Participating Frequently

Question

About so-called Adobe Stock's "experts"

Forum|Forum|1 day ago
September 17, 2026
11 replies
118 views

In recent years, Adobe Stock has shifted from photographers-correctors- retouchers as experts to using the work of teenagers who've held only iPhones in their lives. Explaining things like depth of field with FF, composition, light etc. to these "experts" is pointless. I've been a photographer for over 40 years, including professionally, and I sold recently a lot of my photos on Fotolia. It's a shame, but Adobe Stock's level has fallen very low.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

What is your question?

We don’t control who joins the Stock Contributor program.

It’s open to everyone who meets the requirements, regardless of their experience or equipment.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/get-started/manage-your-account/sign-up-as-a-stock-contributor.html

For what it’s worth, I still have 7 film cameras that my photography friends jokingly refer to as ‘useless door stops.’ I still like film very much, even though it’s no longer practical for regular use.

Before photography, I worked in medical imaging. I guess you could say I learned to take pictures of people from the inside out.

If there’s willingness to learn, there’s room enough for everyone here.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

D

Dmytro25720280qh4wAuthor

Participating Frequently

That’s not the question. For me—as for many others—Adobe has always set the gold standard in photography. Now, however, the "smartphone-vision" held by so-called moderators leaves me baffled. But that’s OK, provided Adobe’s management is happy with it. After all, there are alternatives to Adobe Stock.
Of course, it’s not about the class of camera gear (personally, I shoot with just about anything—from a film Leica M5 to a smartphone, when I’ve left my photogear at home))

D

Dmytro25720280qh4wAuthor

Participating Frequently

You are wasting your time by taking things personally and judging people you don't know. You actually answered your own comment: "I know nothing about the moderators' competence, but I’ll defend them anyway."
To start with, take a look at these "photographs" from the Adobe top list.
1. https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/colorful-autumn-season-and-mountain-fuji-with-morning-fog-and-red-leaves-at-lake-kawaguchiko-is-one-of-the-best-places-in-japan/256100731

2. https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/sunlit-path-in-a-park-before-sunset/292873910

3. https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/beautiful-sunset-landscape-over-a-meadow-in-evening-colorful-sunlight-wallpaper/115237993

4. https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/idyllic-mountain-landscape-in-the-alps-with-blooming-meadows-in-springtime/315349043

5. https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/landscape-in-summer-with-trees-and-meadows-in-bright-sunshine/342735989

Is everything okay with them? What kind of moderators let that stuff through? Then, perhaps, we can move on to evaluating my small snapshots.

ZALEZPHOTO

Legend

Dear colleague, you make a partial valid point, and even sympathize with your frustration or whatever it is. I’m not sure who you’re b*tching is with, or what compels you to say Adobe Stock has fallen very low. Respectfully, you sound more like the teens with iPhones you speak about.

Before you continue assuming, I fell in love with photography in 1987, and have been shooting professionally for over 35 years. Almost two years ago I gave it Stock a third try with Adobe and Getty,

and my earning are getting me very excited. With just Adobe, It took 13 months to sell the first 1000 assets, 7 months to sell the next 1000, and now on pace to reach the next 1000 in 5 months. For whatever reason I don’t understand, my success with adobe is about 3x better than with Getty Images.

What I have learned since I started this, is that my problem twice before was a lack of vision, patience and understanding, 100% a mindset problem.

I encourage you to focus on yourself and goals, and to start by not focusing on bashing “others” who have no bearing on your personal success.

Best Wishes!

ZALEZPHOTO

D

Dmytro25720280qh4wAuthor

Participating Frequently

Dear colleague, I certainly appreciate your willingness to offer advice and am happy for your commercial success. However, I actually started my photography journey a bit earlier—back in 1982.
Based on my observations of Adobe’s content and their image selection process, the standard of the moderators has dropped significantly since the Fotolia days. As an example, I’ve included five random top-selling images from the site in this post. Open them in Photoshop and look at the curves, for instance. Who approved them? Yet 95% of the images here are these flat, garishly colored things. If that’s considered acceptable, then there’s no point in continuing this discussion.
And yes, the moderation process affects the relationship with stock agencies, too—it’s not just about the photographer’s skill level. It’s a two-way street. B. R.

D

Dmytro25720280qh4wAuthor

Participating Frequently

P.S. By the way, could you please provide a link to your real portfolio on Adobe Stock?

RALPH_L

Community Expert

It is the job of the moderators to sort out the assets of poor quality. That is what they are trained for. The market decides if the quality standards have been met.

D

Dmytro25720280qh4wAuthor

Participating Frequently

2+2=4, the Earth is round—what else? Is the point of what was said even remotely clear?The whole point is that a moderator here really ought to have a background or experience in photography, print production, or the like—not just marketing. And "high quality" certainly doesn't mean having everything in the frame sharp—like on a smartphone—with oversaturated colors. Let me let you in on a "secret": photography didn't just appear yesterday with smartphones))

RALPH_L

Community Expert

Unlike you, I do not know what kind of training moderators have. Adobe does not share this information. They review several types of assets (photos, AI-generated, drawings, vectors).

Thanks for informing me that “photography didn’t just begin with smartphones”. I find your response directed to me as being very arrogant. I too am a photographer and have also worked professionally. That however, say nothing about my qualifications.

Todays smartphones, as well as DSLRs are quite capable of making high quality photos. Photos that do not meet the standards, regardless if smartphone or a DSLR, need to be edited to correct different faults.

Have you had a photo rejected for “quality” reasons that you feel should have been approved? If so, post your asset for us to review.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.