Post by: enstoker on September 17, 2016, 14:18
And of course: Rejected (well known bull sh.. reasons)
Post by: Rinderart on September 17, 2016, 15:12
Post by: stockastic on September 17, 2016, 15:24
Post by: Pauws99 on September 17, 2016, 15:41
Yes it's obviously automated 'inspection', i.e. some simplistic and probably mis-tuned code that's supposedly saving them big money in inspectors's wages.Although bizarrely if you resubmit you often get acceptances I suspect a human pulls the final trigger.
Post by: Dumc on September 17, 2016, 15:44
Post by: Rinderart on September 17, 2016, 15:50
Qualifications..... "Needs to work In Pajamas" and have 500 accepted Files. But On the flip side I don't want some newbie Guggenheim Museum wanna be curator either. there has to be a balance for Product Value or perceived Value. and what and how much value our work Ultimately has to us as per time spent. which Was and is my #1 dilemma since day One.
If I was new and just starting Out my Portfolio and calculated ALL COSTS associated with doing this from gear to Shooting to processing to submitting........Theres a very thin Line everyone is close to if it's a business. And if you spent that amount chasing Outside clients???? and other avenues for profit where would you be?
Post by: stockyme on September 17, 2016, 15:54
Post by: Pauws99 on September 17, 2016, 15:55
It's not record. I have a record, I got email that my photos were reviewed, before I even got that "Thanks for submission" email.Yep happens me all the time when I am getting images that were rejected 5 years ago accepted ;-).
Post by: Mantis on September 17, 2016, 16:04
Post by: stockastic on September 17, 2016, 16:40
Yes it's obviously automated 'inspection', i.e. some simplistic and probably mis-tuned code that's supposedly saving them big money in inspectors's wages.Although bizarrely if you resubmit you often get acceptances I suspect a human pulls the final trigger.
Who knows what's really happening, but they could certainly be routing re-submissions to human reviewers.
Post by: Rinderart on September 17, 2016, 17:00
BOT inspection completely take the art & creativity out of photography.
That started For a lot of folks the minute they decided to do stock. some Luckily can separate the 2 and now Possible BOT stuff?? Terrible decision If true.. Stock is a separate output and getting More so everyday. I have a pretty good Idea what sells for me. I sometime try to hard to mix it up with 30 Categories.and tough to stay "In the stock Box" I pretty Much run Hot and cold with deciding what to submit. as One Minute Im doing hard hitting emotion that touches on Racism or abstract expressionism then Good Boy and girl glamour/Fashion stuff, then a Month of Landscapes, then On to something completely different. If I was Just a Landscape Guy. I don't think I would have lasted in this Craft very Long. I know I wouldn't have. clients don't really look for that work. stock does at times. People account for 90% of all My sales. And as good as august was, sept is the opposite. Oh well.
I assume Jon is hell Bent on thinking More is better and Not a thing we can do about it.
Good Luck Guys and Gals.
Post by: etudiante_rapide on September 17, 2016, 17:13
BOT inspection completely take the art & creativity out of photography.
but microstock is not exactly art or creative photography, mantis!!!
also, the day ss abolished the 7/10 application submission , we already know
it has nothing to do with quality or acceptability.
oh, and the lowering of payout to 35 bucks, we know gone are the days of higher
earnings.
Post by: Mantis on September 17, 2016, 17:57
BOT inspection completely take the art & creativity out of photography.
but microstock is not exactly art or creative photography, mantis!!!
also, the day ss abolished the 7/10 application submission , we already know
it has nothing to do with quality or acceptability.
oh, and the lowering of payout to 35 bucks, we know gone are the days of higher
earnings.
My point was that setting up a shot like this, for example, can be easily rejected when it is in fact commercially viable and somewhat creative. I picked this particular image because it has shallow DOF and is one of my best sellers. Granted I got this in before the BOTS, but I bet it would get rejected with a BOT today. SS misses out and so do I. I think I have 300-400 DL's on this one.
Post by: Dodie on September 17, 2016, 18:17
It's not record. I have a record, I got email that my photos were reviewed, before I even got that "Thanks for submission" email.
Yes that happens very often, I got the thank you email 1 hour later than the approval, which was instant.
What was even more strange is that I uploaded two sizes of the same image by mistake (I prepare some images in different sizes). Both sizes were approved, so it must be automatic.
Now I would like to delete one of them but I don't know which is which, I still can't figure out how to see their sizes.
Why must everything be so da-n complicated at SS?
Post by: KONJINA on September 17, 2016, 18:34
Post by: Dodie on September 18, 2016, 05:03
On the oder hand I'm waiting for more than 48h for two of my images to be aproved. Are they stuck somewhere?
Upload a new image and find out. If this last one will be reviewed fast, than the older ones are stuck.
Post by: Pauws99 on September 18, 2016, 06:09
I have some stuck too think I will wait a couple more days......On the oder hand I'm waiting for more than 48h for two of my images to be aproved. Are they stuck somewhere?
Upload a new image and find out. If this last one will be reviewed fast, than the older ones are stuck.
