Jump to content
Giambattista Lazazzera

Incomprehensible failures of the photos.

Recommended Posts

I find the method of selecting photos taken by the shutterstock team schizophrenic. Most of my photos are rejected with generic and disparate reasons. If I reproduce the same photos at another time, they are accepted. I specify that I use a Nikon D7200 with Nikon 16 80 lens often with tripod. I publish on other microstock sites and the same photos are quietly accepted and sold. This severity is absurd, given the ridiculous compensation of 10 cents per photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Giambattista Lazazzera said:

I find the method of selecting photos taken by the shutterstock team schizophrenic. Most of my photos are rejected with generic and disparate reasons. If I reproduce the same photos at another time, they are accepted. I specify that I use a Nikon D7200 with Nikon 16 80 lens often with tripod. I publish on other microstock sites and the same photos are quietly accepted and sold. This severity is absurd, given the ridiculous compensation of 10 cents per photo.

Yeah. Well. Welcome to Shutterstock. They claim time after time that humans review the photos. They can claim all they want. Ain't believe it for one second. But whoever still uploads for the 10 cents and knowing that it's AI reviewing about 60-70% of the time or at the first round...! I can't express much sympathy for rejections : ). Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 8:44 AM, Giambattista Lazazzera said:

I find the method of selecting photos taken by the shutterstock team schizophrenic. Most of my photos are rejected with generic and disparate reasons. If I reproduce the same photos at another time, they are accepted. I specify that I use a Nikon D7200 with Nikon 16 80 lens often with tripod. I publish on other microstock sites and the same photos are quietly accepted and sold. This severity is absurd, given the ridiculous compensation of 10 cents per photo.

Sorry but this site is no longer profitable and shutter clearly wants to be merged or acquired by someone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Patrick Cooper said:

It seems that contributors are expendable.

 treated that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cappelletti_pictures said:

Sorry but this site is no longer profitable and shutter clearly wants to be merged or acquired by someone. 

That may very well be their plan. The "not profitable" part though right now not quite true I think due to the pay cut to contributors. which must have brought in some (one time) extra for them. Now, would any dumb buyer fall for this? I doubt that. But Shutter must have a short play hoping that some takeover should happen before they run out of money. As short sighted as it may be. In any case contributors suffer in the short term, and perhaps in the long term as well (supposing that some contributors stick around). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Corner Studio said:

That may very well be their plan.

Yes, very likely they are trimming the organization (fire people) and dumping contributor fees to maximise profits and sell for a couple of billions. Adobe ..? 

 

Skærmbillede 2020-07-11 kl. 00.06.46.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, oleschwander said:

Yes, very likely they are trimming the organization (fire people) and dumping contributor fees to maximise profits and sell for a couple of billions. Adobe ..? 

 

Skærmbillede 2020-07-11 kl. 00.06.46.png

Adobe would be really dumb to buy a dead horse! especially that this latest move by SS drove contributors away from SS and a good percentage landed at Adobe! They can wait it out for free for SS to drown itself. As they say: why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 11:19 PM, rawaccess said:

The inconsistency of reviews is evidence of human subjectivity.

Nope! It's evidence that overnight and on weekends when the remaining few reviewers go home they turn on the machine! And it's the stupidly programmed machines that rejects everything left, right and centre! So when people go back to work on Monday and you resubmit the machine-rejected photo, it miraculously gets accepted, just a day later!! Like magic! Oops! It was out of focus yesterday! But now that we took a closer look, it may not be too bad so we decided to let it thru! Isn't it just strange? But of course it's always humans who review!! Right? The machine is only there in case of... In case of Corona virus when people break down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 1:19 PM, Cappelletti_pictures said:

Sorry but this site is no longer profitable and shutter clearly wants to be merged or acquired by someone. 

With the extra money they are stealing from contributors, and the covid crisis, I would more likely bet on the probability of them taking over the some smaller microstock concurrents. You don't sell or merged when your in the top 3 (AS, IS and SS), but you get bigger by eating others. 

About their inconsistency, it has been an issue since a while now. I do think they don't really care about contributors going away if they're about to acquire other smaller agency...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 10:19 PM, rawaccess said:

The inconsistency of reviews is evidence of human subjectivity.

I would think that it could just as easily be due to badly-written AI software

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 8:46 PM, Awana JF said:

With the extra money they are stealing from contributors, and the covid crisis, I would more likely bet on the probability of them taking over the some smaller microstock concurrents. You don't sell or merged when your in the top 3 (AS, IS and SS), but you get bigger by eating others. 

About their inconsistency, it has been an issue since a while now. I do think they don't really care about contributors going away if they're about to acquire other smaller agency...

What you say makes sense but history has shown us that this is what happens. Look at Istock, they surprised everyone with the same pay cuts and were then acquired by getty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 4:15 PM, Blue Corner Studio said:

Nope! It's evidence that overnight and on weekends when the remaining few reviewers go home they turn on the machine! And it's the stupidly programmed machines that rejects everything left, right and centre! So when people go back to work on Monday and you resubmit the machine-rejected photo, it miraculously gets accepted, just a day later!! Like magic! Oops! It was out of focus yesterday! But now that we took a closer look, it may not be too bad so we decided to let it thru! Isn't it just strange? But of course it's always humans who review!! Right? The machine is only there in case of... In case of Corona virus when people break down. 

The photo was reviewed by a different human with different standards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rawaccess said:

The photo was reviewed by a different human with different standards. 

You believe what you believe. And I believe differently. We won't convince each other, it seems obvious. But I know that the reviews stink from any direction I smell it from. Not that I put up with it any more (not submitting). Good luck with your uploads and the "human" reviewers though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...