Author Topic: If you run out of ideas on what to shoot. I have a solution. (Read 11060 times)

Unamas · « **on:** December 23, 2021, 18:32 »

Interesting portfolio https://www.shutterstock.com/g/pisanstock?sort=newest

lostintimeline · « **Reply #1 on:** December 23, 2021, 19:03 »

is this a last minute christmas joke?

Unamas · « **Reply #2 on:** December 23, 2021, 20:21 »

I wish it was a joke

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For Real · « **Reply #3 on:** December 23, 2021, 20:47 »

I was going to say play BINGO but with all these numbers you really can play BINGO

Roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2021, 00:14 »

Pisanstock took the numbers game quite seriously

HappyBunny · « **Reply #5 on:** December 24, 2021, 01:53 »

And they didn't get rejected for being similar.

NuttyMoo · « **Reply #6 on:** December 24, 2021, 04:29 »

OMG 225 pages of numbers why would you?

?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #7 on:** December 24, 2021, 04:35 »

Shareholders need convincing the collection is growing faster than competing agencies. I wonder if they just accept this stuff then bury it from searches. Also wonder if/when shares eventually tank will SS face action over this stuff (misleading shareholders)?

thijsdegraaf · « **Reply #8 on:** December 24, 2021, 04:46 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 24, 2021, 04:35

Shareholders need convincing the collection is growing faster than competing agencies. I wonder if they just accept this stuff then bury it from searches. Also wonder if/when shares eventually tank will SS face action over this stuff (misleading shareholders)?

If you search, you will see more similars with him. https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/g/pisanstock?searchterm=flag+of+japanese.+The+rising+sun.&sort=popular Not bad in quality, but I think if I uploaded them, a fair amount of these images would also be rejected as similar.
So much is uploaded and so much is rejected at Shutterstock, that there must be another reason. The shareholders mainly look at the profit and number of sales.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #9 on:** December 24, 2021, 04:54 »

Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

Wilm · « **Reply #10 on:** December 24, 2021, 04:57 »

Quote from: Unamas on December 23, 2021, 18:32

Interesting portfolio https://www.shutterstock.com/g/pisanstock?sort=newest

Thank you very much for this impressing source of inspiration!

Noedelhap · « **Reply #11 on:** December 24, 2021, 05:54 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54

Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

Looks like my eyesight before I put my lenses in.

Roscoe · « **Reply #12 on:** December 24, 2021, 06:04 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54

Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

Everything I pretend to know about photography turns out to be a lie.

For Real · « **Reply #13 on:** December 24, 2021, 09:32 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54

Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

and they probably make more than I do on Shutter

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #14 on:** December 24, 2021, 09:34 »

Beyond the bottom line, none these will make anything, why the heck would SS accept them? I mean the bad background, blurred nothing backgrounds and the numbers?

WHY?

A couple of years ago I would have said, they want to have more images than anyone else so they can claim "we have the most", but now that's old and done. Nothing in these three examples makes any sense for the market.

Quote from: HappyBunny on December 24, 2021, 01:53

And they didn't get rejected for being similar.

Well yes, at least there's some truth in that part.

Roscoe · « **Reply #15 on:** December 24, 2021, 10:07 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 24, 2021, 09:34

Beyond the bottom line, none these will make anything, why the heck would SS accept them? I mean the bad background, blurred nothing backgrounds and the numbers?

Are you sure they are not selling?

Popularity score: high
Usage score: frequently used
Trendsetter: we're seeing significant engagement with this asset

Not one. Several.

Now, I know these scores are nonsense, but I've never seen an image listed as frequently used or popularity score high without any sales. At least not with me.
I find similar (and I mean very very similar) images from other contributors with the same rating.

Must be something that I'm missing here...

So yeah. Let me get right on it.
Shooting out of focus plain white abstract backgrounds with some vague bokeh.
An... Let. It. Rain. Gold!

