Author Topic: Shutterstock using some kind of software A.I. to review images? (Read 28853 times)

pancaketom · « **Reply #25 on:** September 19, 2012, 14:21 »

They could really speed things up w/o going totally auto by having the program recommend likely rejection reasons (if it finds technical problems), then if the reviewer agrees they just click one button and it is on to the next. Of course a lazy reviewer will just do that but a good reviewer could easily override the program's decision. They could also have some sort of collection value - a mix of the number of images with similar keywords and the number of images purchased using those keywords. This way if an image is so-so but of little value to the collection - there are already a heap of similar images and it isn't very high demand - it gets rejected but if it is in a subject w/o a lot of images compared to the demand - it gets accepted.

Of course there will be plenty of images that get rejected or accepted that should be the opposite. Especially if they are my images that get rejected.

Poncke · « **Reply #26 on:** September 19, 2012, 14:40 »

The OP needs to post his photo.

My rejections are for composition and uneven lighting, never focus. Something that cant be handled by software.

Alloy hats is what most stock togs need to wear.

stockastic · « **Reply #27 on:** September 19, 2012, 15:36 »

It would seem a lot more fair if SS had an official way to resubmit, with explanation or comments. Like "this image was rejected for focus but I feel the use of DOF enhances the composition." If they really do have software looking at focus, they'll know perfectly well that there are some bad rejections of good photos, and might approve them on appeal.

Poncke · « **Reply #28 on:** September 19, 2012, 15:44 »

There is an official way to resubmit. Its in their instructions, you need to fix the photo, and upload again with a note to the reviewer the number of the rejected photo and the fixes you applied.

stockastic · « **Reply #29 on:** September 19, 2012, 15:52 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 19, 2012, 15:44

There is an official way to resubmit. Its in their instructions, you need to fix the photo, and upload again with a note to the reviewer the number of the rejected photo and the fixes you applied.

Thanks, didn't know about that - guess I'm out of date.

Poncke · « **Reply #30 on:** September 19, 2012, 15:56 »

Quote from: stockastic on September 19, 2012, 15:52

Quote from: Poncke on September 19, 2012, 15:44
There is an official way to resubmit. Its in their instructions, you need to fix the photo, and upload again with a note to the reviewer the number of the rejected photo and the fixes you applied.

Thanks, didn't know about that - guess I'm out of date.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#How do I re-submit content that was previously approved?

OM · « **Reply #31 on:** September 19, 2012, 17:18 »

OT but FT is presumably using optical software to place its 'Infinity' series images on search pages.

http://en.fotolia.com/search?k=aids&filters[content_type%3Aall]=1&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

Search subject is 'aids' and on that page you'll find 3 'Infinity' images that have absolutely nothing to do with 'aids'. They're images of a round European table with seats. AIDS is not in the keywords either (unless 'assistance' counts)..........however, I reckon the table with seats around it looks to a machine like some models of an aids virus particle. That's the only explanation I can think of anyway.

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** September 19, 2012, 17:59 »

Quote from: OM on September 19, 2012, 17:18

OT but FT is presumably using optical software to place its 'Infinity' series images on search pages.

http://en.fotolia.com/search?k=aids&filters[content_type%3Aall]=1&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

Search subject is 'aids' and on that page you'll find 3 'Infinity' images that have absolutely nothing to do with 'aids'. They're images of a round European table with seats. AIDS is not in the keywords either (unless 'assistance' counts)..........however, I reckon the table with seats around it looks to a machine like some models of an aids virus particle. That's the only explanation I can think of anyway.

What on earth is 'optical software' when it's at home? FT just have a painfully crude search algorithm in which every keyword used by any image (however irrelevant) is apparently given equal weight in search results __ except in the case of 'Infinity' images which obviously have a major boost. It appears that FT's 'translation' device is equally crude which explains the weird 'results' from images submitted by non-English speaking contributors.

OM · « **Reply #33 on:** September 19, 2012, 19:19 »

What I meant by that was some sort of 'optical pattern' recognition that relates totally unrelated and unrequested images to one another as in 'suggested' alternatives for eg image of hamburger (although the search was for 'bread'). Or maybe it is a keyword thing in the previous example whereby the software relates 'aids' to 'assistance'. Mebbee they're the same in Spanish (contributor from Spain). I dunno. $:-\$

gostwyck · « **Reply #34 on:** September 19, 2012, 19:34 »

Quote from: OM on September 19, 2012, 19:19

What I meant by that was some sort of 'optical pattern' recognition that relates totally unrelated and unrequested images to one another as in 'suggested' alternatives for eg image of hamburger (although the search was for 'bread'). Or maybe it is a keyword thing in the previous example whereby the software relates 'aids' to 'assistance'. Mebbee they're the same in Spanish (contributor from Spain). I dunno. $:-\$

Wow. I'm amazed that you managed to construct such a complex conspiracy theorem to 'explain' what is self-evidently merely technological inadequacy.

nicku · « **Reply #35 on:** September 20, 2012, 00:01 »

Quote from: heywoody on September 19, 2012, 05:38

Quote from: nicku on September 19, 2012, 04:08
Yesterday were reviewed 4 particular pictures... two of them were accepted and two declined. All four pictures are at the same resolution, object, quality. the reason for declined ones was: Trademark. not even one has a trademark sign/logo on them.

