The Backup Crew

NASA transcript lists a backup crew for Apollo 12.

I first heard of the Apollo backup crew on the Clyde Lewis radio show, Ground Zero in 2016.  Clyde’s guest was noted UFO researcher Richard Dolan.  During the interview, he played an audio clip (linked below) he had gotten from contacts in the aerospace industrial community regarding a conversation from Pete Conrad on Apollo 12 to mission control inquiring about a sighting of objects following them on the way to the moon.  Incredibly, besides the reason of spent boosters and ejected panels, at the end of the exchange, it was suggested that maybe they were being followed by a “backup crew.”

After some banter back and forth, here is the explanation given to them from the Mission Control in the transcript:

036:12:07 Carr: Roger, Pete. That thing you saw off the hatch, at a roll of 35 degrees, we figured there's probably three possible answers. Number 1: it could be the S-IVB, or possibly a SLA panel, or it could be the backup crew flying trail on you. 

036:12:24 Conrad: Roger. Actually we have two objects out there. One's not anywhere near as bright as the other, so I think the real bright one's the S-IVB and the other one's probably a SLA panel. They're about 20 degrees apart. And as far as the backup crew goes, tell them we'll meet them on the back side of the moon. 

One odd thing about this exchange, besides being an amazing admission of a hereto unknown event of the Apollo moon missions, is that this conversation was not on the Apollo Flight Journal website several years ago.  When it was reorganized with a new layout a while back, it was added.  My initial searches could not find it originally, but it has been returned to the official transcript.  I assumed at the time it was too hot to released to the public and was edited out.

Was this an inside joke or was it inside baseball?  Having a backup crew in space with the main crew on the flight to the moon adds a whole new dimension to the Apollo moon missions.  Where was this other crew launched from?  What type of crafts were they flying?  Ships from a secret space program?  

But it does not end with the backup crew acknowledgment.  In the final exchange about this issue, the following was said:

36:26:51 Conrad: That could be true but, gee whiz, when we turned around, I saw one of those SLA panels leaving the area at a high rate of speed; it looked to me like it was leaving us pretty - pretty rapid clip, like it got a lot more than a foot per second or so. 

036:27:21 Carr: Well, since we don't really have any idea how they left or what their trajectory could be, it's kind of tough really to say just what the heck that could be. 

036:27:33 Gordon: Okay. We'll assume it's friendly anyway, okay?
036:27:37 Carr: Roger. If it makes any noises, it's probably just wind in the rigging. 

036:27:41 Conrad: Okay. Understand. 

Most likely inside baseball on this one. Noises?  In the vacuum of space where no sound is transmitted?  Wind in the rigging?   Mission controller, Jerry Carr (who would command Skylab 4) seems to be talking in code.  And Conrad states that he understands what noises and “wind in the rigging” means.  Glad he does because I have no idea what he is talking about.  If not code, then what are they trying to say?  Too cryptic to be a joke.  

(The “friendly” comment was made by astronaut Dick Gordon, on board Apollo 12.)

Now, compare the transcript above to the Ground Zero broadcast and you will see how heavily edited the transcript is by NASA.  Link HERE.  There is actually more detail in Clyde Lewis’s audio clip.

Interjected into all of this are comments made by the NASA Public Affairs Office attempting to expand on what is going on here and making a poor attempt of it.   No statements explaining the meaning of the backup crew reference, only that Dave Scott (Apollo 15) working nearby, smiled at the comment. Were they using this to imply it was a big inside joke?  If so, they failed.  And Conrad mentions the backups in a matter of fact style with no inflection of voice implying a joke.  Likewise, the “wind in the rigging” remark is not addressed at all.

So we are left with another mystery from NASA.  It is interesting that they would release the transcript of NASA personnel discussing extra astronauts in space and then the notion of meeting up with them at the moon.  NASA did of course have backup crews for each flight, but the public was left with the impression they were available in case something happened to a scheduled crew member such as illness or death.  The logistical issues of a separate launch from a location other than the Kennedy Space Center and keep it under wraps would be an enormous undertaking.  It seems implausible but here they are talking about it.  Did it really happen and will we ever know?

Apollo Flight Journal Link with audio clips:

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap12fj/07day2_qettd.html

Of Spacesuits and Helmets

Neil Armstrongs's alleged spacesuit. Note the blue overboots.  They are gray in the moon images.