Next, let me walk around with my smartphone strapped on my backpack in automated shutter mode.
AI engine for descriptions and keywords and upload upload upload!
Few thousands of abstract buildings and in the nature in the greens will do the trick I suppose.

See you all on the flipside, nipping my cocktail brought by a private butler on a beach at Cayman Islands.

Merry Christmas!

pancaketom · « **Reply #16 on:** December 24, 2021, 13:31 »

not surprising that "1234" is the most popular 4 digit number, but who knew 4970 and 8529 could be so popular, or maybe they are the only ones that have sold.

I think long ago I tried to upload a few blurry backgrounds like that - all rejected. I clearly missed out on a goldmine. Looks like they are all titled the same, I didn't bother to check the keywords though. I guess SS is getting what they are paying for.

Milleflore · « **Reply #17 on:** December 24, 2021, 14:06 »

Quote from: Roscoe on December 24, 2021, 00:14

Pisanstock took the numbers game quite seriously

lol

cascoly · « **Reply #18 on:** December 24, 2021, 15:24 »

if you look at 'similars by other artists' there're many others doing this

TonyD · « **Reply #19 on:** December 24, 2021, 18:23 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54

Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

Who would anyone take so many blurred photos and how on earth were they accepted when you get a tiny bit of a normal photo rejected if it's OOF? It's totally unfair to get those accepted.

TonyD · « **Reply #20 on:** December 24, 2021, 19:03 »

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on December 24, 2021, 04:46

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 24, 2021, 04:35
Shareholders need convincing the collection is growing faster than competing agencies. I wonder if they just accept this stuff then bury it from searches. Also wonder if/when shares eventually tank will SS face action over this stuff (misleading shareholders)?

If you search, you will see more similars with him. https://www.shutterstock.com/nl/g/pisanstock?searchterm=flag+of+japanese.+The+rising+sun.&sort=popular Not bad in quality, but I think if I uploaded them, a fair amount of these images would also be rejected as similar.
So much is uploaded and so much is rejected at Shutterstock, that there must be another reason. The shareholders mainly look at the profit and number of sales.

Omg those stripy patterns hurt my eyes and I'm an ex designer so why would anyone buy those?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #21 on:** December 25, 2021, 10:46 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 24, 2021, 13:31

not surprising that "1234" is the most popular 4 digit number, but who knew 4970 and 8529 could be so popular, or maybe they are the only ones that have sold.

I think long ago I tried to upload a few blurry backgrounds like that - all rejected. I clearly missed out on a goldmine. Looks like they are all titled the same, I didn't bother to check the keywords though. I guess SS is getting what they are paying for.

Same here, years ago, and mine were real blurred backgrounds not out of focus blobs of nothing. I made over 30 of them: 4 DLs for $1.41 maybe I just don't have it for being blurred?

I took clear, clean images, that I thought would make a good background and blurred them.

Quote from: Roscoe on December 24, 2021, 10:07

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 24, 2021, 09:34
Beyond the bottom line, none these will make anything, why the heck would SS accept them? I mean the bad background, blurred nothing backgrounds and the numbers?
Are you sure they are not selling?

Popularity score: high
Usage score: frequently used
Trendsetter: we're seeing significant engagement with this asset

Not one. Several.

You're right, no I'm not sure, but I don't know which group you meant? The numbers, the light blobs, or the out of focus patterns?

Here's one of my shots, new with one download.
"Popularity score
High
Usage score
Frequently used
Trendsetter
We're seeing significant engagement with this asset."

You are correct, some of these actually have at least one download.

I'll say my personal opinion is, I don't see a long term or valuable financial future is many of these.

Quote from: vintage age on December 24, 2021, 18:23

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54
Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

Who would anyone take so many blurred photos and how on earth were they accepted when you get a tiny bit of a normal photo rejected if it's OOF? It's totally unfair to get those accepted.

