Abambo, we're talking at cross-purposes.  Yes, RF means the customer doesn't pay for further licencing.  But Google "copyright payback schemes" to see that ALL sales, including RF, are eligible for payback schemes. ... View more

I don't think you're getting it.  I make a couple thousand dollars a year on payback schemes based almost exclusively on data from Alamy and Getty.  They routinely provide the info I am looking for.  It's basic info on type of usage (magazine, book, newspaper, web...) and region (country).   Providing this information does not impact a customer.  Back when RM image sales predominated, this info was routine.  For RF, not so much.  But this has changed in recent years with these other libraries.  Since I'm making a lot of sales on Adobe now, I thought I'd ask again.  ... View more

I didn't think it likely but thought I'd ask.  I need it for royalty payback schemes in some countries.  Of course, learning that an image was licensed by a book published in the UK (for example) involves no loss of privacy.  Thanks all for replying.   ... View more

Nancy, this shot is not a composite.  It's a straight shot out of the camera.  I just lit the oversized sock more brightly since this was the focus of the image.  It's also a 14 year old image.  For all we know the reviewer just didn't like the dark "shadows" in the fireplace.  Although not "blocked" they do go down to 5/255. ... View more

Well, all four images were taken with off camera flash.  They are a bit cool, but the colors are true.  I'm beginning to see that theses are not "technical" rejections as I would understand the term.  There is nothing here I can fix, so I'll just move on.  Thanks for the feedback everyone.  What I'd really like to hear is the rationale from the reviewer themself, but alas, that is not to be. ... View more

That may be it.  I just wish there were more categories than "technical issues".  That could be anything.  If the reviewer didn't like the image, I'm good with that.  But if the reviewer sees a true technical problem, I'd like to get a hint about what it is since I take pride in technically excellent images. ... View more

The girls face as NO artifacts.  That's a reflection of the fireplace metal screen.  It's a fireplace after all.  She is out of focus on purpose.  The focus is on the stocking.  No idea why you think the home made stocking looks unnatural.  It's perfectly lit.  None of these are "technical" reasons for rejection though.  And why refect all the dozens and dozens of other images?  I was hoping for a general theme for all the rejections.  Now I'm back to a 10 Mp camera.  Surely that's not it since many others images from this set passed.  I remain mystified. ... View more

We'll agree to disagree.  The composition is exactly what I intended and would do well even in a photoclub competition.  But that's not what we're doing here.  It has also sold many times at other agents.  It is shadows on a painted truck but also looks like a lake at sunset through the trees.  Color temperature is perfect.  I have no problem getting my images rejected since I'm mostly an editorial shooter and so more than half my portfolio does not now fit AS.  But not for technical reasons. ... View more

I take it by the lack of helpful responses no one else can figure it out either.  I'll try re-submitting.  Maybe a reviewer was having a bad day. ... View more

OK, thanks.  That's very helpful! ... View more

Here are two other rejected images with different subjects. ... View more

Interesting that the image I uploaded (4928 x 3254 pixels) matches my color calibrated screen in photoshop at small size.  However when I click the + magnifier, the image stays small, but the saturation goes way up.  Since Adobe can't handle Adobe RGB images, I converted this to sRGB, so that shouldn't be the problem.  Makes one wonder what the reviewers see. ... View more

OK, this is the image in question.  Downsized and compressed from 130 MB TIFF. ... View more

I don't use FTP, just the online uploader. I just re-uploaded the file, and the keywords came through fine.  But since I now suspect my keywords were stripped out on submission, this doesn't tell me much. "No keywords are automatically deleted" but my example shows me that keywords can indeed be accidentally deleted by the system.  Maybe it's just a rare one-off.  But I'll come back here if it happens again. Cheers, and thanks for all your help ... View more

OK Mat, I get all that.  But your response makes me wonder if you got what I was saying.      "If you upload files without keywords already embedded in the metadata..." Whatever gave you that idea?  I never upload files without the title/caption and keywords attached.  I can only work on one image at a time because I need to re-arrange the first five keywords of each image. My problem stemmed from Adobe deleting all my keywords (not the caption) on import (or submission, I can't tell).  This is only the second upload after about 1500 images where I have submitted all my images for approval BEFORE taking the time to re-order keywords (and therefore checking that they are right).  Therefore, if the keywords were deleted on submission, I would not have noticed this glitch before.  This is one image out of 100 or so in which I spotted this problem. What do you think - does Adobe occasionally delete keywords on upload, or more likely on submission?  If it's submission, then it might be worth my while to go back through my existing port' to check that the keywords are mine.  Since I've seen more than 1500 images go through upload intact, I'm thinking the submission process striped the keywords in this 1 out of 100 files. ... View more

Thanks Abambo.  I think what you're saying is that once approved, I can no longer re-import the keywords originally attached to my submitted image back into the image in my portfolio in one go. You're saying that when Adobe's software messes up like this, I have to re-type my 30-50 or so keywords one at a time.  I guess Adobe's import engine didn't recognize my keywords and therefore thought the IPTC field was empty and filled it with some AI estimates (mostly wrong).  I haven't seen this with any other stock site, so this is a glitch I will have to watch out for at Adobe.  It would be better if this could get fixed on the import programming side.  I'd rather have the image rejected as not coming through intact than to have to re-type all my keywords. ... View more

I too had an approved image with random and wrong keywords applied. The image is now in my Portfolio.  How do I add all my correct keywords?  I can delete each wrong keyword (such as Spain when the image is in England) by clicking the edit button to the right of the keywords.  How do I "deactivate paste keywords" and where is the "first dialog box"? Thanks ... View more

I think you can tell by the contradictory advice that only the reviewer knows for sure.  The blurry brandy glass is certainly fine (nothing to do with exposure).  I also think your image is fine as is.  I doubt the advice above will change the reviewers mind (but who knows). My suggestion would be to make the image brighter.  Brighten the tablecloth on the left side and that will likely brighten the dark chocolate cake a bit too.  I find the AS obsession with "exposure" a bit bizarre. ... View more

I hear you.  But out of the dozens of stock sites I've dealt with over the years, all have either required or favored Adobe RGB for the wider gamut.  It is a surprise that Adobe Stock is the first I've seen that asks for sRGB. And yes, an Adobe RGB image will look awful in an sRGB color space that is not color managed (most are these days).  The contrast of the image will be much lowered. I did bump the curve up in the middle (the histogram itself looked perfect) and resubmitted.  We'll see.  Thanks for the feedback. ... View more