NASA documentation shows that Apollo spacesuits offered little to no radiation protection.

Studying the Apollo moon landings is about like studying the JFK assassination.  Down one rabbit trail after the other.  A very contradicting trail.  Some of the official statements and published documents that describe how the feat of building complicated space craft to land men on the moon in just 8 years, comes off as a poorly written science fiction drama where the author cannot keep his plot threads from conflicting.  In other instances, no explanation is available at all.  This not only includes NASA at the time of the Apollo program, but years later when the goal shifts back to returning to the moon with the Orion program.  

Spacesuits And Radiation

Radiation is probably one of the most hazardous conditions affecting manned space flight.  The fist hurdle is the Van Allen Radiation belts, the earth’s donut shaped force field.  It traps numerous particles and blocks the solar wind.  It is widely known that the belts are a great hazard and hence, impediment to manned space flight.  Dr. Van Allen stressed this fact in science articles in the late 1950’s.  Ironically, none of the astronauts in their books have an issue with these radiation belts, passing thru them, to and fro, with no harm.  Frank Borman commander of Apollo 8 stated in his book Countdown, that they traveled thru the thickest part of the Van Allen belts and the radiation exposure was the equivalent of a chest x-ray.  Even before Apollo, in 1966 Gemini flight 11 reached a record altitude of 875 miles above earth which would place them in the first of the two belts.  Once again, no harm was reported.

Once past that, the moon presents a toxic hazmat zone filled with an unrelenting flow of radiative particles such cosmic radiation, gamma rays, microwaves, x-rays and on on.  Even the ground soil is radiated.  A study of the Apollo spacesuit and its development and use, not much is said regarding the radiation shielding in the suit.  In NASA’s spacesuit manual, they list numerous layers of aluminized mylar film used in the suit interior to protect the astronaut.  The manual specifically makes note that multiple layers of aluminized mylar were used for the protection of thermal radiation.  Thermal is heat.  You can experience that on a sunny day at the beach.  But that is not nuclear radiation.  In this case, NASA is defining the suit as protecting the astronaut from environmental conditions which is needed with the moon surface temperature in direct sunlight ranging form 260 to 280 degrees Fahrenheit (123-137 C). 

The only other radiation listed in the manual is ultraviolet radiation which can damage the astronaut’s eyes, solved by the use of the gold visor.  

Nuclear radiation hazards are never mentioned or addressed for the safety of the astronaut wearing the suit.

Even TV documentaries are silent about this issue, such as the episode of Moon Machines on the SCI Channel discussing the development of the Apollo spacesuit.  It never mentioned radiation shielding in the resulting design.  One would think this would be an important feature to develop for the safety of the astronauts.  But once again, it is never mentioned. 

Researcher Marcus Allen, a believer in the moon hoax theory, said he contacted a contractor building spacesuits and inquired about the radiation shielding used in the suit.  They told him to contact NASA as they didn’t build shielding in the suits they constructed for use by the astronauts. 

The moon itself is radioactive.  NASA’s science site (see link below) states that gamma rays cause nuclear reactions in the soil making it radioactive.  Astronauts said the moon dirt got all over their suits and gear, with one astronaut stating that some got in his mouth.  Yet, none of them ever got radiation sickness or resulting health issues from exposure to moon dirt. 

How do the “experts” deal with these conflicting issues?  They simply state that the astronauts were not in the intense radiation zones (Van Allen belts, cislunar space, the moon) long enough to experience any serious effects from life threatening radiation.  Which is nonsense.  Russian scientists about in the 1960’s concluded that the radiation was severe enough to require 4 feet of lead shielding which is utterly impractical.  It is hard to understand how the astronauts could have survived in such a toxic environment regardless of how long they were there in EVA on the moon and not suffer serious consequences.  The proper shielding is not there as stated in NASA documents.  None of the Apollo astronauts who were alleged to have flown to, or landed on the moon, were ever effected by radiation sickness during, or after, the missions.  And all of this with spacesuits, as stated above in multiple NASA technical reports, that did not have proper radiation shielding!  These suits could not be used for Hazmat work on earth during a nuclear power plant emergency, so why would they be any good for use in the most dangerous radiation zone of them all—the surface of the moon?

Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders.  Note the lack of shielding or insulation in his plastic helmet.

The Helmet

Besides the lack of radiation shielding from the suit, it should be noted that the spacesuit helmet, crafted from Lexan polycarbonate (i.e., plastic), has no shielding from either thermal or nuclear based radiation, nor insulated from conditions of extreme heat or cold.  The only safeguard is the gold visor for the afore mentioned ultraviolet radiation, which is the only type of radiation protection, besides thermal, which is heat, listed in NASA’s documentation.  The polycarbonate material is rated to handle temperatures up to 297 degrees Fahrenheit, safe enough for surface temperatures on the moon, although it will deform at above 240 degrees Fahrenheit (something never seen or documented by NASA).  There is no data on this form of plastic in conjunction with below freezing temperatures.

Underneath the suit the astronauts wear a liquid cooling garment (LCG) featuring water filled tubes for keeping the astronaut cool. (It is unknown how this cooling system turned warm for the severely cold shadow areas on the moon.) It fully covers the body and is used in spacesuits to this day.  However, while the tubing extends to the feet, it does not cover the head or the hands. As already stated, there is no thermal insulation in the helmet but the outside is covered in beta cloth which is flame resistant, but it is not explained how this protects the person inside from the severe extremes of temperature and radiation on the moon’s surface.  It seems unlikely that the astronaut’s hands would be safe in the temperature extremes with the type of insolation protection the suit’s gloves provided.  

The end result is a helmet that offers little way of protect from the moon’s extreme environmental conditions.  Even NASA’s gamma ray experiments on the helmet showed no protection at all, with the gamma rays easily passing through the thin polycarbonate structure.  

In Summary

There is a disturbing lack of concern for the hazards astronauts encounter in space and on the moon. Astronauts in their interviews and written accounts say precious little regarding this mortal danger. And no proper explanation is coming forth form NASA as their documentation is sorely lacking in solving this issue.  Basically, the spacesuit’s purpose is to offer protection from extremes of heat and cold, micrometers, vacuum of space, low gravity and visual protection.  One will never read about protection from x-rays, gamma rays, ionized protons or any other types of radiation that will be present on the moon’s surface.  It is as if radiation hazards do not exist at all!

If NASA put men on the moon they were using classified technology to accomplish the mission.  There is apparently no radiation protection in their suits.  Or else, they didn’t go at all and the moon landings were one big charade on the American tax payers and the world.  Or, the true nature of space and it’s properties and hazards has not been explained to us at all.

If people don’t believe that man landed on the moon it is NASA’s fault.  Go to their web site and do some research and you will see why.

Sources

Spacesuit manual

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-EMU1.pdf

Space Helmet

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710005127.pdf

Lexan Polycarbonate

https://www.acplasticsinc.com/informationcenter/r/what-is-lexan

Moon Soil Radioactive

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/08sep_radioactivemoon

NASA Technical Docs Site

https://ntrs.nasa.gov

Aluminum Shielding

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/107/43107414.pdf

Aluminum not a good block for Gama rays

https://www.quora.com/How-does-aluminum-block-radiation

Center of Gravity In No Gravity

The damage on the Apollo 13 service module.  

(Updated at https://georgebailey.substack.com/p/center-of-gravity-in-no-gravity)

NASA once again makes the impossible, possible.

The near loss of three astronauts in the Apollo 13 disaster is probably one of the most dramatic events in the history of the moon landings.  It was NASA’s finest moment as the “can do agency” to get those astronauts home safely.  A closer look brings up lots of anomalies  and unanswered questions.

 By now we know the story and the movie.  The public’s interest was waning as the moon landings got too routine.  Then in 1970, Apollo 13 on its way to the moon, suffered an oxygen tank blow on the command module and the three astronauts, James Lovell, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise had a life or death situation on their hands because the tank explosion also ruined the power systems and ended any chance of accomplishing a landing.  The LM (lunar landing module), still in perfect working order, became the lifeboat and the means of arriving home.  Any problems that ensued the wunderkinds at NASA came to the rescue.  Of note, the jury-rigged carbon dioxide filter that could have ended the astronaut’s lives simply by exhaling.  Good thing they had duct tape onboard!