Post by: Chichikov on September 18, 2016, 07:17
SS new world record: review time 15 ( fifteen) SECONDS
And of course: Rejected (well known bull sh.. reasons)
It is not the world record.
I have got photos reviewed before than I uploaded them!! …
Post by: etudiante_rapide on September 18, 2016, 10:04
BOT inspection completely take the art & creativity out of photography.
but microstock is not exactly art or creative photography, mantis!!!
also, the day ss abolished the 7/10 application submission , we already know
it has nothing to do with quality or acceptability.
oh, and the lowering of payout to 35 bucks, we know gone are the days of higher
earnings.
My point was that setting up a shot like this, for example, can be easily rejected when it is in fact commercially viable and somewhat creative. I picked this particular image because it has shallow DOF and is one of my best sellers. Granted I got this in before the BOTS, but I bet it would get rejected with a BOT today. SS misses out and so do I. I think I have 300-400 DL's on this one.
ah yes, gotcha! and fully agree!
you see examples of "creative" images in ss editorial advice pages,
panning, critical focus with shallow dof in the foreground,etc..
all that too, would have been rejected by BOTS.
but i found a way pass that, ie. fool the BOTS into thinking it is sharp but
marquee that area and sharpen edge, resubmit and approved instantly...
no, correct that as chichov laughingly pointed out, approved even before you finished editing LOL
Post by: Mantis on September 18, 2016, 11:10
BOT inspection completely take the art & creativity out of photography.
but microstock is not exactly art or creative photography, mantis!!!
also, the day ss abolished the 7/10 application submission , we already know
it has nothing to do with quality or acceptability.
oh, and the lowering of payout to 35 bucks, we know gone are the days of higher
earnings.
My point was that setting up a shot like this, for example, can be easily rejected when it is in fact commercially viable and somewhat creative. I picked this particular image because it has shallow DOF and is one of my best sellers. Granted I got this in before the BOTS, but I bet it would get rejected with a BOT today. SS misses out and so do I. I think I have 300-400 DL's on this one.
ah yes, gotcha! and fully agree!
you see examples of "creative" images in ss editorial advice pages,
panning, critical focus with shallow dof in the foreground,etc..
all that too, would have been rejected by BOTS.
but i found a way pass that, ie. fool the BOTS into thinking it is sharp but
marquee that area and sharpen edge, resubmit and approved instantly...
no, correct that as chichov laughingly pointed out, approved even before you finished editing LOL
Totally agree. The automation in my humble opinion shows a strong strategic pathway for SS. Others will follow. The downward spiral continues. We will be here 1-2 years from now talking about 10 cent commissions versus that agency's 12 cent commissions. That 12 cent agency is a much better "fair trade" agency :'(
I was just telling my wife this morning that I haven't shot classic stock for about a year. Just been dabbling in video and getting into astro photography and 3 axis time lapses, not for stock but just because I want to do something new.
Post by: Pauws99 on September 18, 2016, 11:37
Post by: alno on September 18, 2016, 18:21
Yes it's obviously automated 'inspection', i.e. some simplistic and probably mis-tuned code that's supposedly saving them big money in inspectors's wages.
It's surely automated inspection. All they need now is some automated buying of all that crap accepted :)
Post by: Rinderart on September 19, 2016, 15:24
BOT inspection completely take the art & creativity out of photography.
but microstock is not exactly art or creative photography, mantis!!!
also, the day ss abolished the 7/10 application submission , we already know
it has nothing to do with quality or acceptability.
oh, and the lowering of payout to 35 bucks, we know gone are the days of higher
earnings.
My point was that setting up a shot like this, for example, can be easily rejected when it is in fact commercially viable and somewhat creative. I picked this particular image because it has shallow DOF and is one of my best sellers. Granted I got this in before the BOTS, but I bet it would get rejected with a BOT today. SS misses out and so do I. I think I have 300-400 DL's on this one.
ah yes, gotcha! and fully agree!
you see examples of "creative" images in ss editorial advice pages,
panning, critical focus with shallow dof in the foreground,etc..
all that too, would have been rejected by BOTS.
but i found a way pass that, ie. fool the BOTS into thinking it is sharp but
marquee that area and sharpen edge, resubmit and approved instantly...
no, correct that as chichov laughingly pointed out, approved even before you finished editing LOL
Totally agree. The automation in my humble opinion shows a strong strategic pathway for SS. Others will follow. The downward spiral continues. We will be here 1-2 years from now talking about 10 cent commissions versus that agency's 12 cent commissions. That 12 cent agency is a much better "fair trade" agency :'(
I was just telling my wife this morning that I haven't shot classic stock for about a year. Just been dabbling in video and getting into astro photography and 3 axis time lapses, not for stock but just because I want to do something new.
That was a very good shot man.
Post by: Rinderart on September 19, 2016, 15:44
It also seems like all we do Now is Vent. We mean Nothing and account for nothing.
Post by: Mantis on September 19, 2016, 20:24
BOT inspection completely take the art & creativity out of photography.
but microstock is not exactly art or creative photography, mantis!!!
also, the day ss abolished the 7/10 application submission , we already know
it has nothing to do with quality or acceptability.
oh, and the lowering of payout to 35 bucks, we know gone are the days of higher
earnings.