This experience can mean two thinks:

1. SS is using some sort of software as a filter before review , and the ''filtered'' images end up for a second ''human'' review. In this case the soft decided that two of my pics have trademark logos/brands and rejects them..... and the human reviewer accepted the other 2.

2. same bench of images are reviewed by multiple reviewers and one person receive two pics and another one the other two.

I can't find other explanation in my case.

Or, the automated filter accepted 2 and the human reviewer rejected 2

I don't believe SS is letting a soft to do all the job. OK, the software is filtering the images ( sharpness, resolution, colors etc.) but the final review is still made by people.

The reason is very simple .... how will a software judge the concept of a photography??? .... when all agencies are telling us to came with new concepts.

heywoody · « **Reply #36 on:** September 20, 2012, 02:55 »

Just yanking your chain with a 3rd option

I'd be fairly confident that someone's eyes are involved in acceptances.

qwerty · « **Reply #37 on:** September 20, 2012, 05:06 »

while we're on conspiracy theories. Is it atilla inspecting from the clocktower or is it some faceless men on the grassy knoll that are rejecting our potential best sellers ?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** September 20, 2012, 06:35 »

So, no post of examples by the OP?

OM · « **Reply #39 on:** September 20, 2012, 08:47 »

My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.

heywoody · « **Reply #40 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:28 »

I'm sure the "related image" algorithm just uses keywords and if we see something that's really, really unrelated it's most likely caused by the same spam that results in searches pulling up stuff with no relationship to the search term.

stockastic · « **Reply #41 on:** September 20, 2012, 10:55 »

Quote from: OM on September 20, 2012, 08:47

My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.

Exactly. Basically, these new, unproven and imperfect software screening technologies will cost us (contributors) money while reducing costs at the agencies.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #42 on:** September 20, 2012, 11:05 »

Quote from: stockastic on September 20, 2012, 10:55

Quote from: OM on September 20, 2012, 08:47
My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.

Exactly. Basically, these new, unproven and imperfect software screening technologies will cost us (contributors) money while reducing costs at the agencies.

Maybe ... but doesn't that contradict the argument that costing the contributor money is costing the agency money?

suwanneeredhead · « **Reply #43 on:** September 20, 2012, 14:23 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on September 20, 2012, 11:05

Quote from: stockastic on September 20, 2012, 10:55
Quote from: OM on September 20, 2012, 08:47
My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.

Exactly. Basically, these new, unproven and imperfect software screening technologies will cost us (contributors) money while reducing costs at the agencies.

Maybe ... but doesn't that contradict the argument that costing the contributor money is costing the agency money?

Yes, Warren, and also could you answer me this, why are we conjuring up these wild theories? Because of "reviewer inconsistency" ? Don't you think that if the images were reviewed by "software" or "artificial intelligence," that the reviews would be 100% consistent? Rock-solid consistency is what I think we'd get with artificial intelligence reviews, because the software would only understand objectivity and would do the same thing every time. It's the reviewer inconsistency (at ALL stock sites) that PROVES human eyes do this work.

Amazing ... seems to me some here would be better served learning their craft, than bitching and inventing wild conspiracy theories.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #44 on:** September 20, 2012, 14:50 »

Quote from: suwanneeredhead on September 20, 2012, 14:23

Quote from: WarrenPrice on September 20, 2012, 11:05
Quote from: stockastic on September 20, 2012, 10:55
Quote from: OM on September 20, 2012, 08:47
My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.

Exactly. Basically, these new, unproven and imperfect software screening technologies will cost us (contributors) money while reducing costs at the agencies.

Maybe ... but doesn't that contradict the argument that costing the contributor money is costing the agency money?

Yes, Warren, and also could you answer me this, why are we conjuring up these wild theories? Because of "reviewer inconsistency" ? Don't you think that if the images were reviewed by "software" or "artificial intelligence," that the reviews would be 100% consistent? Rock-solid consistency is what I think we'd get with artificial intelligence reviews, because the software would only understand objectivity and would do the same thing every time. It's the reviewer inconsistency (at ALL stock sites) that PROVES human eyes do this work.