Jim Lovell’s Book

It’s probably best to go to the source.  Jim Lovell’s book, with co-author Jeffery Kluger, Apollo 13 published in 2000 for the 30th anniversary of the mission, is the recent version of Lost Moon, published in 1994.  It’s a gripping read and well written but filled with peculiarities and scientific oddities that Lovell should have addressed and corrected. 

The strangest part of the book is the constant use of weight as a measurement system.  For example, on page 123, it is stated that the fuel cells were pressurized at 300 pounds per square inch and one of the damaged oxygen tanks was leaking, and eventually, 218 pounds of oxygen would bleed off.  (Page 104 lists 320 pounds of oxygen in the tank before the damage took place.) 

My word, that 1960’s NASA technology is amazing!  Only they could have a tank holding over 200 pounds of oxygen in zero gravity!  I fail to understand how this is possible or how weight such as this, could be measured in a gravity free environment.  Perhaps they used some other method of measuring the volume in the tank?  There is the other issue of pressuring tanks at “pounds per square inch” or PSI, which is a pressure system based on gravity—pounds equals weight.   How does that translate to zero G?   It is common knowledge that in zero gravity everything weighs nothing. If you read the reviews of the book on Amazon, most of which offer high praise, nobody ever points this out. 

This weight issue drives through many of the areas of this Apollo 13 account, as well as many other books by the other astronauts. 

In another example, after the explosion, Jim Lovell had a hard time at first keeping both spacecraft's attitude in proper alignment.  The reason given on page 148 is that the added “weight” of the command module, coming in at 63,400 pounds, was causing the problem.  I kid you not!  It was actually stated that the attached command module was throwing off “the center of gravity” of the ships.   As if there is a center of gravity in no gravity!  Please note this is not an issue on a normal mission when the command module is in control and LEM is docked and not being used to transit to the moon.  But suddenly there is a problem with a dead command module.

And they don’t stop there.  Later, NASA had the backup astronauts test various strategies in the flight simulators, such as piloting the LM with the added “weight” of the command module docked (p. 225).  Again, what weight?  Why is this irrelevant and time wasting exercise?

They are in zero gravity, everything weighs nothing.  And not a single reviewer of this book on Amazon has an issue with this.  

Obviously, I have no background in astrophysics.  But what is written in this account of the Apollo disaster makes no relative sense.  The authors are saying that weight in zero gravity exists and is producing an influence on many spacecraft systems from fuel tanks to flight attitude control.  (This carries over to the Apollo 13 Mission Report, link below, that states at launch there was 338 pounds of water in the LM.  At the end there was 50 pounds left.  Where is the weight coming from? How would they possibly measure it?  Even NASA, it seems, is into this weight in zero gravity nonsense.)

They are in zero gravity, everything weighs nothing.  And not a single reviewer of this book on Amazon has an issue with this.  

Perhaps this account of Apollo 13 is a book written in a dumbed down fashion, so the average person could enjoy the narrative and the heroics and not get bogged down in technical details.   And it should be noted that there are various technical facts that are omitted.  One may research elsewhere online to uncover those details.  

Did this dramatic event actually happen?

Addendum  3.3.19

Added to the links below is the Apollo 13 Mission Report.  Some of it is at odds with Jim Lovell’s book.  

Sources

Apollo 13, Jim Lovell with Jeffery Kluger, Houghton Milfflen Company, 2000.

Center of gravity, center of mass

https://study.com/academy/lesson/understanding-the-center-of-mass-center-of-gravity.html

Apollo 13 Mission report

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/A13_MissionReport.pdf

Seven Years An Image Reviewer

Experiences as a stock image reviewer.

For seven years I reviewed images for Bigstockphoto, the online stock image agency till myself and 15 other reviewers were laid off in the summer of 2017. Not surprisingly, it was a result of an all to common occurrence in American employment—outsourcing to Asia.

What follows are my experiences as a stock image reviewer.   All reviewers sign a Non Disclosure Agreement and the terms of my NDA have expired in September of this year.  I will not list any names of supervisors or fellow reviewers. I will also not describe any proprietary processes, applications or user interfaces.  I hope to give a good overview of what reviewing is like and what image reviewers experience.  

