Not in focus

[Wilm Ihlenfeld]

17 hours ago, aminkorea said:

If I was a new contributor the 7/10 rule would make sense. But I am not a newbie. I submit between 10 and 20 images every day and have over 10,000 images in my port and I have never had this percentage of rejections on any batch I have submitted. 

Since when do you offer images here?

[aminkorea]

Since 2016. Why?

[Richard Whitcombe]

2 hours ago, Davide Toscani said:

Does Shutterstock use A.I. to review the images? 

They claim no.

However the sudden change to instant-reviews and the often utterly bizarre rejections would hint that it is.  It may not be the *final* decision but there are strong suspicions its sending recommendations to reviewers who usually just click to accept the recommendation...

 

[Jeff De]

[OceanicWanderer]

8 hours ago, PlopandShoot said:

I don't think I ever told a story with my food and mineral photos ever

If that were true you would likely never sell a photo, esp food photos. Composition is your story - bad composition = bad story = no sales. That along with lighting, focus, exposure - understanding DOF. If you did not understand these basic principles you would be shooting dark, underexposed and poorly lit photos which given the sheer amount of competition out there would likely never sell.

[OceanicWanderer]

6 minutes ago, PlopandShoot said:

Then we differ on definitions of "story telling". This sells almost daily, for almost a decade. Literally the definition of Plop and Shoot, I walked by the kitchen and shot it. I have hundreds if not thousands like this that take zero thought or effort, and sell often and well.

The point I am trying to make is there is always more than one way to do this. Not everything is a story or concept. I have licensed images to use in designed because I needed a generic doorframe or a pine cone. You just never know unless you research your markets and niches. And you can still get surprised.

You (not you specifically but everyone) want a niche in this industry? Stop trying to be an artist and try to be a marketer. You'll make more money. 

There are photographers that naturally know how to compose an image - like the block of cheese above. You will make more money from a photograph that is executed correctly vs one that is not - almost always - unless its the news. Nailing a great stock image is an art form in itself this is most evident in food stock photography. Shutterstock markets YOU as an artist - its splashed all over their marketing. Marketing a product, idea or dream for customers takes skill not only as a photographer but as an artist. 

[Wilm Ihlenfeld]

12 hours ago, aminkorea said:

Since 2016. Why?

I wanted to know because I was wondering if you were already a contributor years ago when the selection was very strict. Now I know that's not the case.

[Will478]

On 12/3/2019 at 3:08 PM, Johan from Friesland said:

Recently my photos are being reviewed at a record pace and most are being rejected, they are not in focus. I don't do anything else than I did with my 4,500 other photos but I get the suspicion that there is a different way of working with the reviewers. I am very much in favor of good quality photos, but it is a shame if my photos are incorrectly rejected because the reviewers are too hasty. Who can identify with my feelings?

I am fully feeling your pain today. I think they have started using some beta-version review bots recently.

Today, I submitted a photo, and it was rejected by the time I submitted another less than 10 minutes later. They have all gone through review in less than 10-15 minutes. Most are rejected based on focus, even though I haven't done anything different with these than what I've always done. I can tell you for sure that they are in focus. Not sure how good you'll be able to tell due to it being a screen capture, but see the screenshot of one rejected photo at 100% pixels in Lightroom below. 

Also have several other rejections that make no sense. Like location that I've submitted several other photos of previously, which were all approved, I submitted another photo of it today, and it was rejected for not having a property release. That's just one example.

These have to be robot programs reviewing the photos to be rejecting them like this and reviewing within minutes of submission. A robot should never be used for review. You can program it to know in focus and out of focus areas, but it cannot be programmed to know what is artistically intended. This is insulting honestly. We invest so much time and effort into producing products for them to sell, only for it to all be rejected for no real reason.

[Jeff De]

Every photo is reviewed and rejected by a human being with no artificial intelligence. 

[oleschwander]

On 12/11/2019 at 8:46 PM, Will478 said:

see the screenshot of one rejected photo at 100% pixels in Lightroom below

Reviewer is right imo ... not in focus.

[David Moreno Hernandez]

Seems like motion blur

[Phil Maddocks]

On 12/11/2019 at 7:46 PM, Will478 said:

I am fully feeling your pain today. I think they have started using some beta-version review bots recently.

Today, I submitted a photo, and it was rejected by the time I submitted another less than 10 minutes later. They have all gone through review in less than 10-15 minutes. Most are rejected based on focus, even though I haven't done anything different with these than what I've always done. I can tell you for sure that they are in focus. Not sure how good you'll be able to tell due to it being a screen capture, but see the screenshot of one rejected photo at 100% pixels in Lightroom below. 

Also have several other rejections that make no sense. Like location that I've submitted several other photos of previously, which were all approved, I submitted another photo of it today, and it was rejected for not having a property release. That's just one example.

These have to be robot programs reviewing the photos to be rejecting them like this and reviewing within minutes of submission. A robot should never be used for review. You can program it to know in focus and out of focus areas, but it cannot be programmed to know what is artistically intended. This is insulting honestly. We invest so much time and effort into producing products for them to sell, only for it to all be rejected for no real reason.

Sorry Will, you can clearly see in your screenshot it isn't in-focus. Look at the "air conditioner" wording, it isn't crisp. Could be missed focus or it could be camera shake causing the softness. 

[geogif]

@Will478

You should never never not throw one of your pictures to the forum hyenas for food. 
Big mistake. 

[geogif]

1 hour ago, Jeff De said:

human being with no artificial intelligence. 

It's very unfortunate that the boys lack artificial intelligence. 
Maybe this will improve in the future.
But the lack of artificial intelligence seems to affect their working speed. 
Today 3 videos were accepted in a time which seemed to be shorter than the duration of the clips.

[Jeff De]

As was already stated, the above photo isn't in focus. This rejection was correct.

[J. Quendag]

Well, let me add my 2 cents and 5 rejections. I joined back when getting in with 7 of 10 approved was a real challenge (and it was a good thing). For 2 or 3 years these standards were maintained. Then, suddenly, all sorts and heaps of crap was accepted. Better images were flooded by sheer numbers. I guess this was in part to just show off with a high number of images. The good side was that some more 'artistic' of experimental images were accepted and... sold too, albeit not in high numbers. So with the new stringent policy, it feels a bit unfair.

Anyway, about the rejections. First, a dreamy image which I think has some right of existence. Made in B&W with Nik Silver Efex, so admittedly just a few minutes work. My title clearly states 'Dreamy, out of focus image with film grain... etc.'. Now a black swan might not be a commercial wonder, still, I feel it beats a lot of technically correct images of dull imagery. Rejected twice for focus. I don't think focus is important in this image - or more precise, that the focus on the reflection helps to draw attention to the little story-like scene.

The second an image of a red bill of a black swan (no English pub names involved). The focus is - and I think in this case appropriately - on the top  of the bill, not the eyes. The sense of depth leads the viewer's eye from front to back. And on a foggy morning, I needed the open lens. Included a 100% crop. A bill is, by the way, not a very sharp object in itself. And it moves. So for me, this is by all means acceptable, also given that the uploaded file was 4800px high (the original is even larger).

Some time ago (with another image) I tried to get a 'second opinion' but I was referred to a 'Shutterstock representing contributor' who just gave some commonplaces and I couldn't get feedback from a reviewer.

The thing is.. I believe standards are good, but I also believe images (and marketing) are about emotions, and technical standards should, at times, be subjacent to the overall emotional strength of an image. You (others) may judge this quality otherwise, still, I think and trust these images have some quality which justifies being on Shutterstock.

What do you think? Deluded 🐤(me)?