There's a difference between blurred background or intentionally blurred and just out of focus. Please don't ask me to say what that is exactly? Lets just go for, very sharp, pixels, in a blurred image is possibly different from, blurred pixels in a soft image. And even with that, who knows what SS thinks?

Here's one of mine and no it's never been downloaded. I tried to do some backgrounds that are "backgrounds". I guess I missed the target.

Waterfall, woods, copy space? I guess it's time to move up my game and take a GoPro and walk through a woods and upload 1,000 blurred Forrest images. (no not really, just how absurd some of these are.)

Level6 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 25, 2021, 13:47 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 25, 2021, 10:46

Quote from: pancaketom on December 24, 2021, 13:31
not surprising that "1234" is the most popular 4 digit number, but who knew 4970 and 8529 could be so popular, or maybe they are the only ones that have sold.

I think long ago I tried to upload a few blurry backgrounds like that - all rejected. I clearly missed out on a goldmine. Looks like they are all titled the same, I didn't bother to check the keywords though. I guess SS is getting what they are paying for.

Same here, years ago, and mine were real blurred backgrounds not out of focus blobs of nothing. I made over 30 of them: 4 DLs for $1.41 maybe I just don't have it for being blurred?

I took clear, clean images, that I thought would make a good background and blurred them.

Quote from: Roscoe on December 24, 2021, 10:07
Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 24, 2021, 09:34
Beyond the bottom line, none these will make anything, why the heck would SS accept them? I mean the bad background, blurred nothing backgrounds and the numbers?
Are you sure they are not selling?

Popularity score: high
Usage score: frequently used
Trendsetter: we're seeing significant engagement with this asset

Not one. Several.

You're right, no I'm not sure, but I don't know which group you meant? The numbers, the light blobs, or the out of focus patterns?

Here's one of my shots, new with one download.
"Popularity score
High
Usage score
Frequently used
Trendsetter
We're seeing significant engagement with this asset."

You are correct, some of these actually have at least one download.

I'll say my personal opinion is, I don't see a long term or valuable financial future is many of these.

Quote from: vintage age on December 24, 2021, 18:23
Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54
Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

Who would anyone take so many blurred photos and how on earth were they accepted when you get a tiny bit of a normal photo rejected if it's OOF? It's totally unfair to get those accepted.

There's a difference between blurred background or intentionally blurred and just out of focus. Please don't ask me to say what that is exactly? Lets just go for, very sharp, pixels, in a blurred image is possibly different from, blurred pixels in a soft image. And even with that, who knows what SS thinks?

Here's one of mine and no it's never been downloaded. I tried to do some backgrounds that are "backgrounds". I guess I missed the target.

Waterfall, woods, copy space? I guess it's time to move up my game and take a GoPro and walk through a woods and upload 1,000 blurred Forrest images. (no not really, just how absurd some of these are.)

Not upping your game but you might be onto something, funny you mentioned because I was planning on doing just that yesterday but with video, I have the GoPro hero 8 black but I plan on taking it for a walk.

There's so much fine art out there and well shot photos and video and still a place for it but what are the masses shooting and watching these days?, you'll need to install an app called TikTok to find out

Level6 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 25, 2021, 13:56 »

Quote from: Roscoe on December 24, 2021, 10:07

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 24, 2021, 09:34
Beyond the bottom line, none these will make anything, why the heck would SS accept them? I mean the bad background, blurred nothing backgrounds and the numbers?
Are you sure they are not selling?

Popularity score: high
Usage score: frequently used
Trendsetter: we're seeing significant engagement with this asset

Not one. Several.

Now, I know these scores are nonsense, but I've never seen an image listed as frequently used or popularity score high without any sales. At least not with me.
I find similar (and I mean very very similar) images from other contributors with the same rating.

Must be something that I'm missing here...

So yeah. Let me get right on it.
Shooting out of focus plain white abstract backgrounds with some vague bokeh.
An... Let. It. Rain. Gold!