Getting Started

Online stock agencies, call Microstock, got its launch in the early 2000’s.  Based on the crowd sourcing model, it was a way for people sell images for under a dollar a picture.  It remained controversial for many years as it was seemed to undermine traditional photography agencies.  In many ways it has.  Bad press implied the quality was poor, but Microstock has grown into a multi-million dollar business and many professionals sell their work thru these online sites.  Just check the credits that following most TV shows and you will see such agencies as Shutterstock, iStockphoto and many others listed.  

I had been into photography for 30 years both professionally and for fun before I started in 2005 with iStockphoto, Shutterstock and Fotolia.  In 2009 I saw a job listing for reviewers at Shutterstock. I sent in a resume and forgot about it.   A year later I got an email asking if I was still interested.  I was even though I would be reviewing for Bigstockphoto, owned by Shutterstock.  I went thru a brief training course that included a conference call with senior reviewers and the department head, followed up with sample images to review which were in turn, gone over by a senior reviewer.  After that I was free to start reviewing and given access to the reviewer interface.  

The Image Reviewers

Image reviewers hold one of the most important positions in a stock agency.  Through the reviewers the content being submitted is filtered and available for sale.  Few agencies I am aware of hire them as salaried employes.  Virtually all are independent contractors working out of their homes and living all over the world.  They exist under the crowd sourcing model and are paid less than the submitting image makers. However, unlike the image contributors, they do earn money on a much more consistent basis.  No waiting around hoping an image might sell.  

The reviewers are the most reviled people in online stock photography.  Photographic forums often feature complaints for rejections, which by the contributor are always considered unjust and in personal experience, this is not without merit. Weird things can and do happen.  A photographer once complained on a forum that his images of mannequins were rejected for not having model releases!  I don’t know how this kind of thing happens or why a reviewer would make such a glaring and ridiculous mistake.  One common complaint is for images rejected that are good sellers at other agencies.  I have had the same thing happen to my images.  This is what happens when a reviewer is granted complete independence.  It is their call whether an image is commercial or not.  For good or for ill.

Eventually, crazy theories start making rounds regarding what goes on in the reviewing process.  Such as reviewers being bots and not real people.  Let me assure you, there are real people reviewing stock.  But theories like that only develop because some of the reviewing is bad or weird enough to make people think the image isn’t being actually seen by someone.  Such as an AI bot coldly analyzing the image data.  Not now, but perhaps someday in the future as AI grows in capabilities, it could happen.

In The Early Days

Basically, as reviewers, we were on our own.  At the start it was apparently that not much had been worked out regarding many reviewing processes.  A lot of things were done on the fly.  That changed over time with lots of developments regarding admin access, communication with fellow reviewers and monthly webinars to learn the latest rules for accepting or rejecting images.  Communication was simple at first just using IM.  We could see our fellow reviewers but had no interaction with them. Towards the end of my time we migrated over to an IM app where all of the reviewers could chat and provide help to each other and get help and general group announcements from the senior reviewers.  This greatly improved communication speed among all concerned.

One of the more important additions to the review process was a Wiki.  As the image load increased, a flood of rules regarding copyright issues to adult content to all manor of issues, became a necessity.  This was generally followed up by emails.   At times it could be overwhelming with the flood of information to keep track of.  One of the main concerns was copyright issues.  This featured all kinds of things from color combos (John Deere), to unusual things such as the scraggly Cypress tree at the Pebble Beach golf course. (Who knew you could copyright a tree!) And it was more than just images.  Well known brand names could not be used in titles, descriptions or keywords.  What to accept and what to reject was a constantly changing process and the Wiki was a great help to keep track of the thousands of rules which would not be possible to remember on a day to day basis.  Images that were rejectable could be redeemed later and be acceptable.  

Basically, a reviewer was paid .06 an image.   A bonus of $50 was awarded for meeting a quota of 10,000 images in a month.  However, a common feature involving crowd sourcing is when they discover that the peasants are making too much money, they changed the quota to 7 days.  It generally took me 2 weeks to make 10k so I never did get any bonus pay after that.  Once I developed a knowledge of what to keep and what to reject, I was reviewing over 20,000 images a month.  And that was working every day of the month to get there.  

The Contributors

One surprise to me starting out is how many contributors were Russian or eastern European.  Most model images I reviewed were of Russian, Ukrainian or anywhere in Europe.  I never did understand why Russians took such great interest in super low paying stock photography, unless the exchange rate is very good for their currency.   While very true, the slavs are a handsome people and make great models, but this results in a lack of ethnic diversity.  Hence, most models were Caucasian with Asians and Hispanics being the second largest group and Black people trailed last.  When I did see black models they were generally not Americans or from Africa, but European.  In fact, I rarely saw models from America of any race.

Because of the large influx of images from Russia and surrounding countries, a huge problem arose with them not understanding English.  This resulted in them not understanding the rules for submitting, keywording and describing images.  Whatever translation apps they were using resulted in bizarre or hilarious descriptions for images.  Here are some samples:

Merganser birds goo sander animals duck wild  (Duck on the water.)

Various herbs are zerkleiert in mortar to prepare Globulis. (Various herbs with pestle and mortar.)

Corn heads of cabbage on an old table.  (Ears of corn on a table. No cabbage in image.)

Little puppy cat climb on the plant.  (Kitten climbing a tree.)

Corrugated wafer.  (A waffle.)

As one can plainly see, these descriptions are obviously unusable and these images were declined.  At times it was like reading descriptions of things from a member of a stone age tribe.  The translation software must have improved over time as I saw fewer examples of this towards the end.

Since many contributors from eastern Europe cannot speak English, one mistake I keep seeing is their word cloud illustrations with multi-syllable phases chopped up.  Such as the example below:

Guar

antee

It’s Guarantee.  The separation is not at the syllable breaks so it appears as a two misspelled unpronounceable words.  No hyphen used either, adding to this mess.   At first I thought this was some language I was unfamiliar with.  In that case, it would be rejected since Bigstock was English-only at the time.  It was also the result of composition errors as this person had squared off the frame rather than leaving it rectangular.  Regardless, this is unacceptable and was rejected.  

VIP’s and Image Placement

For a while, some contributors were designated as VIPs.  They were ranked 1, 2 and 3.  Their images were to be given cursory review and accepted.  In other words, they were given a pass.  I assume this was done for photographers considered to be high-end and high production professionals.  Their images were place high in the search routines.  Some of the more well known photographers in Microstock were given this advantage.  But over time, some VIPs (especially those in the 2 and 3 ranking) came to abuse their privileges with poor quality work, focus and noise issue, bad keywording, descriptions, grammar and spelling.  After all, they knew whatever they uploaded would sail thru the review process. This did not go unnoticed and it was ended not long after I started. 

At the beginning when reviewing images, we were allowed to leave messages for corrections to be made and then resubmitted.  The previous reviewer’s comments was included with the image if the photographer had not followed instructions.  Which was common.  This most likely was due to language barriers.  Though not a general rule, after three strikes I would decline. 

At one point reviewers were allowed the option of placing a rating of 1, 2 or 3 on reviewed images for placement in the search. One mini-scandal occurred when it was discovered that reviewers that were submitting their own photos or illustrations to Bigstock would randomly come across their own submissions, pass them through and with a “1” rating.  A group message via IM was sent out to knock it off.  I know of no reviewer that was dismissed because of this.  I never submitted to Bigstock to avoid an apparent conflict of interest. (Later this optional rating would reappear as five stars.) 

I was often amazed at how people would not follow rules and guidelines.  If they did they could have a better acceptance rate for their images.  I saw a batch once from a guy that had a large portfolio of images submit a batch of model photos with no model releases.  Maybe he just forgot that day.  I had to reject them all.

And speaking of that, model releases were a huge problem.  Quite often they were not filled out properly.  Every kind of mistake they could make I’ve seen from no witness signature to missing names and dates.  I saw an ID where the address on the ID did not match the address written for the model.  One young photographer who was her own model, thought it might be okay to be the witness too.  Nope, doesn’t work that way.  Sometimes they would submit the model release upside down or sideways.  All of these things are returns at the beginning and rejections towards the end of my tour of duty.  

Keyword spamming was another issue.  I found the worst offenders of this to be food photographers, who would often list items not seen in the image.  If they had a picture of beef they would list pork as well.  And vise-versa.  Sometimes they would list a whole range of meats not seen—beef, pork, chicken, lamb.  It was very rare to see a food photographer that did not do this.  The issue occurred with seafood photos as well.  If a photograph featured salmon, every fish in the sea got a listing (which could also include chicken, pork, etc.).  It was not till much later that spamming, or wrong keywords for the subject, got to be a reason for rejection.

