Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
David Calvert

Image rejections - Are your photos reviewed by humans?

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm new here - and generally new to supplying stock photos in general.

I recently had a number of images rejected because the content was too similar to other photos I submitted. On one example, I submitted an image of a combine harvester and a tractor working together at sunset (see attached photo), which as accepted. A second image submitted at the same time of a combine harvester working alone (and taken 10 years previously!) at sunset was rejected, because it was "too similar to another image". Granted they have a similar colour tone - but are they that similar? A large number of images of different white cloud formations against a blue sky were also rejected for the same reason.

Are the photos reviewed by humans, or do Shutterstock use some sort of algorithm? On situations like this, is the trick to submit photos that have a similar feel on separate days?

 

_DSC1996_crop.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they estimate a commercial value also when put "similar". Anyway I see nothing wrong with your pictures. Probably, the horizontal stretched orientations are confused.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think AI decides if the images are similar and alerts the human reviewer, who can then decide. Since they are paid for clicking and true, having to review the same images, over and over, makes them more money. They just error on the side of a lobotomized gnome. "machine says might be similar, it's similar" reject, reject, reject, this is fun work, reject, reject, reject.

If a reviewer had any self esteem and inner thoughts they would understand their job is to accept good images, not find ways to reject more images. There's a huge difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HodagMedia said:

Honestly I think AI decides if the images are similar and alerts the human reviewer, who can then decide. Since they are paid for clicking and true, having to review the same images, over and over, makes them more money. They just error on the side of a lobotomized gnome. "machine says might be similar, it's similar" reject, reject, reject, this is fun work, reject, reject, reject.

If a reviewer had any self esteem and inner thoughts they would understand their job is to accept good images, not find ways to reject more images. There's a huge difference.

 

And yet you posted on my thread that you hoped everyone was pleased with themselves for bashing reviewers. 

Mind ...... Blown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Scorsby said:

And yet you posted on my thread that you hoped everyone was pleased with themselves for bashing reviewers. 

Mind ...... Blown.

Two different things. One is people bashing reviewers for following the guidelines that are printed and there to read, for everyone. Like, "your thread" where you repeatedly included shooting data, which is going to get rejected, but you blamed the reviewer?

The other is mind numb reviewers who click "rejections" for things, based on being SIMILAR because the AI says they are similar.

This isn't one comment fits all, and you can't swap them back or forth at will. I agree that the similar rejections that many people are experiencing are absurd. I don't agree that reviewers are "...someone has either been eating slug pellets or they is broked. " because they rejected your images for an improper title.

See the difference?

Yeah, it was a funny, creative post, I enjoyed that. 👍

Why Was My Content Rejected for Title:  https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Title?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons&fs=Search&pn=1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

Two different things. One is people bashing reviewers for following the guidelines that are printed and there to read, for everyone. Like, "your thread" where you repeatedly included shooting data, which is going to get rejected, but you blamed the reviewer?

The other is mind numb reviewers who click "rejections" for things, based on being SIMILAR because the AI says they are similar.

This isn't one comment fits all, and you can't swap them back or forth at will. I agree that the similar rejections that many people are experiencing are absurd. I don't agree that reviewers are "...someone has either been eating slug pellets or they is broked. " because they rejected your images for an improper title.

See the difference?

Yeah, it was a funny, creative post, I enjoyed that. 👍

Why Was My Content Rejected for Title:  https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Title?l=en_US&c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons&fs=Search&pn=1

 

No. And previous and subsequent submissions were submitted using exactly that format. But you are a pedant. You cannot teach that. It is hard earned and obviously ferociously fought for. I wish you luck in your battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scorsby said:

No. And previous and subsequent submissions were submitted using exactly that format. But you are a pedant. You cannot teach that. It is hard earned and obviously ferociously fought for. I wish you luck in your battle.

Have a nice day, try reading what I actually wrote or what is under the content rejection reasons from SS.

Your image will be rejected for Information about the camera or camera settings.

You aren't that thick are you? Or just trying to defend a flawed argument for the sake of debate?

 

River scene take 1

Title - Slow shutter speed  and ND filter used to intentionally blur river into a mist. Classic river photography technique. 

Rejection - Title must be descriptive and relevant to the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess.

Yup me so stupid I used actual technical terminology and didnt fully explain. Ok that ones one me duhh lol.

River scene take 2

Title  fingers crossed eh - Slow shutter speed  and neutral density filter used to intentionally blur a river into a mist. Classic river photography technique. 

Rejected - Title must be descriptive and relevant to the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess.

Hmmm lol ... erm ... ask family members and we concede the word mist is the culprit.

River scene take 3

Title - A fast flowing river intentionally blurred using a slow shutter speed.

rejected - Title must be descriptive and relevant to the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess.

 

Description of what's in IN the photo, not how you took it. Yes I understand, sometimes we try to explain the image and how it was shot to get the reviewer to see, for example, Intentional Blurred. But hypothetically these people are "just following orders".🤨 And some of them, don't understand discretion or judgement, they are militant, by the book reviewers, doing their job, as they are asked to do and trained. Doesn't mean I actually agree with them or the rules, just that I understand why the title was rejected.

Don't attack the messenger, which would be me for pointing out the answer to your question, why the title was refused. Or the reviewer for strictly following the SS submission rules. I was being nice calling them guidelines, so you pounced on that, to argue semantics?

Your image was rejected because you included camera data, equipment data, camera shooting information, that was not, (read slow now) descriptive and relevant to the subject matter - Subject, Relevant.

Shutter Speed is not relevant or descriptive, neither is ND filter, unsure if describing technique would also fall into that rejection reasoning?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect theres some creative wording going on.

SS repeatedly says reviews are all done by humans.

However, that doesn't mean there isn't AI involved prior to that which could flag up what it thinks are problems for a human reviewer to examine.  Or if they're lazy/overworked just accept the AI recommendations without checking the image.

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...