My point was that setting up a shot like this, for example, can be easily rejected when it is in fact commercially viable and somewhat creative. I picked this particular image because it has shallow DOF and is one of my best sellers. Granted I got this in before the BOTS, but I bet it would get rejected with a BOT today. SS misses out and so do I. I think I have 300-400 DL's on this one.
ah yes, gotcha! and fully agree!
you see examples of "creative" images in ss editorial advice pages,
panning, critical focus with shallow dof in the foreground,etc..
all that too, would have been rejected by BOTS.
but i found a way pass that, ie. fool the BOTS into thinking it is sharp but
marquee that area and sharpen edge, resubmit and approved instantly...
no, correct that as chichov laughingly pointed out, approved even before you finished editing LOL
Totally agree. The automation in my humble opinion shows a strong strategic pathway for SS. Others will follow. The downward spiral continues. We will be here 1-2 years from now talking about 10 cent commissions versus that agency's 12 cent commissions. That 12 cent agency is a much better "fair trade" agency :'(
I was just telling my wife this morning that I haven't shot classic stock for about a year. Just been dabbling in video and getting into astro photography and 3 axis time lapses, not for stock but just because I want to do something new.
That was a very good shot man.
Thank you, Lauren.
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on September 19, 2016, 21:19
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on September 19, 2016, 21:41
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...
The count is even scarier :) For all media types, it's 1,371,634
For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.
Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257
The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.
Post by: Shelma1 on September 19, 2016, 22:10
Contributors don't like it, buyers don't like it (too much stuff to wade through), but if investors like it Oringer can drive up the stock price enough to get his bonus, sell the company and move on to jet setting.
Post by: Millionstock.com on September 20, 2016, 05:51
Post by: Pauws99 on September 20, 2016, 07:03
But they get to announce they have a billion images, and that's all that matters. Like McDonald's.If buyers don't like it it will fail but I wonder if it is like McCDonalds...clever marketing hiding a horrible product......
Contributors don't like it, buyers don't like it (too much stuff to wade through), but if investors like it Oringer can drive up the stock price enough to get his bonus, sell the company and move on to jet setting.
Post by: etudiante_rapide on September 20, 2016, 09:36
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...
The count is even scarier :) For all media types, it's 1,371,634
For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.
Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257
The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.
as john used to say, "how many
we have a new saying...
"how many tomatoes does it take to fill shitterstock???"
who was it here who first coined microstock as crappola???
he was about 10 years ahead in prediction . .. the day has finally come!
Post by: Dumc on September 20, 2016, 14:13
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...
The count is even scarier :) For all media types, it's 1,371,634
For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.
Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257
The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.
That doesn't mean there are 1.371.634 images of single tomatoe. That inclued all kinds of food etc...
Post by: Tryingmybest on September 21, 2016, 07:23
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on September 21, 2016, 12:42
...when is 20,000 tomatoes by example enough???...
The count is even scarier :) For all media types, it's 1,371,634
For photos only, it's just 1,285,086... That's a lot of tomatoes.
Even marijuana photos are up to 52,257
The current phase of taking almost anything has rendered the Most Recent search useless - there's so much rubbish to wade through. And here we have someone new wondering why he has no sales - one look at the accepted files explains that.
That doesn't mean there are 1.371.634 images of single tomatoe. That inclued all kinds of food etc...
I don't think nitpicking the details alters the overall point, but in the service of precision:
Isoslated tomato (photos only) 342,338
Tomato (photos only, exclude keywords sauce,pasta,soup,bowl,pie,sandwich ) 661,793
There's a lot of terrible keywording (if you search newest first you'll see much more of that) so you could take 25% off the totals assuming that there's not a tomato in sight in some of those images.
Bottom line, it's a lot of tomatoes and a lot of repetition
Post by: Dumc on September 21, 2016, 12:51
There's a lot of tomatoes, agree, but definitely not 300.000....
Post by: Rinderart on September 21, 2016, 15:53
Post by: Dumc on September 21, 2016, 16:02
Post by: Rinderart on September 21, 2016, 23:40
Post by: Rinderart on September 21, 2016, 23:43
Post by: Pixart on September 23, 2016, 09:53
Post by: stockastic on September 23, 2016, 11:40
So they've done what any high volume manufacturer does - they're sampling some percentage of what they get, inspecting that percentage, then categorizing and ranking suppliers accordingly. Based on past history, you're fast-tracked to either Accept or Reject. You probably still get sampled now and then, but they're not wasting any more inspection time - i.e. money - on you unless something changes. That's how you reduce cost on incoming inspection.
They know that this system will inevitably let some amount of junk through, and reject some good material, and they accept that because it's all a calculation based on time and money. The guiding principles are: buyers will sort it all out in Search, buyers are impressed by big collection numbers, and contributors are a dime a dozen. Basically they're telling buyers: we have every image in the world, so what you want is here; just go through the Search results until you find it. From that point forward they're counting on popularity-based ranking to push the junk down in the results, and eventually they're just paying server storage costs for vast amounts of material they'll never sell. At some point they automatically designate an image as "dead" and while they probably can't totally delete it, it's moved to lower cost storage with less backup and longer access times.