Image Content

Probably the worst thing about reviewing images is seeing the same old thing over and over again.  Most contributors have no creative vision and are largely copycatting what they see from other photographers.  So one sees a lot of flowers, cats napping on the sofa, brick walls, and the all time favorite, a cup of coffee imbedded in a pile of coffee beans.  When they figure out how to photograph an object on a white background, out comes all the knickknacks off the shelf.  Too bad that many don’t clean the gunk and dust off the things when viewed at 100%.  After a while I thought, “These people would shoot a picture of a weed growing out of a crack in the street.”  Sure enough, no long after, I saw it.  The weed growing out of the crack.

After a while you realize most of these people don’t know what they are doing.  Either with composing a photograph or understanding what market an image is for or how it is going to be used to communicate a message.  This is after all, commercial photography and few to seem to understand the commercial needs of the marketplace.  Some people were bound to take snap shots of whatever crossed their viewfinder.  Ad agencies really don’t need pictures of dog poop or road kill covered in vultures.

The people I felt the worst for were not the rank amateurs.  It was the talented people with professional equipment and photographic skills, excellent locales and professional models that were selling their pictures for pennies.  I do not know it if was ever possible for them to earn a living this way. Yet they were abundant in their submissions. 

Some photographers were quite good.  One that stood out for me was a Frenchman that took pictures of a variety of subject matter, avoiding the clichés, including shots at crazy angles but well composed with good lighting.  He has the talent of taking of ordinary things and making them look beautiful and interesting.  For this article, I googled his work to see if he was still uploading.  And yes, he is still shooting stock with the same high quality as the first time I saw it a few years ago.  Jacques Palut.  Go see for yourself.

I was once told by one of the senior reviewers that my acceptance rate just over 40%.  He said their goal was to get an acceptance rate of 75%.  I didn’t see how that was going to be possible.  Many of these contributors were so incompetent that they could not get an image in focus even when using an autofocusing camera.  Many images I saw were never post-processed when viewed at 100%.  Many minor errors, such as sensor dust, could have been easily corrected.  If Photoshop is too expensive there are plenty of lower cost imaged editors and some useful free apps available.  It was as if they shot it and uploaded it straight from the camera.  Experienced photographers know that the images out of the camera are just the first step in a proper workflow.  

Many contributors were ignorant of many basic photography concepts but one I saw a lot regarded what a panorama format image is.  It’s basically a long horizontal image with a 4:10 to 10:1 aspect ratio.  Many people uploaded square or vertical images and called them panoramas.  I did my best to correct this by sending them back with a note, but was eventually told to knock it off.  As I was once told, the costumers will buy anything.  This was evidences during performance reviews where I was sent pictures I had rejected and I was told I should have accepted them.  Some were truly awful and I was annoyed that I should have accepted such rubbish.  I got the feeling that they didn’t want the image quality of Bigstock to overshadow the quality at Shutterstock, the flagship agency and the owner of Bigstock.  

Things I Never Imagined

I don’t know what I expected starting in as an image reviewer.  I guess I was hoping for more professionalism from the contributors.  Of that, I was sorely disappointed.  A lot of people constantly tried to game system that has been set up for them to have an ease of use and to be able to market their images.

For example, a description for an image had a a 7 word minimum.  Many sought to get around this by using periods, exclamation marks, dashes, spaces, or commas.  I wondered how so many people learned to do that?  I never saw this mentioned on any photography forums.  Or why they thought using 7 words was so much trouble.  Or why it wouldn’t be caught.

Other people liked to use their keywords and attempt to craft a description of an image from them.  I guess that thought that would help advance their pictures higher in the search engine (which it did not).  This only resulted in a grammatical meltdown.  Example description for an image of a sandwich:  Healthy wheat sandwich burger with BBQ grilled chicken steak cheese tomato rocket salad cucumber fried potato and mustard sauce served for eating on wooden board.  

Yes, rocket was listed too!  

