Author Topic: SS hits new lows in terms of quality (Read 5769 times)

beketoff · « **on:** February 07, 2017, 13:35 »

I first couldn't believe my eyes when I came upon this image (there are a number of them in the set). Then I saw the title: "Defocused background with wild coastline....".

Obviously the first thing which comes to my mind is who on earth will buy this s*&t, but then logically came up with another: why would SS refuse so many images for being "soft" or "out of focus" etc. and allow this type of things?

Stockmaan · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2017, 13:43 »

Quote from: beketoff on February 07, 2017, 13:35

I first couldn't believe my eyes when I came upon this image (there are a number of them in the set). Then I saw the title: "Defocused background with wild coastline....".

Obviously the first thing which comes to my mind is who on earth will buy this s*&t, but then logically came up with another: why would SS refuse so many images for being "soft" or "out of focus" etc. and allow this type of things?

OMG costumers already applauding!

Shelma1 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2017, 13:48 »

Now you know what to do with OOF/noisy images.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2017, 14:32 »

right, because no one ever uses defocussed backgrounds in their ads? surprising that a photographer doesnt grasp this concept. yes the buyer can do this themselves, but there is an argument for selling the end product.

derek · « **Reply #4 on:** February 07, 2017, 14:44 »

Must be a reviewing mistake surely. Anyway I am not surprised at all since lots of high quality suppliers are packing in. I recon it wont be long before its got to the point like Istock they simply have to be happy with what they get. Sounds terrible but who knows?

pancaketom · « **Reply #5 on:** February 07, 2017, 14:54 »

I tried sending some in a long time ago - rejected.

I guess I was just ahead of my time.

jonbull · « **Reply #6 on:** February 07, 2017, 14:56 »

https://it.fotolia.com/p/203924388?offset=63400&order=creation

when i thin about the level of micro stock nowadays portfolio like this one makes me understand a lot..and this seems also to sell very good...thousand of thousand of repetition...unbelievable. i began doing this now. no more interest in posting quality. it's clear that numbers counts more. most customer don't care of browsing through many pages grab mostly the first in the first page.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2017, 14:59 »

its not a reviewing mistake, its a perfectly ok image. decfocussed is different from an image that is supposed to be sharp and is out of focus.

https://designmodo.com/blur-backgrounds-websites/

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2017, 15:16 »

Looks like the key is to highlight that any 'errors' are 'intentional'... then they'll be accepted!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2017, 15:21 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on February 07, 2017, 15:16

Looks like the key is to highlight that any 'errors' are 'intentional'... then they'll be accepted!

Yes and some may be...I have a few......honest. Seriously though there may be a market for them. I try and focus (ha ha) on my own work and not judge others if there is no market they wont sell

Pixart · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2017, 15:31 »

Okay, not supposed to single anyone out on this forum; but pointing out that rules have changed: when I have submitted ONE "slight" HDR image it was declined because they don't accept HDR. The first page I see of that port is all "strong" HDR!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2017, 15:43 »

Quote from: Pixart on February 07, 2017, 15:31

Okay, not supposed to single anyone out on this forum; but pointing out that rules have changed: when I have submitted ONE "slight" HDR image it was declined because they don't accept HDR. The first page I see of that port is all "strong" HDR!

Yep certainly agree on that and there seem different rules for different people consistency is what I want

derek · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2017, 16:04 »

Defocused images are normally associated with portraits like the 135mil.DF etc.

ravens · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2017, 16:06 »

I don't think this photo is that bad at all, although the description about bokeh was sort of funny.

This image is what you see if you have bad eyesight or too weak glasses. So the blurred photo can sell glasses. I think a blurred "before" glasses image and a sharp "after" new glasses image could also be useful.

sharpshot · « **Reply #14 on:** February 08, 2017, 05:15 »

Shutterstock seemed to work out that the more images they accept, the more money they make. So the strange standards they had went out the window. I think this is a good thing. LCV images go down the search, so buyers don't see them most of the time but if they want a blurred landscape background, they can find it. Google likes new content, the links in this thread will also help with google. Just look how badly DT did when they became too picky. Their subjective "quality" policy must of cost them a small fortune over the years.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #15 on:** February 08, 2017, 05:32 »

There are much bigger things to worry about going on. It's an intentionally defocused blurry image and for what it is it's fine. It doesn't mean all intentionally (or unintentionally) blurry photos should or will be accepted.

qunamax · « **Reply #16 on:** February 08, 2017, 06:11 »

I like the concept, seen some really nice ads utilizing it, even tried a couple myself, not very proud of them but realized a couple of things: Lens needs to have superb bokeh, you have to nail the right amount of defocusing depending on the distance and subject enough to make it look creamy but not too much to make the subject indistinguishable.
This, in my opinion, is just a bad execution, not enough defocus and ugly bokeh.

jgolby · « **Reply #17 on:** February 08, 2017, 19:22 »

You see de-focused images all the time so why shouldn't SS sell them. I've got a couple in my port, very popular as backgrounds, infographics etc. As long as they have a strong concept I've got no problem with them.

Agree with others their far more egregious stuff out there.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #18 on:** February 08, 2017, 20:34 »

Yeah, these are background blurs.
Perfectly legit and useful.

The difference between these sorts of images and the ones which get rejected is that the subject is whatever is to be put over the blur. This just provides a background. Unlike an unsharp image or an image with razor thin DOF where the subject itself is partially or completely blurred (which Shutterstock doesn't particularly like in general).

These are used as backgrounds and are quite common.

Hildegarde · « **Reply #19 on:** February 08, 2017, 21:59 »

I have actually seen a lot of ads using this kind of thing.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #20 on:** February 08, 2017, 22:02 »

Quote from: derek on February 07, 2017, 16:04

Defocused images are normally associated with portraits like the 135mil.DF etc.

And even if it was a portrait, you'd like to think that the subject would still be in focus! I appreciate that this could be used as a background for something else, but if somebody has enough knowledge to composite two images together, then it's only going to take them a few seconds to make the background blurred.

I'd go with the 'how it looks without glasses' kind of usage though... no editing required!

Jakob · « **Reply #21 on:** February 09, 2017, 16:40 »

Quote from: Hildegarde on February 08, 2017, 21:59

I have actually seen a lot of ads using this kind of thing.

I agree, those blurred backgrounds are very popular in ads.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS hits new lows in terms of quality (Read 5769 times)

beketoff

Stockmaan

Shelma1

Microstockphoto

derek

pancaketom

jonbull

Microstockphoto

SpaceStockFootage

Pauws99

Pixart

Pauws99

derek

ravens

sharpshot

Justanotherphotographer

qunamax

jgolby

Copidosoma

Hildegarde

SpaceStockFootage

Jakob

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors