Jump to content

Flexigav

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Flexigav

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, I have submitted a 100+ images of regional travel destination vistas recently. Most are outdoor scenery containing all these elements. A number were rejected for motion blur or incorrect focus on the subject. I do not think the AI knew what the subject was, especially on landscapes. Yes I think you are right about water, clouds, fog or mist and unimportant elements in the foreground or background being soft on focus because of limited depth of field. I will submit some trying your suggestion... thanks.
  2. I am getting a few rejections for focus issues. I recheck my images at upto 400% magnification. Some were correctly rejected, but not all. I have two options; resubmit or upload to another stock library. It is like getting a second opinion. I have come to accept this is a labour of love...
  3. More rejects, this time for focus problems. Of course I recheck my work at 400%. If I find no focus problems I assume the AI has faltered. I have two options, resubmit or post to another stock library. If the same image is rejected by more than one library for the same reason I send it to my outtakes archive for future evaluation and maybe deletion. Sometimes the reason for rejection is valid, but not all the time.
  4. There are many commercial stock media libraries, each with different market strengths. Many contributors contribute to more than one of them. Eventually you might work out which image subject types benefit most from which libraries. However this is not fixed and can change over time. It is a game of quantity based on working out demand, and that varies with each library. Just don't expect a big income without volume of what is popular or in demand. It will be a labour of love for a very long time.
  5. I believe AI is used for the first assessment. Does that mean questionable submissions are then looked at by a human eye? I am receiving a lot of rejections due to camera movement blur, or focus problems. I have checked each one out at 400% and one or two were soft on focus, but the majority checked out fine. Just what is the procedure to have them reassessed? At this stage many of them are now in other libraries, but I like SS, so would like them to be more thorough with their acceptance checking. Milky waterfalls are not images out of focus, the water is supposed to be blurred for that sense
  6. This image is licenced for editorial use because I thought there might be an issue with the exercise equipment design rights. I took a similar one without the exercise equipment in the foreground to produce a natural world vista for commercial licencing. Unfortunately SS's over zealous acceptance scrutinising procedure knocked it back for being out of focus. I was not out of focus at all, it was identical to this version that was accepted. It was uploaded to another library.
  7. Just did an experiment with uploads. I uploaded an image as an editorial. It was rejected: "Rejection reasons (1) Editorial Caption: Caption is not accurately describing the subject matter or is missing required information such as the shoot date, location, or relevant description. Captions must be in English and cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess." I corrected this following the Shutterstock example and re uploaded again. It was rejected again for the very same reason as above. How would an automated bot know if a
  8. It seems creativity is being stifled by legalities, but that is the society we have created. ROI does diminish if we have to spend too much time in conflict with automated systems that don't understand when things have gone wrong and we can't find people to resolve such issues. Sometimes the problems are in communication of requirements. We live and learn in these instances. Are the property release forms provided by 'SStock', or are they generic ones? I had a generic model release rejected once. It did not meet SStock's requirements.
  9. Having conflict with AI technology certainly can be frustrating. It just doesn't listen to reason. But when it defies logic... now that is bound to drive people away. I have seen images used in advertisements that include 'blur' as an artistic effect to catch the eye (an impression of speed). I'm quite sure any AI acceptance testing would reject such images saying the image is not sharp, or is out of focus... I don't believe AI can distinguish between desired effect and technical issues. Wow factor often defies logic—it is tied in with human psychology that is linked to personal experience. AI
  10. I can't help thinking about new technology teething problems that will iron them self out in due time. In the meantime a few babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. I think SS has so many good images in stock, and continuously coming in, that they can afford to reject quite a number that might have been due to AI teething problems. They are encouraging uploads through their new commission framework that rewards more on bulk, while at the same time raising their standard of acceptance using new AI technology. Ultimately they just might maintain a sizable library (or continue to build a
  11. Many people have talked about SS using AI to assess submissions for acceptance, but none of the discussions seem very definitive. It is hard to believe such a task could be undertaken successfully through AI automation. I recently uploaded a small number of images and at least 50% were not accepted for various reasons. Some of them included visible logos or trademarks on top of high rise towers (name of the tower), others for brand names in the title or descriptions. One claimed "out of focus" elements, most likely movement. In fact that observation was quite correct, as it was a s
×
×
  • Create New...