so far that's always been accepted.

Given how large my images are, a collection of smaller ones isn't the worst thing for SS to have - and the full size is for sale elsewhere if a buyer needs it

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2012, 15:40 »
0
Sorry to be skeptical but until there's some evidence or proof that there's any Bot review for anything besides size, I'm not going down that path. Maybe some day, someone will get some, in which case I'll adjust my opinion.

The rejection says... "Focus. Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best."

So it could be as sharp as sharp, but not where the reviewer thinks it works. That looks like opinion, not Bot?

Why Images Get Rejected for Focus - Rejection Reasons #9

http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/115/article1.html

See if that's any help?

« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2012, 15:46 »
0
I don't think the process is automated (otherwise it would most likely be consistent), I'm pretty sure it is the subjective assessment of the MkI Human Eyeball.

They're not necessarily saying the image was "not in focus". The other part of the advice is "or not where WE think it works best".

As JoAnn says shrink the image down to 5MP, or even the minimum if necessary, and resubmit it. Oh, and yes, do apply subtle sharpening. If all that doesn't work then ... your image is not in focus (or where they feel it works best).

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2012, 15:59 »
+1
^they said no resubmit.
Joann's tactic of making a collage is v clever.
Usually I just shrug and move on, but I guess it depends on how big the batch is.

« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2012, 16:42 »
+1
I can not say with certainty, but I believe there is an automated pre-screening that images go through and some - for reasons that have nothing to do with the image actually being out of focus - fail that test.

It's irritating, but has happened enough (on images accepted everywhere else; and I really do know what is in focus and what isn't) that if a downsize doesn't do it I'll submit a collage of several shots and so far that's always been accepted.

Given how large my images are, a collection of smaller ones isn't the worst thing for SS to have - and the full size is for sale elsewhere if a buyer needs it


Of course, all these shots were accepted by DT, GL and Alamy.   And SS accepted, at the same time, other shots which were technically identical to the ones rejected.   

I think the problem in most cases is  subjects that just don't have sharp, obvious edges.  As I've posted in other threads, I too am convinced a software screen  is in place and it's rejecting when it doesn't find enough edges.   I can do things to enhance edges, for example high-pass filtering and selective contrast enhancement.   More hoops to jump through.   

Shutterstock's SEC filing included this statement: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."  I think the implications are obvious.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 17:05 by stockastic »

« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2012, 17:11 »
+1
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.

« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2012, 17:19 »
0
The Focus Nazi strikes again!  I've had a decent AR at SS all year and then the past couple of months all of a sudden most got shot down.  Every rejection on the last two batches at SS was for focus, and almost no focus rejections of the same images at 12 other agencies.  I had one batch where 9/10 were rejected by SS, mostly for focus.  The same batch at BS was 9/10 accepted, with one rejected for focus - the only one that was accepted at SS.  Very weird.  I haven't resubmitted any in the past couple of months, but the last time I did had good luck with resizing and limited high-pass sharpening.  Now have enough rejections to prepare another batch for resubmission and hope for the best.

I think it's just a rogue reviewer, because similar batches of the same subjects and similar quality will get through with few or no rejections, then all of a sudden switch to high rejections with the next submission.  Sometimes I can understand the focus rejections, other times some that I thought were a little soft got through at SS but were nailed at other agencies.  If resizing doesn't help it will be a problem - I hate resizing and sharpening but will do it if necessary.

« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2012, 18:01 »
+1
They don't seem keen on shallow DoF.

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2012, 18:05 »
0
had the same thing recently. Resubmitted and almost all approved. It's annoying to say the least, just means another week or so without those image online.

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2012, 18:06 »
0
They don't seem keen on shallow DoF.

True. But when they do let shallow shots through, they sometimes turn out to be the best sellers!

« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2012, 18:07 »
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.

+1

« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2012, 18:18 »
+3
To forum: for future reference, do not post rants about keywords or focus or lighting or ... without examples.  Thx.

CD123

« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2012, 19:13 »
0
To forum: If all top agencies accepts certain images and another constantly fail the same images for a specific reason, feel free to inquire if other contributors are experiencing the same, without samples. (Not all want their images to be judged, but all have the right to ask questions about other contributor's experiences - the ones who does not want to respond without examples do not have to - freedom of speech I think).

To the OP. Just had another bunch refused for the same reason, while accepted at Alamy and other large agencies. Agree, there is something up with it. Going with  icefront's opinion.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 19:17 by CD123 »

« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2012, 19:13 »
0
The question is not "would someone like to critique my photos?".  The question is, "does anyone know what's behind this statement in SS's SEC filing?":

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

« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2012, 19:17 »
0
I can not say with certainty, but I believe there is an automated pre-screening that images go through and some - for reasons that have nothing to do with the image actually being out of focus - fail that test.

It's irritating, but has happened enough (on images accepted everywhere else; and I really do know what is in focus and what isn't) that if a downsize doesn't do it I'll submit a collage of several shots and so far that's always been accepted.