Next, let me walk around with my smartphone strapped on my backpack in automated shutter mode.
AI engine for descriptions and keywords and upload upload upload!
Few thousands of abstract buildings and in the nature in the greens will do the trick I suppose.

See you all on the flipside, nipping my cocktail brought by a private butler on a beach at Cayman Islands.

Merry Christmas!

I think you might be onto something, they might be selling. They are shooting and uploading content like this for a reason.

Still a place for properly shot video and photos but look at what the masses are shooting and watching on TikTik, the hardest part is "dumbing down" to that level when you grew up learning and trying to shoot as perfectly as you can with the equipment you have.

Gonna have to go out with only the cell phone and GoPro and leave everything else at home.

marthamarks · « **Reply #24 on:** December 25, 2021, 15:34 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54

Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

And this shooter's tag line is: "I Love Nature"

As somebody who really does love and shoot nature, I fail to see the appeal here.

Level6 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 25, 2021, 17:24 »

Quote from: marthamarks on December 25, 2021, 15:34

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54
Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

And this shooter's tag line is: "I Love Nature"

As somebody who really does love and shoot nature, I fail to see the appeal here.

Same here and then you go on TikTok and see what the masses are watching these days......

I can't get my head around it either.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #26 on:** December 26, 2021, 11:04 »

Quote from: marthamarks on December 25, 2021, 15:34

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54
Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

And this shooter's tag line is: "I Love Nature"

As somebody who really does love and shoot nature, I fail to see the appeal here.

I looked at page 1 of Top Images and only one image has something other than

"Popularity score
None
Usage score
Never used
First Look
This asset has almost never been seen. Make the first move."

I really doubt that this person will make payout in the next year, and should recognize that their Bokeh series is a waste of time.

Anyone who sees these and believes it's some new direction or worth the time, is grasping at straws. Time would be better invested in just taking a dozen real photos that are designed and planned for whatever is current and trending.

I agree, I fail to see any future or appeal in any of these.

Unamas · « **Reply #27 on:** December 26, 2021, 16:48 »

I still wonder why SS wastes money on storing those images.

cascoly · « **Reply #28 on:** December 26, 2021, 18:27 »

Quote from: Unamas on December 26, 2021, 16:48

I still wonder why SS wastes money on storing those images.

because bits are cheap & there's no way to know what will sell in the future (plus they get to claim a larger # of images online)

Level6 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 26, 2021, 21:24 »

Quote from: cascoly on December 26, 2021, 18:27

Quote from: Unamas on December 26, 2021, 16:48
I still wonder why SS wastes money on storing those images.
because bits are cheap & there's no way to know what will sell in the future (plus they get to claim a larger # of images online)

I've wondered and worried about this when it comes to video, these aren't small files and at some point the agencies won't be expanding their storage accounts with AWS, we could very well be in the last evolution of that part of the business as well.

I've looked into storage just for 50TB of editorial stock that I have and it's not an option which is also why most of us can't host our own sites/agencies.

Roscoe · « **Reply #30 on:** December 27, 2021, 05:49 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 25, 2021, 10:46

You're right, no I'm not sure, but I don't know which group you meant? The numbers, the light blobs, or the out of focus patterns?

Here's one of my shots, new with one download.
"Popularity score
High
Usage score
Frequently used
Trendsetter
We're seeing significant engagement with this asset."

You are correct, some of these actually have at least one download.

I'll say my personal opinion is, I don't see a long term or valuable financial future is many of these.

Indeed, I meant the out of focus patterns Pete.

To me it really looks like that contributor didn't actually took all these shots on purpose, and uploaded them manually. It rather looks like AI generated content, or just walking around with a camera on automatic shutter mode snapping random pics. AI keywording (titles and keywords make no sense too) and automated uploading would do the rest. Not much time invested if you ask me. No sane person would put time and effort in manually shooting, keywording and uploading nonsense like that, on that scale (+20.000 images).

