Dear Adobe Stock - please use a human rather than a machine to check submissions!!!

Question

I accept and wholeheartedly support that Adobe needs to apply a high level of quality control for the stock images it markets. I also accept that the commercial value or desirability of images are very subjective and even technically good images may be rejected due to duplication or over representation within Adobes catalogue.

What I do not accept is when an image is rejected due to so called artifacts or out of focus when the image is clearly effected by neither. Having uploaded a large number of images, all taken with professional quality cameras, carefully processed (moderately) and checked at 100% (often more) to confirm no artifacts, aberrations, noise, exposure issues etc. plus checking for sharpness and focus on a high resolution calibrated monitor. Many of these images have been printed at large format and display no such issues. Others have already been used in both print and digital media without issue elsewhere.

It is so frustrating to put in numerous hours tagging photos (especially since the transfer of keywords from Lightroom isn’t complete) only to have them bulk rejected (clearly by machine given the timing) with dubious rulings. Initially I went back into a few images, double checked them, confirmed no issues. Then uploaded again. For some a different so called technical error, others the same again.

Whats more surprising images I considered marginal for IQ passed without issue! I'm not talking about asthetics, commercial or subject matter here, but based on technical aspects.

Perhaps Adobe could allow us to bulk upload and check our images for a pass or fail on their machine screening before we went to the trouble of tagging and naming them? Whilst this wouldn’t change the rejection ratio, it would save us lots of time.

For me, I’m going to stop wasting my time with Adobe and utilise a competitor market my stock photos. One that actually uses a human to check image quality. With several hundred more images to upload the returns for the effort are just not viable with Adobe. Time better spent on capturing fine art images which yield a greater return.

joanH · Accepted Answer

Hi,a problem with Focus Stacking is depending on how many images you combine here with the software that can result in an irregular depth of field. This seems to me to be the case in this picture. Some blurred areas in the image maybe have been interpreted by the selector as artifacts. Example:One should pay attention to check the even distribution of the depth of field in focus stacking shots carefully, as the software processing can result in several image errors with regard to joining and fading.Greets,v.pothHi,Without any additional magnification of these two photos, I immediately saw the problems VP expressed and then some.I have helped many excellent (artist) juries select artwork for entry into competitions and let me say, the jurors often run through the slides, of all media artwork, taking no more than a second or two on each slide. I have actually stopped the judging and asked them to take a second look at an exceptional piece. There is a mindset with every judge, they have decided what the trend is and what they want in the show. I stopped entering competitions long ago because of the bias of judges. GIve me a neutral machine anytime. To your photos above, I would have to look at each rock to determine where the noise and soft edges are. That takes too much time-- if I have to review 900 photos in one sitting. So, reject it to save time, maybe.VP offered expert information for you. He did not say these photos could satisfactorily be fixed. You sound like a reasonable guy with a sense of humor and I believe you will be back with even better work. Best regards, JH

v.poth · Answer

Hi,I don't think Adobe Stock rejects pictures deliberately, because they earn their money with them and therefore want to have and sell as many pictures as possible in their database.The technical, pictorial and legal requirements for a commercially usable image are defined by Adobe Stock and will be applied accordingly by the selectors in their evaluation.Believe me, there are many examples here in the forum, in which offerers think their pictures are error-free from their point of view, and with concrete consideration it turned out again and again that they actually were not. One thing I learned in my time here as a provider, the eyes of the photographer on his own work can very often be blind on one eye.It doesn't matter what you see on your monitor, but what the selectors see on hers matters, and I don't think they are of bad quality.The keywords and titles of the image must also be checked by the selectors, so that subsequent indexing after approval would only require a further check. That doesn't make much economic sense to a company, I mean.Greets,v.poth

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.