Amazing ... seems to me some here would be better served learning their craft, than bitching and inventing wild conspiracy theories.

???Why Me??? Or did "YOU" mean the OP? Or another conjurer?

Poncke · « **Reply #45 on:** September 20, 2012, 15:26 »

Quote from: suwanneeredhead on September 20, 2012, 14:23

Quote from: WarrenPrice on September 20, 2012, 11:05
Quote from: stockastic on September 20, 2012, 10:55
Quote from: OM on September 20, 2012, 08:47
My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.

Exactly. Basically, these new, unproven and imperfect software screening technologies will cost us (contributors) money while reducing costs at the agencies.

Maybe ... but doesn't that contradict the argument that costing the contributor money is costing the agency money?

Yes, Warren, and also could you answer me this, why are we conjuring up these wild theories? Because of "reviewer inconsistency" ? Don't you think that if the images were reviewed by "software" or "artificial intelligence," that the reviews would be 100% consistent? Rock-solid consistency is what I think we'd get with artificial intelligence reviews, because the software would only understand objectivity and would do the same thing every time. It's the reviewer inconsistency (at ALL stock sites) that PROVES human eyes do this work.

Amazing ... seems to me some here would be better served learning their craft, than bitching and inventing wild conspiracy theories.

So tell me, how is this AI going to check for composition and uneven lighting and commercial value and white balance and copyright violations?

StockBoy · « **Reply #46 on:** September 20, 2012, 16:22 »

Give it a rest Sean,

I'm not going to post my images for debate because for one, I don't care that much about these couple of images (stock sites approve and reject many, many images for what appears to be random reasons, I get that and just move on) and for two, I didn't intend to discuss my specific images, only that "I" got the impression that they were using some sort of software to do either part or all of the review, and asked what the group thinks about the possibility of stock sites using some sort of software to review images.

It's not conspiracy theory or me complaining, and no I don't need a foil hat unless it will stop all the voices in my head that make me despise people who can't have a reasonable discussion about something that they may, or may not agree upon.

The discussion is more about "Do you think stock sites are using software to review images, and what do you think about it if they are?"

That is all I was doing, opening up a dialog or discussion about "Your thought on software reviewing your photos."

stockastic · « **Reply #47 on:** September 20, 2012, 16:33 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 20, 2012, 15:26

So tell me, how is this AI going to check for composition and uneven lighting and commercial value and white balance and copyright violations?

Nothing like that is remotely possibly today; well maybe white balance, but only to some extent. But the idea of a software 'focus' check is interesting.

I just submitted a closeup of some small glass objects - it's as in focus as it can be, but the objects are smooth, rounded and translucent - no real straight lines or sharp edges. I'll bet it gets rejected for 'focus'.

suwanneeredhead · « **Reply #49 on:** September 22, 2012, 16:23 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 20, 2012, 15:26

Quote from: suwanneeredhead on September 20, 2012, 14:23
Quote from: WarrenPrice on September 20, 2012, 11:05
Quote from: stockastic on September 20, 2012, 10:55
Quote from: OM on September 20, 2012, 08:47
My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.

Exactly. Basically, these new, unproven and imperfect software screening technologies will cost us (contributors) money while reducing costs at the agencies.

Maybe ... but doesn't that contradict the argument that costing the contributor money is costing the agency money?

Yes, Warren, and also could you answer me this, why are we conjuring up these wild theories? Because of "reviewer inconsistency" ? Don't you think that if the images were reviewed by "software" or "artificial intelligence," that the reviews would be 100% consistent? Rock-solid consistency is what I think we'd get with artificial intelligence reviews, because the software would only understand objectivity and would do the same thing every time. It's the reviewer inconsistency (at ALL stock sites) that PROVES human eyes do this work.

Amazing ... seems to me some here would be better served learning their craft, than bitching and inventing wild conspiracy theories.

So tell me, how is this AI going to check for composition and uneven lighting and commercial value and white balance and copyright violations?

It'll do what it's programmed to do in each situation, according to what the software design team decides in terms of assigning objectivity to an inherently subjective topic. Thus the consistency would be 100% -- and I'm sure it'd be dead wrong 99% of the time as well.

Sorry Warren, what I meant was, could SOMEBODY answer my question... you were right!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock using some kind of software A.I. to review images? (Read 28853 times)

pancaketom

Poncke

stockastic

Poncke

stockastic

Poncke

OM

gostwyck

OM

gostwyck

nicku

heywoody

qwerty

Sean Locke Photography

OM

heywoody

stockastic

WarrenPrice

suwanneeredhead

WarrenPrice

Poncke

StockBoy

stockastic

Toon Vectors

suwanneeredhead

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors