Trevor Parker Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 So the Shutterstock contributor AI algorithm for accepting/rejecting images is entirely broken. I can't upload a single photo shot in f/5 or wider without getting rejected for "noise." Basically anything with Bokeh is automatically rejected. Moving to Adobe stock from now on, this is too stupid. From my experience thus far shutterstock is by far the absolute worst stock photography website I've ever contributed to. And all of this work for 10 cents per download? You're absolutely insane if you think this business model will work. 5 Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Bower Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 Trevor, I don't think you will get too many arguments regarding the many problems SS has with their review process. It really is consistently bad. As a suggestion, I would increase the exposure slightly on your images. Noise is most noticeable in the dark areas of an image and yours seem to be a little underexposed. I could be wrong but I would check the histogram on future images. If it doesn't show blown highlights, there is probably room for increasing your image exposure. This could improve your acceptance ratio. Just a thought. Good Luck! 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Tim photo-video Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 20 hours ago, Trevor Parker said: I can't upload a single photo shot in f/5 or wider without getting rejected for "noise." If the reasons for the rejection are noises, then most likely everything is fine with selective focus. lack of light or high ISO for your camera. Link to post Share on other sites
Tim photo-video Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 6 hours ago, Steve Bower said: As a suggesting, I would increase the exposure slightly on your images. Noise is most noticeable in the dark areas of an image and yours seem to be a little underexposed. I could be wrong but I would check the histogram on future images. If it doesn't show blown highlights, there is probably room for increasing your image exposure. This could improve your acceptance ratio. Just a thought. Good Luck! If you only increase the exposure, then even more noise will creep into the shadows. It is necessary to simultaneously suppress the noises in the program. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Diane Diederich Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 I am having the same problem with any image with selective focus. All rejected for focus when the actual main subject is tack sharp. I have stopped uploading here. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 3 minutes ago, Diane Diederich said: I am having the same problem with any image with selective focus. All rejected for focus when the actual main subject is tack sharp. I have stopped uploading here. Do you write 'selective focus' in the caption ..? Link to post Share on other sites
Diane Diederich Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, oleschwander said: Do you write 'selective focus' in the caption ..? Do I have to? Good grief. I will add it to the list of things I must do to get a pic approved here. Oy. Link to post Share on other sites
oleschwander Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 1 minute ago, Diane Diederich said: Do I have to? Good grief. I will add it to the list of things I must do to get a pic approved here. Oy. Yes it's crazy, but you have to include it in the caption (and also in the keywords to be sure ..!). The same goes with blurred images you have to write 'deliberately blurred' in the caption ...😆 1 Link to post Share on other sites
HodagMedia Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 18 hours ago, Steve Bower said: Trevor, I don't think you will get too many arguments regarding the many problems SS has with their review process. It really is consistently bad. As a suggesting, I would increase the exposure slightly on your images. Noise is most noticeable in the dark areas of an image and yours seem to be a little underexposed. I could be wrong but I would check the histogram on future images. If it doesn't show blown highlights, there is probably room for increasing your image exposure. This could improve your acceptance ratio. Just a thought. Good Luck! And I don' think you will either. Seems like the system is broken and no one is telling the Bots? Here's a link that might explain for the OP what you are writing about. I have my cameras set 1/3rd + on the exposure as a default. https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained Shooting to the right, very simply reduces the shadow noise, because I have to bring images back down sometimes. 8 minutes ago, Diane Diederich said: I am having the same problem with any image with selective focus. All rejected for focus when the actual main subject is tack sharp. I have stopped uploading here. If the selective focus is in front, the Review Bots are exceptionally stupid and will be likely to reject your images. Even with the selective focus note that the machines don't read. Very reliable, long time contributors have also found, sand, water ripple and textures, will trigger a focus rejection. Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Bower Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Trevor, I apologize, you were not asking for a critique of your images. My comments were not solicited and I should have kept my thoughts to myself. However, the information provided above (especially the article on "exposing to the right") could be very helpful to all of us. I've learned a lot from this forum over the years and it has improved my photographic skills considerably. Hopefully, we have not stepped on any toes. Keep up the good work! Link to post Share on other sites
Alexandre Rotenberg Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Time for us to selectively choose better / more suitable agencies to upload our work 3 Link to post Share on other sites
HodagMedia Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 7 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said: Time for us to selectively choose better / more suitable agencies to upload our work 1 Link to post Share on other sites
lonndubh Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 On 3/30/2021 at 6:23 AM, Trevor Parker said: So the Shutterstock contributor AI algorithm for accepting/rejecting images is entirely broken. I can't upload a single photo shot in f/5 or wider without getting rejected for "noise." Basically anything with Bokeh is automatically rejected. Moving to Adobe stock from now on, this is too stupid. From my experience thus far shutterstock is by far the absolute worst stock photography website I've ever contributed to. And all of this work for 10 cents per download? You're absolutely insane if you think this business model will work. Best stop uploading and try elsewhere.I ran into the same problem and coupled with sales and rpd crash it is just a waste of time. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Radovan Vujovic Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Usually, I upload 20 photos group... in last few months 10-15 are out of focus! I beleive that my nonprofesional D7100 is not working well????? Ofcourse, I am joking but really it became pretty frustrated .... (the same photos were accepted at two other stock photography websites ...) Link to post Share on other sites
Radovan Vujovic Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 This is too much: a few minutes ago 16 photos refused (of 20 uploaded). the main subject is not in focus .... Link to post Share on other sites
Steven Tritton Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 On 4/1/2021 at 4:53 PM, Alexandre Rotenberg said: Time for us to selectively choose better / more suitable agencies to upload our work Are you getting many rejections? I note from your BHGSPF March Report you added 10 images to SS compared to double or more at other sites. I don't usually have much a problem with rejections, but damn, near everything is getting rejected in recent days. Is it because of weekend reviews maybe? What's up Subberstock? Get ya knickers in a knot again? 🙄 Link to post Share on other sites
Alexandre Rotenberg Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 6 hours ago, Steven Tritton said: Are you getting many rejections? I note from your BHGSPF March Report you added 10 images to SS compared to double or more at other sites. I don't usually have much a problem with rejections, but damn, near everything is getting rejected in recent days. Is it because of weekend reviews maybe? What's up Subberstock? Get ya knickers in a knot again? 🙄 Yeah, lots mainly editorials but it seems like when there was a software upgrade it deleted one of the boxes about editorial caption/description. In any case, I'm putting most of my non-editorial, non-book covers over at Wirestock and editorials at Alamy RM for 50% potential royalties. Spreading it around to multiple agencies isn't as profitable as it used to be. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
stevemart Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 I have absolutely no problems with uploads and acceptance. I don't bother anymore as it's pointless (rewards not commensurate with effort involved)! Falling royalties? You shoulda bin buying SSTK stock to compensate! Someone has. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Merrillie Redden Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 On 4/5/2021 at 8:24 PM, Steven Tritton said: Are you getting many rejections? I note from your BHGSPF March Report you added 10 images to SS compared to double or more at other sites. I don't usually have much a problem with rejections, but damn, near everything is getting rejected in recent days. Is it because of weekend reviews maybe? What's up Subberstock? Get ya knickers in a knot again? 🙄 Shutterstock only gets one chance at accepting my photos and the rejection rates are all over the place sometimes a batch gets nearly all accepted and then the next gets most rejected. The same photos get accepted by my other 4 stock sites. Maybe Shutterstock has decided it has too many photos and are trying to slow down their intake - that is the only conclusion I can come to as this has been going on for some time now, when once upon a time they nearly all got accepted. The other thing I have sometimes wondered is whether they are slow to load hence they are not waiting for them to come into focus or their AI isn't, as I primarily shoot with a Nikon D850 and they are large files. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
HodagMedia Posted April 6 Share Posted April 6 14 hours ago, stevemart said: I have absolutely no problems with uploads and acceptance. I don't bother anymore as it's pointless (rewards not commensurate with effort involved)! Falling royalties? You shoulda bin buying SSTK stock to compensate! Someone has. Should have bought last May when they announced the contributor cuts. This profit and stock price climb, will not last. Not because I'm angry, bitter or just wishing for bad things, but because the profits will not be increasing and the growth will go flat, and stock holders will take their profits and move on. This is a late price surge, based on the 4th quarter reports. Someone call me on this, and say I was wrong... (in May/June) after the first quarter of 2021 reports come out, the stock price will drop back to the $60 range. When I get a rejection, I fall back to the same thing I did since 2008, downsize to 5MP and upload again. They fly through. If size matters, like it does at some others, they get the full size and SS gets the 10¢ version. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Steven Tritton Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 19 hours ago, Merrillie Redden said: Maybe Shutterstock has decided it has too many photos and are trying to slow down their intake - that is the only conclusion I can come to as this has been going on for some time now, when once upon a time they nearly all got accepted. Agree. I think Shutterstock has completely lost control of its review process. It's pathetic really. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Jingwen Li Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 My painting was also rejected because it can’t distinguish between stains and the ink effect of the painting. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Thijs de Graaf Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 I can imagine that Shutterstock is looking for an automatic check when I read how much is submitted per day. I just deleted a photo myself (7/10), of which the horizon was not completely horizontal. The longer I looked at it, the more it annoyed me. Got it photoshopped right now. Some photos are very clearly good, but the doubts under the photos are also difficult for a human reviewer. I submit my insect photos to Observation, where they are checked by biologists. There is now also an automatic recognition that already indicates what it is. In the beginning it was often wrong. But over time, it has often become astonishingly accurate. https://waarneming.nl/ Perhaps that is also the case with the automatic reviewer Shutterstock won't care if some commercial photos are currently missing due to unjustified rejections. And of course they don't care about us either. 🙂 Yesterday my photo of a seedling of a sunflower was rejected. When I looked at how many photos of it were already on Shutterstock, I didn't bother anymore. There are a lot of subjects of which Shutterstock already has so many photos that I can imagine they don't really need new photos. (clouds, fireworks, sunset, swans, flowering prunus ......) It will not surprise me if in the long run there will be new adjustments such as the automatic deletion of photos older than five years that have not yet been sold. Or your membership is $ 20, which is deducted from your earnings every year.. 😕 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Jingwen Li Posted April 7 Share Posted April 7 Thank you very much for your kind reply, I am a newcomer, I am trying to learn these rules, it is very difficult for me Link to post Share on other sites
stevemart Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 On 4/6/2021 at 4:53 PM, HodagMedia said: Should have bought last May when they announced the contributor cuts. This profit and stock price climb, will not last. Not because I'm angry, bitter or just wishing for bad things, but because the profits will not be increasing and the growth will go flat, and stock holders will take their profits and move on. This is a late price surge, based on the 4th quarter reports. Someone call me on this, and say I was wrong... (in May/June) after the first quarter of 2021 reports come out, the stock price will drop back to the $60 range. When I get a rejection, I fall back to the same thing I did since 2008, downsize to 5MP and upload again. They fly through. If size matters, like it does at some others, they get the full size and SS gets the 10¢ version. Maybe they'll get a boost every Q1 from their easy money from the contributors all falling back to Tier 1....until the SSTK buyers get wise to that. No matter, the senior management have already made out like bandits with their share and options packages.....bought in at $30 last March/April and cashed out one year later at around $90. Yep. That's the way to do it....if at first they don't accept, use a smaller hammer! 😄 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now