Given how large my images are, a collection of smaller ones isn't the worst thing for SS to have - and the full size is for sale elsewhere if a buyer needs it


Of course, all these shots were accepted by DT, GL and Alamy.   And SS accepted, at the same time, other shots which were technically identical to the ones rejected.   

I think the problem in most cases is  subjects that just don't have sharp, obvious edges.  As I've posted in other threads, I too am convinced a software screen  is in place and it's rejecting when it doesn't find enough edges.   I can do things to enhance edges, for example high-pass filtering and selective contrast enhancement.   More hoops to jump through.   

Shutterstock's SEC filing included this statement: "We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers."  I think the implications are obvious.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm


I spotted this statement as well and based on a few of the higher end submitters that are reporting mass focus rejections I tend to think they have said proprietary technology in place.


« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2012, 19:22 »
0
The use of software screening technology is inevitable, and reviewing costs are an obvious issue.  Focus evaluation technology already exists - it's in your camera, driving the multi-point AF.   Edge detection exists. 

The problem isn't that an agency is using this technology - the problem is that they're doing it in secret.  If they want to reduce their costs, why not make this evaluation tool available to contributors? Then we can do our own screening and if an obviously good photo fails, we don't waste everyone's time with automatic rejections and resubmisions - we either change the photo or bring it to the attention of a live reviewer at SS as an example of how the screen isn't working properly.

« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 19:50 by stockastic »

rubyroo

« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2012, 19:24 »
0
I'm trying to picture a 'Focus-Nazi'.... I'm just seeing a monacled, goose-stepping pedant.

If only the real *N-words had been merely pedantic...

*forum won't allow the N-word in isolation.  Sorry.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2012, 19:26 by rubyroo »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2012, 21:14 »
0
SS does not use any computer generated pre-screening programs!

You got hit by Attila ;D

Happens every year.

« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2012, 23:01 »
0
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?

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2012, 00:07 »
-1
So when they went public this is what they said?

Strange because Anthony and others say they dont use this kind of technology?

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?

« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2012, 01:41 »
0
I just had an image rejected because of "focus". I sent it in for a second opinion and the SS reviewer asked that I resubmit and include a comment that I copy and paste in the "notes to reviewer" box. I did that....and guess what? The image was rejected again because of "focus" issues. Did the reviewer miss the comments included with the resubmission? Is it an automated system? Who knows. I've resubmitted the image a third time with the same note hoping the reviewer will see it this time around. Very frustrating. I submit no more than 2 images at a time now. Almost all are rejected for focus problems and almost all are accepted after a second reviewer checks it out. This has been going on for months.

« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2012, 02:47 »
+2
maybe it was out of focus?

Let us see them.
Else its kind of a meaningless discussion.

« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2012, 10:11 »
0
I just had an image rejected because of "focus". I sent it in for a second opinion and the SS reviewer asked that I resubmit and include a comment that I copy and paste in the "notes to reviewer" box. I did that....and guess what? The image was rejected again because of "focus" issues. Did the reviewer miss the comments included with the resubmission? Is it an automated system? Who knows. I've resubmitted the image a third time with the same note hoping the reviewer will see it this time around. Very frustrating. I submit no more than 2 images at a time now. Almost all are rejected for focus problems and almost all are accepted after a second reviewer checks it out. This has been going on for months.

Your experience matches mine. All my 'focus' rejections in the past were approved on resubmission - I just added notes saying "I don't see the problem".  But last time: I submitted 3, all were rejected for 'focus', I resubmitted them and only 1 was approved.

If there is an automated screen (I'm convinced there is), and it's being applied on resubmissions too, then it's really getting tough - maybe impossible for some subjects. 

This new screen wasn't put in place because customers were complaining about out-of-focus images, or because images need to be even sharper than a year ago; the purpose is to cut reviewing costs. 


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.  ::)

« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2012, 16:03 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« Reply #52 on: December 15, 2012, 16:12 »
0
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

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #53 on: December 15, 2012, 16:49 »
-1
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

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2012, 16:52 »
-1
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 (submit@shutterstock.com) with your request.


Best Regards,

Content Operations
Shutterstock

« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2012, 17:01 »
0
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 (submit@shutterstock.com) 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

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2012, 17:04 »
0
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 (submit@shutterstock.com) 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.


« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2012, 17:23 »
0
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. 
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 17:52 by stockastic »

RacePhoto

« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2012, 19:18 »
+1
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)


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 »
0
Just happened to notice this 'USP'? looking at Feature Pics:

Human-reviewed pictures




« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2012, 11:10 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« Reply #63 on: December 20, 2012, 12:12 »
0
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.


« Reply #64 on: December 20, 2012, 12:27 »
+1
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..."
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 13:03 by stockastic »

« Reply #65 on: December 22, 2012, 02:43 »
0
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 »
0


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.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 20:06 by OM »


« Reply #67 on: December 22, 2012, 20:16 »
0
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.

« Reply #68 on: December 23, 2012, 14:21 »
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?

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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
7125 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
4 Replies
4958 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
4998 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
28 Replies
9168 Views
Last post January 24, 2012, 20:28
by krilcis
4 Replies
2318 Views
Last post March 08, 2014, 20:34
by w7lwi

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results