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on September 23, 2016, 12:34
Post by: Pixart on September 23, 2016, 15:23
They know that this system will inevitably let some amount of junk through, and reject some good material, and they accept that because it's all a calculation based on time and money.Hmmm... is this why new photos have 0 sales? In case they let junk slip through, they want the photos to prove themselves worthy of search ranking - even if they are on page 83 until they've had a sale or two?
Post by: Rinderart on September 23, 2016, 17:30
I think if we could actually do the math we'd see that at the volume they're getting now, real inspection would be impossible - they'd never pay what it would actually cost.
So they've done what any high volume manufacturer does - they're sampling some percentage of what they get, inspecting that percentage, then categorizing and ranking suppliers accordingly. Based on past history, you're fast-tracked to either Accept or Reject. You probably still get sampled now and then, but they're not wasting any more inspection time - i.e. money - on you unless something changes. That's how you reduce cost on incoming inspection.
They know that this system will inevitably let some amount of junk through, and reject some good material, and they accept that because it's all a calculation based on time and money. The guiding principles are: buyers will sort it all out in Search, buyers are impressed by big collection numbers, and contributors are a dime a dozen. Basically they're telling buyers: we have every image in the world, so what you want is here; just go through the Search results until you find it. From that point forward they're counting on popularity-based ranking to push the junk down in the results, and eventually they're just paying server storage costs for vast amounts of material they'll never sell. At some point they automatically designate an image as "dead" and while they probably can't totally delete it, it's moved to lower cost storage with less backup and longer access times.
I pretty much agree. But...heres another fun thing that happened and Been reading happening to others. After the super fast thing that was a Joke. Right after, the next day I uploaded 19 of some Images I found when changing Computers last weekend some Model stuff came up That slipped through the cracks I assume. i've never had More than 3/4 Rejections. My fault, I fixed and all good. this time all 19 In seconds. So getting approved and getting rejected is SUPER fast. Like seriously 20 seconds. I got Hit with Not a Valid SS Model Release. 2 years ago and Both Models No Longer Live here. I wrote a note asking for a favor so well see. I also said If Not, Im Good .."I'd rather send it to another site that has better sales....LOL So..If theres a BOT. It's scanning the releases also super fast.
OH well. Like said theres no way any human reviewer could study 19 MR's in that amount of time. Really depressing to see this stuff. I also sent a yosemite Image and that approval was Instantaneous.
Post by: stockastic on September 23, 2016, 18:14
Post by: Rinderart on September 23, 2016, 19:07
Post by: AlessandraRC on September 23, 2016, 19:45
Post by: Pauws99 on September 24, 2016, 01:11
What nonsense. A complete insult to the industry and a false sense of accomplishment. Once again SS lowers the bar.Although as you probably know Istock have been letting everything through for longer
Post by: Pauws99 on September 24, 2016, 01:50
I think if we could actually do the math we'd see that at the volume they're getting now, real inspection would be impossible - they'd never pay what it would actually cost.I'd like to think that and that would be the logical way to go but it doesn't explain why if I resubmit rejected photos within minutes they normally get accepted. It may be that's what they are aiming for and its just not working very well.
So they've done what any high volume manufacturer does - they're sampling some percentage of what they get, inspecting that percentage, then categorizing and ranking suppliers accordingly. Based on past history, you're fast-tracked to either Accept or Reject. You probably still get sampled now and then, but they're not wasting any more inspection time - i.e. money - on you unless something changes. That's how you reduce cost on incoming inspection.
They know that this system will inevitably let some amount of junk through, and reject some good material, and they accept that because it's all a calculation based on time and money. The guiding principles are: buyers will sort it all out in Search, buyers are impressed by big collection numbers, and contributors are a dime a dozen. Basically they're telling buyers: we have every image in the world, so what you want is here; just go through the Search results until you find it. From that point forward they're counting on popularity-based ranking to push the junk down in the results, and eventually they're just paying server storage costs for vast amounts of material they'll never sell. At some point they automatically designate an image as "dead" and while they probably can't totally delete it, it's moved to lower cost storage with less backup and longer access times.
Post by: Pauws99 on September 24, 2016, 01:51
The key to the whole thing is that a buyer's time, or contributor's time, don't cost SS anything, but a reviewer's time does.Its a risky strategy as I suspect many buyers are very aware of the cost of their time sifting through images...which is probably higher than the cost of the image.
Post by: Rinderart on September 24, 2016, 20:03
Post by: Daryl Ray on September 25, 2016, 00:26
Attempt 1: Rejected for not having a property release. No property release needed for this shot. Re-submit.
Attempt 2: Rejected for focus and poor lighting, as well as potentially infringing on "intellectual property" this time. Nonsense. Re-submit.
Attempt 3: Rejected for not having a property release, again. Now it's a just a dumb game. Do I write a note to reviewer in the description and edit it out later? Who knows what they want anymore. I re-phrase the description in an attempt to alleviate this incorrect property release concern for their robot reviewer. Re-submit.
Attempt 4: Rejected for focus, composition and overuse of effects. Gettin' pretty silly now. Re-submit.
Attempt 5: Rejected for poor lighting. That old chestnut again? Re-submit.
Attempt 6: Approved.
All the same image, never re-edited. This whole process occurring in about 20 minutes. I was really just curious what would happen.
And yes, I really should be doing something better with my Saturday night.
Post by: stockastic on September 25, 2016, 11:01
The trials of a submitted image to Shutterstock in September 2016:
Attempt 1: Rejected for not having a property release. No property release needed for this shot. Re-submit.
Attempt 2: Rejected for focus and poor lighting, as well as potentially infringing on "intellectual property" this time. Nonsense. Re-submit.
Attempt 3: Rejected for not having a property release, again. Now it's a just a dumb game. Do I write a note to reviewer in the description and edit it out later? Who knows what they want anymore. I re-phrase the description in an attempt to alleviate this incorrect property release concern for their robot reviewer. Re-submit.
Attempt 4: Rejected for focus, composition and overuse of effects. Gettin' pretty silly now. Re-submit.
Attempt 5: Rejected for poor lighting. That old chestnut again? Re-submit.
Attempt 6: Approved.
All the same image, never re-edited. This whole process occurring in about 20 minutes. I was really just curious what would happen.
And yes, I really should be doing something better with my Saturday night.
HILARIOUS
The only thing that could be funnier would be listening to some SS 'manager' trying to explain this sequence of events, while never actually disclosing what's really going on. If he even knew.
Post by: Rinderart on September 25, 2016, 12:40
last year when they seemed to have discontinued them as a separate Identity and Posted a new Cast of 13 administrators and One Moderator and there contact info. Bottom of forum Page.
In all My time I've only Met Or talked to One person At SS that submitted product themselves other than Jon in the beginning.. Maybe things would be better as far as communication if there were more "Inside" folks that shared what we do and would "GET" what we Talk about.
There was One and she was the first. I won't say her name but we had some amazing conversations back in the day. she was "One of Us" and she personally looked at every Image if you wrote with a complaint about a review and could override anyone which she did [ Now, If a reviewer give you reference# to resubmit, It also says this does not guarantee acceptance}. and If not she would explain why. It seems No One now can Override a review...She left and Ran a site for years.
I know It's way to Big for that now But...It sure was cool and so was she. She was on OUR side and a very good Pinup Photographer. There were also some very cool and very good Mods along the way.
5 or 6 years ago I did a 2 Hour SS Skype thing with 6 people sitting around a table. Not Once did anyone of them look at the screen or me for 2 hours. They asked what I thought were the biggest Problems with SS. I said Communication was #1 and a raise was #2. My pardner dave had the exact same experience and question and answer.
Cut to today......? same exact problem. they simply do NOT talk to us as adults or even Kids and I think there told Not to or get terminated. I've also Known every VP of content, asked them the same question and never got a answer.We'll a few that left....LOL
Thats a shame and the biggest shame...And yes, I understand there is proprietary inside Info and all But C-mon....Really? Were not after government secrets for gods sake.
Oh well. I gave up, Just upload and repeat and try to help other sites that seem to care and there are a few that Listen. My ongoing dream is Jon Takes His Billions and Buys the company Back makes it 50/50 split on all products and dumps 30 Million redundant Images.Because I do think He's a Brilliant man. We had some great talks when this started. I secured the domain ShutterstockMusic for Him. Held on to it for years and gave it to him. Without Not even a thanks BTW.
I've always said If any Company that can't make a profit from 50% of the take especially One that Doesn't make or produce anything ...Well Thats not to Impressive in my book. There is Not One artist on the Planet in any artform that gives away More than 50%.
And. I remember calling Him on His cell the day he was at the NYSE and ready to ring the bell. He said. "Were Very Excited"
the post above by Daryl is Funny and tragic at the same time of what it's come to. sad thing is...... I don't think they Know it or care.
If it were my Company, That would be fixed first thing. Next would be a Person in charge of Public Infomation. and If ya wanna build a BOT? make one that spots redundant Images,keywords,titles,spam and dumps them and puts those submitters On notice. ASAP!!!!!!!!
Can SS do the right thing and make even More Money and company Value?? and in doing so Help us??? I think Yes, I hope yes.
And....I kinda wish they would stop the silly Blog things they do. real amateur or maybe....Hmmmmm thats who there after. Hmmmmmmmmmm again.
Post by: trek on September 25, 2016, 14:51
The trials of a submitted image to Shutterstock in September 2016:
Attempt 1: Rejected for not having a property release. No property release needed for this shot. Re-submit.
Attempt 2: Rejected for focus and poor lighting, as well as potentially infringing on "intellectual property" this time. Nonsense. Re-submit.
Attempt 3: Rejected for not having a property release, again. Now it's a just a dumb game. Do I write a note to reviewer in the description and edit it out later? Who knows what they want anymore. I re-phrase the description in an attempt to alleviate this incorrect property release concern for their robot reviewer. Re-submit.
Attempt 4: Rejected for focus, composition and overuse of effects. Gettin' pretty silly now. Re-submit.
Attempt 5: Rejected for poor lighting. That old chestnut again? Re-submit.
Attempt 6: Approved.
All the same image, never re-edited. This whole process occurring in about 20 minutes. I was really just curious what would happen.
And yes, I really should be doing something better with my Saturday night.
They used to threaten to suspend accounts for uploading previously rejected material. Is that rule gone or are you clicking the previously submitted material notification?
Post by: Pauws99 on September 25, 2016, 15:00
Post by: Rinderart on September 25, 2016, 22:22
That was a threat..Not a rule. do you have any Idea how many times all the so called rules are broken every single day?? A whole bunch.The trials of a submitted image to Shutterstock in September 2016:
Attempt 1: Rejected for not having a property release. No property release needed for this shot. Re-submit.
Attempt 2: Rejected for focus and poor lighting, as well as potentially infringing on "intellectual property" this time. Nonsense. Re-submit.
Attempt 3: Rejected for not having a property release, again. Now it's a just a dumb game. Do I write a note to reviewer in the description and edit it out later? Who knows what they want anymore. I re-phrase the description in an attempt to alleviate this incorrect property release concern for their robot reviewer. Re-submit.
Attempt 4: Rejected for focus, composition and overuse of effects. Gettin' pretty silly now. Re-submit.
Attempt 5: Rejected for poor lighting. That old chestnut again? Re-submit.
Attempt 6: Approved.
All the same image, never re-edited. This whole process occurring in about 20 minutes. I was really just curious what would happen.
And yes, I really should be doing something better with my Saturday night.
They used to threaten to suspend accounts for uploading previously rejected material. Is that rule gone or are you clicking the previously submitted material notification?
Post by: Nica on September 26, 2016, 02:13
The trials of a submitted image to Shutterstock in September 2016:
Attempt 1: Rejected for not having a property release. No property release needed for this shot. Re-submit.
Attempt 2: Rejected for focus and poor lighting, as well as potentially infringing on "intellectual property" this time. Nonsense. Re-submit.
Attempt 3: Rejected for not having a property release, again. Now it's a just a dumb game. Do I write a note to reviewer in the description and edit it out later? Who knows what they want anymore. I re-phrase the description in an attempt to alleviate this incorrect property release concern for their robot reviewer. Re-submit.
Attempt 4: Rejected for focus, composition and overuse of effects. Gettin' pretty silly now. Re-submit.
Attempt 5: Rejected for poor lighting. That old chestnut again? Re-submit.
Attempt 6: Approved.
All the same image, never re-edited. This whole process occurring in about 20 minutes. I was really just curious what would happen.
And yes, I really should be doing something better with my Saturday night.
Boiled down:
- costs for SS are declining because no need for reviewers any more
- time for contribs increasing for multiple submitting because of nonsense reduction criteria
- revenue for contribs declining
:) :o 8) ???
Post by: Rinderart on September 26, 2016, 23:40
Model Release--A complete & accurate Shutterstock approved model and/or property release is required.
OK. I need a strong drink Not only do we get Crap payments that are dwindling But to deal with this crap?? writing the stupid Letter for a re sub. Then the Other Model which the same thing happened last week with 19 Images for same reason. and...It s a model I have over 200 Good Photos of which the same release was used.
I today located her in Chicago. I asked her to sign a new release. She agreed. I sent her a form to sign and send back. I ask you My colleagues should I upload again all 19 and use this new release or just let go of 19 Very good Useful Images??? What has happened ??, in 11 years 6300 + or- Model released Images that all of a sudden don't work ??...even new versions.??
Asking for advice here. I totally Blew it. and sent a letter to Jon and to Paul and to a admin guy who is a friend. Last time this happened. I got a case Number. It made No difference at all. Who . has final say. Some goofball Incompetent reviewer?? Or a admin.
Bottom Line is 35 Images in the scale of things means not much But , what is seriously going On.?? Very concerned for all.
I specifically asked the top guys when . are they gonna post guidelines or for that matter anything to help us cope with the crap On this site. Darn It.
Post by: carl.orfus on September 27, 2016, 03:25
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
Post by: Pauws99 on September 27, 2016, 03:56
Lately is a bit frustrating. Last days i was sended landscapes focused to infinite in daylight and rejected for focus. Another building photos rejected for poor light when they were taken at 12:00 in a sunny day I dont understand anythingAfter a period where they were seeming to accept almost anything they seem to be rejecting almost everything...someones turned one of the buttons up on the robot. Putting my project to upload old rejected stuff on hold for a week. TBH some of its pretty good some I wouldn't bother with now but its all keyworded etc so up it goes ;-)
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
Post by: roede-orm on September 27, 2016, 05:52
Another building photos rejected for poor light when they were taken at 12:00 in a sunny day I dont understand anything
That may be the reason! 8)
Post by: Dumc on September 27, 2016, 08:12
Post by: MyCrowStock on September 27, 2016, 09:50
Logos/trademarks/artwork
People without model releases
If there is a bot, maybe it screens through simple images without complex matters, to pick up technical errors only. And the images then get accepted, and the rest go through to actual humans
Post by: Thomas from France on September 27, 2016, 13:11
How would a bot pick up info such as:
Logos/trademarks/artwork
People without model releases
If there is a bot, maybe it screens through simple images without complex matters, to pick up technical errors only. And the images then get accepted, and the rest go through to actual humans
google ai knows it and the code is open source :
http://petapixel.com/2016/09/23/googles-image-captioning-ai-can-describe-photos-94-accuracy/
Post by: mtgrant on September 27, 2016, 14:22
As for the fast turnaround, after working 10+ years in the industry as an Image Researcher and Image Editor / Reviewer, some of you know that photo output slows down somewhat during the months of June to August. One could account for fast review times = less images for those non-bot reviewers to review, and therefore things move speedily along. I wouldn't continue to expect near instantaneous reviews in the coming months. That'd be great, but then the bot-myth would continue to perpetuate.
