Participating Frequently

Answered

Feedback on rejected images

Forum|Forum|7 months ago
August 29, 2025
5 replies
1248 views

I've figured out Shutterstock and am trying to expand to Adobe. I realize the quality expectations are different for different stock sites, but I can't seem to nail down what the biggest issues are with my images not being accepted. There doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason as to why some are accepted and not others, other than for "Quality" issues. I am using my Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra phone camera. So, maybe my camera settings need fine-tuning? Or is it my composition, etc? Please share your tips, I'm new to this stock photo gig! Attached are several that didn't make the cut. THANKS! 🙂

Contributor critique

Correct answer Jill_C

This blocky look, and the general lack of detail, is usually what makes images from small sensir cameras, I.e. phone cameras, unacceptable for stock. The image also has chroma noise in the sky.

christink89579149

Participating Frequently

I agree, I have the same problem, wondering if even though there are guidelines, that maybe it depends on the moderator? Sometimes one day most will be accepted, another day most will be rejected. (usually for "quality"). I have been shocked by what's been accepted vs. rejected, so I submit things I have NO idea how they'll do, just because it IS so unpredictable! I really like that last shot of yours.

M

Mountain Girl ForschAuthor

Participating Frequently

That truly was the crux of my question! There is no rhyme or reason! Thank you for your comment, and I'm happy to know that I'm not the only one experiencing inconsistencies. Happy day to you!

christink89579149

Participating Frequently

Happy day to you as well, and best of luck to you! I'm new here as well. We will learn the ropes!:)

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

This is what you're competing with in Stock inventory. This is bold & dramatic photography worthy of commercial use.

Stock customers expect commercial quality assets for use in professional projects — print, digital and textile.
Your competition is using dedicated 20-40 megapixel cameras.
That's not to say you can't get decent snapshots under ideal conditions with a 12 megapixel smartphone, but it's much harder to do because your equipment is so limited.

If you're serious about becoming a Stock photographer,

1. Enroll in some photography courses to learn the basics.

2. Join a photography club for practice & feedback.

3. Start saving for a good entry-level camera (new or used) + lenses & tripod.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-camera-for-beginners-best-entry-level-dslr-mirrorless-and-compact-cameras

Hope that helps.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

M

Mountain Girl ForschAuthor

Participating Frequently

THANKS! I'm not too serious; I'm just doing it for fun as a hobby. 🙂 The feedback I've gotten here has been super helpful.

Ricky336

Community Expert

Even though you may not be too serious, you could read more about composition. In order to get sales, your photos need to have something!

A 'wow' factor. Composition can help to get this.

Composition:
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/photo-composition.html

Jill_C

Correct answer

Community Expert

This blocky look, and the general lack of detail, is usually what makes images from small sensir cameras, I.e. phone cameras, unacceptable for stock. The image also has chroma noise in the sky.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

RALPH_L

Community Expert

20240721_133609: Poorly cropped and slanted.

20250614_154830: slanted and too little depth-of-field.

20250613_173042: focus too shallow and oversaturated.

20250722_215328: underexposed.

M

Mountain Girl ForschAuthor

Participating Frequently

Perfect, just what I needed to know. THANKS! 🙂

daniellei4510

Community Expert

The horse is too closely cropped. The horizon is slanted in the example below. I don't think your phone is capturing the detail Adobe looks for when it comes to stock. Viewed at 200%, details become kind of mushy is some areas, and I personally feel that if a buyer should want to enlarge an asset, details should still hold up to some extent. The barn with saddles, for example. There are burned out highlights (that might be recoverable), but it also seems to scream to be a horizontal image rather than vertical. And you're correct. Shutterstock's buyers are different from Adobe's buyers, who are largely corporations and businesses looking for extremely high-quality assets pertaining to same. Phone images DO get excepted here, but I think it's relatively rare in comparison to images taken with actual cameras.