Sometimes they would write a description that became philosophical  or too opinionated.  As in this description:

“A frozen leaf on the ground surrounded by grass and smaller leaves. The play on words was too tempting. I am dying, leaf me alone…”

One of the big surprises came from the guy in the Netherlands that found a way to bulk upload tens of thousands of images clogging up the image queue.  I noticed it one morning when I was reviewing his CGI abstract watercolors.  As I went thru the batches I noticed it was never ending.  Picture after picture. I looked at the details of the upload and counted the pages.  I don’t recall the exact amount but it was over 20,000 images.  It was a shocker!  I wondered if this guy had a team gathered to mass submit his files.  I did not report this up the chain because I thought with their analytic tools they would have discovered this event.  As it turned out, they did not know!  It took them a few days to suss this out.  The guy was using an app that encoded all the meta data into the images and this allowed him to flood the site.  Anyway, he was asked not to do that again.  They were very kind.  I would suspended his uploading privileges for a month, if not forever.  

I look back at something like that and consider how selfish and ruthless all of that was. This guy was not just gaming the system, he was abusing it.  Besides that, it caused other contributors to wait even longer to get their images processed thru the queue.  And all because one illustrator wanted to get the jump on the competition.  

However, for the illustrators that played by the rules, it was not unusual to see portfolios in the 100,000 or 200,000 image range. I don’t know if these contributors had a group of people working for them or not.  On the other hand, I saw portfolios where a photographer had a few hundred pictures accepted but thousands rejected.  I don’t know what kept them going, but they kept banging away like John Henry with his nine pound hammer.

Regarding illustrations, the illustrators would often create logos.  I always wondered about the use of logos since they could be sold multiple times.  What if two different purchasers bought the same logo and tried to use it?  What kind of legal battles would ensue?  None that I know of.  

One time, an illustrator was creating logos for hypothetical web sites.  Curious, I decided to look up the URLs associated with the logos.  It turned out some were legitimate web sites!  With their own designed logos already in use.  I sent this up the chain, and was told they appreciated my research but not to spend too much time on it.  Okay, so I let it go.  But I thought it was worthy of looking into.  The designer had not bothered to do the proper URL research and was uploading graphics that if bought, would be useable.  

Heading Home

Towards the end they decided to bring all of us reviewers on under the Shutterstock tent and we had to redo our application process which included watching instructional videos regarding image reviewing Shutterstock style, and as a final exam, review 60 image and score a 90% on the test.  After that we were considered to be Shutterstock employees.  Rather odd definition since we were still independent contractors with no benefits.  

It started out being a free wheeling occupation and ended up highly restricted.  Early on, I had my run of photos, editorial images, vectors or 3D illustrations.  It was a nice variety of images and styles and help break up the monotony.  Seeing loads of brick walls, pets,  and the never ending parade of flowers can be mind numbing.  Towards the end, new policies were in place to segregate the reviewers into review groups for these specific image types.  I don’t recall why this was done, unless it was under the guise of efficiency.  So I ended reviewed photographs and nothing else.  We were divided up into Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 levels.  The former restricted to 6,000 a week and the latter 12,000 images a week.  That of course reduced the amount of income one could make reviewing.  And that was probably the point.

When I was let go it followed no pattern.  I had seniority over other reviewers but it didn’t matter.  Different levels of experience both old and new were let go.  I felt the worst for the newer reviewers as they had a crash course in learning the review processes just be tossed out.  Really, why make us go through so much trouble with extra training just to dismiss 16 of us so quickly a few months later?  Maybe it was a decision that was made in another part of the corporate structure and slowly made landfall with us.  Or, could have been a last minute decision.  Such is the nature of business in these times.

Let me state that while I enjoyed my time reviewing images I took no pleasure in rejecting people’s submissions.  Having had my on images rejected, sometimes fairly, sometimes not, so I know the demoralizing feeling that rejection sends.  But I learned from it and worked harder at improving my photography and illustration skills.  I was hoping the rejected photographer would learn the same.  Unfortunately, many I saw did not improve at all.  They just kept hammering away, as if to show defiance, that you can’t hurt me.

The senior reviewers were great to work with and took care of us.  If there was a payment error they took care of it quickly. If you can get a position like this, it makes for a great home job, especially if you have an ill family member to take care of, or as in my case, an elderly parent to look after.