Post by: Mantis on September 27, 2016, 14:51
There's a lot of conjecture on this forum string about bots being used by the Big 4 sites. These "bots" are a myth. The only automation I know of, for iStock, Fotolia, and Shutterstock at least, is file size rejection or unacceptable file type. There is no automation for image content / design, meaning images won't be rejected upon submission by a computer algorithm - they're being rejected because your image isn't on par with submission guidelines, technical aspects, Model or Property releases, etc., and those are decided by a living, breathing human being, the vast majority of which are highly qualified. I've previously worked for 2 major stock houses, now defunct (thanks a lot Visual China Group / Getty!), and you needed a BFA in photography or visual arts to be an Image Researcher / Editor. iStock was the same. Most people had more than that. I suspect qualifications have lessened over the years, as the stock model has gone from a mostly Rights Managed environment to the Royalty Free microstock model we see today, but to assume reviewers are wholly unqualified is quite a leap.
As for the fast turnaround, after working 10+ years in the industry as an Image Researcher and Image Editor / Reviewer, some of you know that photo output slows down somewhat during the months of June to August. One could account for fast review times = less images for those non-bot reviewers to review, and therefore things move speedily along. I wouldn't continue to expect near instantaneous reviews in the coming months. That'd be great, but then the bot-myth would continue to perpetuate.
Are you aware that SS touts automated inspection software in their SEC Filing?
Post by: mtgrant on September 27, 2016, 15:03
There's a lot of conjecture on this forum string about bots being used by the Big 4 sites. These "bots" are a myth. The only automation I know of, for iStock, Fotolia, and Shutterstock at least, is file size rejection or unacceptable file type. There is no automation for image content / design, meaning images won't be rejected upon submission by a computer algorithm - they're being rejected because your image isn't on par with submission guidelines, technical aspects, Model or Property releases, etc., and those are decided by a living, breathing human being, the vast majority of which are highly qualified. I've previously worked for 2 major stock houses, now defunct (thanks a lot Visual China Group / Getty!), and you needed a BFA in photography or visual arts to be an Image Researcher / Editor. iStock was the same. Most people had more than that. I suspect qualifications have lessened over the years, as the stock model has gone from a mostly Rights Managed environment to the Royalty Free microstock model we see today, but to assume reviewers are wholly unqualified is quite a leap.
As for the fast turnaround, after working 10+ years in the industry as an Image Researcher and Image Editor / Reviewer, some of you know that photo output slows down somewhat during the months of June to August. One could account for fast review times = less images for those non-bot reviewers to review, and therefore things move speedily along. I wouldn't continue to expect near instantaneous reviews in the coming months. That'd be great, but then the bot-myth would continue to perpetuate.
Are you aware that SS touts automated inspection software in their SEC Filing?
You mean, "Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers." Form: 424B
To assume that that means that a computer is vetting an image for anything other than the file size or unacceptable image file type as I previously mentioned, is again, conjecture.
Post by: Mantis on September 27, 2016, 15:16
There's a lot of conjecture on this forum string about bots being used by the Big 4 sites. These "bots" are a myth. The only automation I know of, for iStock, Fotolia, and Shutterstock at least, is file size rejection or unacceptable file type. There is no automation for image content / design, meaning images won't be rejected upon submission by a computer algorithm - they're being rejected because your image isn't on par with submission guidelines, technical aspects, Model or Property releases, etc., and those are decided by a living, breathing human being, the vast majority of which are highly qualified. I've previously worked for 2 major stock houses, now defunct (thanks a lot Visual China Group / Getty!), and you needed a BFA in photography or visual arts to be an Image Researcher / Editor. iStock was the same. Most people had more than that. I suspect qualifications have lessened over the years, as the stock model has gone from a mostly Rights Managed environment to the Royalty Free microstock model we see today, but to assume reviewers are wholly unqualified is quite a leap.
As for the fast turnaround, after working 10+ years in the industry as an Image Researcher and Image Editor / Reviewer, some of you know that photo output slows down somewhat during the months of June to August. One could account for fast review times = less images for those non-bot reviewers to review, and therefore things move speedily along. I wouldn't continue to expect near instantaneous reviews in the coming months. That'd be great, but then the bot-myth would continue to perpetuate.
Are you aware that SS touts automated inspection software in their SEC Filing?
You mean, "Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers." Form: 424B
To assume that that means that a computer is vetting an image for anything other than the file size or unacceptable image file type as I previously mentioned, is again, conjecture.