I too have my strong doubts about high sales volume for spam profiles like that, but honestly, I don't know for sure. There IS a market for abstract backgrounds, and patterns. It's not my niche at all, the backgrounds or patterns that I shot on purpose (e.g. weathered wood, brick walls, crispy sand, cloudscapes, ... you know the drill) never sold once. But upload 20.000 images like that... you might a few images that take off and start selling on daily basis.

That said, question remains: how the h*ll did they got through and got accepted. All of them. And why is a portfolio like that not deleted right away.

OM · « **Reply #31 on:** December 29, 2021, 20:02 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on December 24, 2021, 04:54

Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

Probably the same contributor (both Thailand). When they get their SS payment for the bingo numbers, they go out and get utterly legless and fill a card with the blurs of the second contributor (same!). remember....you must distinguish yourself as an (p**s)artist!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** January 03, 2022, 12:05 »

In truly ridiculous SS news, apparently calendar images each year are now off the table because they are "too similar". So, anyone needing 2022 or years forward will just have to use 2018 or something.

"Our policy for accepting similar content has been continuously evolving, although it is a different year indeed, the images are the same that were submitted previously. We aim to meet the needs of our customers who are looking for diverse content and the needs of our contributors who are producing a variety of images in one shoot. Please allow me to clarify the reason for these rejections.

I understand that previously some images were being accepted at a higher rate. Still, since we have updated our review policies, many of the new content uploaded might not be accepted as per the updates. To help you navigate this nuanced policy, we have prepared a Similar Content article. Among these updates, it’s highlighted that many of the rejection’s reasons now include the Similar Content review policy, which has stricter guidelines compared to the previous one we had in place."

When I pointed out the port in the first post to show how dumb this was, ....
"I understand your frustration. The portfolio you have reported had these images approved before the change in the similar content policy. The rules on what is considered to be content that is too similar to accept into our collection have been tightened to meet the ongoing customer demand for fresh content with variety."

Which is why I spend little to no time on SS.

ouatedeP · « **Reply #33 on:** January 03, 2022, 13:09 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 03, 2022, 12:05

In truly ridiculous SS news, apparently calendar images each year are now off the table because they are "too similar". So, anyone needing 2022 or years forward will just have to use 2018 or something.

"Our policy for accepting similar content has been continuously evolving, although it is a different year indeed, the images are the same that were submitted previously. We aim to meet the needs of our customers who are looking for diverse content and the needs of our contributors who are producing a variety of images in one shoot. Please allow me to clarify the reason for these rejections.

I understand that previously some images were being accepted at a higher rate. Still, since we have updated our review policies, many of the new content uploaded might not be accepted as per the updates. To help you navigate this nuanced policy, we have prepared a Similar Content article. Among these updates, it’s highlighted that many of the rejection’s reasons now include the Similar Content review policy, which has stricter guidelines compared to the previous one we had in place."

When I pointed out the port in the first post to show how dumb this was, ....
"I understand your frustration. The portfolio you have reported had these images approved before the change in the similar content policy. The rules on what is considered to be content that is too similar to accept into our collection have been tightened to meet the ongoing customer demand for fresh content with variety."

Which is why I spend little to no time on SS.

was that an SS reply, or one of their "valued contributor who doesn't work for SS" front line canned answer support?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #34 on:** January 03, 2022, 15:06 »

No, that was SS support. I don't waste time with the "experts".

TonyD · « **Reply #35 on:** January 13, 2022, 03:05 »

Quote from: Unamas on December 23, 2021, 18:32

Interesting portfolio https://www.shutterstock.com/g/pisanstock?sort=newest

I wonder how many of SS's photos are like that, shouldn't have been accepted. Not fair when you get decent colorful & maybe useful images rejected for noise or focus. here is an ex. of a photo rejected on SS. I even put motion blur keyword in but to no avail. https://www.dreamstime.com/people-fairground-night-riding-carousel-time-fair-park-boston-lincs-uk-oct-image233728080
Note: it was accepted on DT so the link is to there because the file was too big to upload here.