Jump to content

Shutterstock’s rejections are a joke


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The rejections were both justified. Neither of these images is sharp. The first one looks like an anti-noise filter was applied and made everything blurry. I am not sure about posterization in the

Gerald Brannon,  How about this?  My image of a "covid vaccine syringe" was rejected for focus and noise/film grain.   I made absolutely no re-edits but only flipped it from horizontal to vertical.  P

I''ve accidentally submitted the same photo (or in some cases, whole batch) twice by mistake due to my dodgy filing here and ive had multiple instances of the same image getting both rejected AND acce

Posted Images

The AI really does seem to get confused more often than not on foliage.

Im more and more convinced it ranks every upload with a sharpness score (maybe looking at micro-contrast or something) and anything below a pre-set figure gets rejected for focus regardless of photo.  I dont think a human looks at all.

The top image in the size allowed here does seem to have a huge amount of chromatic aberration on the top though.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I've been shooting for Shutterstock, I always zoom in to see if it's in focus. Old photos that I was happy with at the time are usually not sharp enough. In that respect I have become a better photographer.
You can only wonder if so sharp is always necessary. A not completely sharp photo can be very beautiful, like the first photo. The strange thing is that blurred photos are approved. But it's their rules that you may or may not agree with. Some of my photos are approved here and disapproved by Adobe Stock and vice versa. No photo has been rejected at Alamy so far.
In nature photos I often look for something like a few hikers, who will give you sharp attention. Then the photo is approved even though the foliage is not completely in focus.

I also took the photo of the dune lake without a fence. It had been rejected due to focus. 😁

stock-photo-people-walking-on-a-sandy-path-through-a-birch-and-spruce-forest-in-the-dutch-dunes-near-the-1856961367.jpg

stock-photo-a-small-dune-lake-with-trees-in-summer-august-near-the-village-of-bergen-in-the-netherlands-the-1790440994.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Calvert said:

I find that photos that feature large quantities of foliage in them do get rejected because of 'noise'. AI obviously doesn't understand what foliage is.

Or water, or brush, or gravel... sometimes 😀

 

I'd suggest for anyone, if you are having grain and pixelation rejections, remember "Never Sharpen The Sky".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

Move the full version of this image from left to right and back, not very fast but not very slowly. Then come back and tell us what you see in the sky.

Strange vertical streaks and blobs, especially in the upper right. Did I pass? 😉

I have a terrible monitor on this desk.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Former_Poster said:

That could be just the result of JPG compression reducing the tones in the version he uploaded to the forum.

 

You could be right but I can only comment what I see.

Often I resize 35MP images to half and I don't have this happening. Still I have seen this before but didn't find the reason.

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

Yes, you did. That is the result of post processing but I cant tell what.

Maybe it could be fixed but for now the AI is right IMO.

Not enough colors.  Probably an 8 bit image. 

it can be fixed by starting over and process and save the RAW file as a 16 bit image . Going easy on the saturation slider wouldn't hurt either, but with 16 bit you would have a lot more leeway 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2020 at 11:38 AM, Gerald Brannon said:

Am I the only one who is having trouble with shutterstock rejecting their photos with bull crap reasons? 

Gerald Brannon,  How about this?  My image of a "covid vaccine syringe" was rejected for focus and noise/film grain.   I made absolutely no re-edits but only flipped it from horizontal to vertical.  Presto, accepted.

Screen Shot 2020-12-22 at 2.47.54 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve had some weirdness on the site with acceptances and rejections.... In one case the same photo rejected here on SS for focus was accepted on a couple of other sites. On the other hand I’d also submitted a small (two photos I think) batch of photos only to realize that I’d uploaded the wrong file on one of them - it had obvious sensor dust that I’d somehow missed before saving the image as a jpeg, it ended up getting approved quickly!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I''ve accidentally submitted the same photo (or in some cases, whole batch) twice by mistake due to my dodgy filing here and ive had multiple instances of the same image getting both rejected AND accepted in the same review (usually focus).

Its only on Shutterstock do i have Schrödinger's Image - where its both out of focus and in focus at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Former_Poster said:

Photo looks fine but you cant ever use Alamy accepted as a reason - they dont inspect all images.  One per batch, sometimes not even that.

 

You are right. If a photo is approved by Adobe, I will try again with Shutter. As I wrote, it is sometimes the other way around and the photo is only rejected by Adobe.
If they are rejected at both sites, apparently I don't see it properly and I don't upload it at Alamy either. (I usually upload a little later in Alamy)

I think that this photo was rejected because the flowers in the front are not sharp. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Elliott Cowand Jr said:

Gerald Brannon,  How about this?  My image of a "covid vaccine syringe" was rejected for focus and noise/film grain.   I made absolutely no re-edits but only flipped it from horizontal to vertical.  Presto, accepted.

Screen Shot 2020-12-22 at 2.47.54 PM.png

That's one of the best ever. Yes, there are some inconsistencies in the Bots that review our images.

Also true as others have pointed out, sometimes accepted at Adobe are rejected here and some accepted here are rejected at Adobe. One of the biggest differences is, Humans that think, instead of Trained Machines.

I admit SS has probably cut down on costs, humans are expensive, and our reviews are now faster than I can upload a file and index it? But is faster taken against missing creative composition, for example, really a gain? If money is the only objective, I guess that answers my question.

Well dang, next time I get a rejection, I might rotate and upload again? 😎

Like the flowers soft in the foreground, the lower left is a shadow and dark. One more clue for us to play "beat the machines".

 

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...