So your hypothesis is that aside from image size or type all of sudden many contributors, some very well established pros, started sending in wrong model releases, blurry images, property released images with no property release, bad color balances, wrong or missing model releases, that somehow SS found superhuman reviewers to check key image properties in 30 seconds all the while letting in thousands of duplicate pot images that somehow magically passed their non bot inspection process?
Post by: mtgrant on September 27, 2016, 15:27
There's a lot of conjecture on this forum string about bots being used by the Big 4 sites. These "bots" are a myth. The only automation I know of, for iStock, Fotolia, and Shutterstock at least, is file size rejection or unacceptable file type. There is no automation for image content / design, meaning images won't be rejected upon submission by a computer algorithm - they're being rejected because your image isn't on par with submission guidelines, technical aspects, Model or Property releases, etc., and those are decided by a living, breathing human being, the vast majority of which are highly qualified. I've previously worked for 2 major stock houses, now defunct (thanks a lot Visual China Group / Getty!), and you needed a BFA in photography or visual arts to be an Image Researcher / Editor. iStock was the same. Most people had more than that. I suspect qualifications have lessened over the years, as the stock model has gone from a mostly Rights Managed environment to the Royalty Free microstock model we see today, but to assume reviewers are wholly unqualified is quite a leap.
As for the fast turnaround, after working 10+ years in the industry as an Image Researcher and Image Editor / Reviewer, some of you know that photo output slows down somewhat during the months of June to August. One could account for fast review times = less images for those non-bot reviewers to review, and therefore things move speedily along. I wouldn't continue to expect near instantaneous reviews in the coming months. That'd be great, but then the bot-myth would continue to perpetuate.
Are you aware that SS touts automated inspection software in their SEC Filing?
You mean, "Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers." Form: 424B
To assume that that means that a computer is vetting an image for anything other than the file size or unacceptable image file type as I previously mentioned, is again, conjecture.
So your hypothesis is that aside from image size or type all of sudden many contributors started sending in wrong model releases, blurry images, property released images with no property release, bad color balances, wrong or missing model releases, that somehow SS found superhuman reviewers to check key image properties in 30 seconds all the while letting in thousands of duplicate pot images that somehow magically passed their non bot inspection process? You are obviously trolling, which we get in here now and then.
I'm just stating facts as I know them. People are fallable. Stock images going through the submission process are never reviewed by the same person twice, and some images will have multiple issues that maybe a previous reviewer didn't pick up on, or another reviewer is feeling lenient for an image that teeters on what would be acceptable or unacceptable for a stock site's collection.
Post by: Rinderart on September 27, 2016, 16:28
Post by: Microstockphoto on September 27, 2016, 16:39
Post by: carl.orfus on September 27, 2016, 19:32
I can't imagine nastier photos then those, shoot at 12:00 with sun in full-shining.
Dear, for architecture sun rule is different than with people. More light is better. Take a look into search engine with word "buildings" and you see where is the sun in most pics.
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
Post by: Dumc on September 27, 2016, 23:05
of course there is no bot, bots cant check for trademark infringment, but they do use automated processes to prescreen images for other issues. its not rocket science, as soon as the image is not deemed in focus, its rejected, and then we moan to cs, and then a person will tell you to resubmit,
What about those blurry backgrounds, how do bots know, what they are and not reject them for focus?
Post by: Rinderart on September 27, 2016, 23:51
Post by: carl.orfus on September 28, 2016, 03:52
of course there is no bot, bots cant check for trademark infringment, but they do use automated processes to prescreen images for other issues. its not rocket science, as soon as the image is not deemed in focus, its rejected, and then we moan to cs, and then a person will tell you to resubmit,
What about those blurry backgrounds, how do bots know, what they are and not reject them for focus?
I had rejections for blurry effect in water. If was a bot, i think they search on exif speed data. If was sn human, I think he is stupid
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
Post by: Dumc on September 28, 2016, 05:02
Post by: carl.orfus on September 28, 2016, 06:19
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
Post by: stockastic on September 28, 2016, 08:42
Post by: Rinderart on September 29, 2016, 00:07
Post by: stockastic on September 29, 2016, 09:35
Post by: Daryl Ray on September 29, 2016, 11:21
Post by: Rinderart on September 29, 2016, 23:14
Post by: BigBubba on September 30, 2016, 02:29
Post by: Pauws99 on September 30, 2016, 02:43
I got a wonderful combo of upload-approved-sold in 5 minutesNow that is an interesting record I'd like to beat!
Post by: BigBubba on September 30, 2016, 02:49
Keep in mind we're talking 36 centsI got a wonderful combo of upload-approved-sold in 5 minutesNow that is an interesting record I'd like to beat!
Post by: Dumc on September 30, 2016, 05:07
Post by: BigBubba on September 30, 2016, 08:56
So you managed to remove that "Why?". It was funny though.....Yeah...I liked it, but it made communication very hard.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dumc on September 30, 2016, 09:39
Post by: BigBubba on September 30, 2016, 11:31
Why?It was the best conversation engaging signature ever.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dumc on September 30, 2016, 12:24
....Just kidding...