Participant

Question

I would really appreciate input on rejection, if anyone is willing and able

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
May 13, 2023
4 replies
1331 views

I would love insight as to why my images are being rejected for quality. I always edit at 200-300% then verify at 100% and "fit on screen" before submission. All of my AS rejections have been accepted to other stock agencies. Some of my recent ones are most confusing because in the string of submissions, of all the ones taken on the same day with the same camera and lenses in the same place, some were accepted and some weren't for "quality issues". I do know that I have missed obvious things in the past (which is why I edit zoomed in so much) so would really like help so I can learn from what I am doing wrong and fix it moving forward. I don't know if you can see the last rejections or if I have to load them all but I don't think anyone wants to look at all 15 images so I'll just post a few that have me most confused. I really want to improve and learn so please, let me have it!

Contributor critique

This topic has been closed for replies.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

I wouldn't waste my time with clouds. There's almost no sales potential given how many clouds are already offered.

20+ million clouds.

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=clouds

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

Abambo

Community Expert

It's never an argument that a picture has been accepted elsewhere. Adobe is known to be quite picky. And you saw with the spot, that there is a reason for this. We do not know, however, which defect the moderator saw. They refuse on the first problem they see. There is no need to continue checking then.

Same day, same camera, same lens are also strange arguments. It's true, that especially a good lens helps making better pictures, but that does not mean, that there are variations in the quality of the image. Sometimes it's the camera, most often the photographer making bad decisions.

As we are fellow contributors, we do not have insights into your account. And yes, it's considered to be impolite, to drop here dozens of pictures, and asking the community to check them all. Very often all submissions have similar troubles and we can expect that people check their own pictures too, as soon as they learned where to look. So we are thankful, that you did spare us the whole batch and only posted a handful. But you should always upload the files as submitted. Your first is not only watermarked, but also reduced in size. That makes it difficult to check some of the most common issues: sharpness and artefacts.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Jill_C

Community Expert

1. Sensor/lens spot in the sky; not in sharp focus; watermarks not permitted

2. Artifacts in the lower portion of the sky

3. Soft focus. The trees in the horizon should have been in focus; the composition is not optimum - rule of thirds should have been applied in this case

4. Person is not in sharp focus - perhaps motion blur ?
5. Underexposed foreground

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

tsg89005837Author

Participant

I very much appreciate your insightful answers and your time. If you will indulge me further, I have a few questions to see if it adds any clarity or changes anything at all (may/may not), knowing intention and comments on just three.

#1, I uploaded the wrong version here. Watermarked version was not uploaded as an asset. I specified "selective focus" in title and keywords because I wanted to add depth to show how vast it is here. If not for the sensor spot (which I am embarassed I missed when removing the others) would it be acceptable? I ask because if selective focus isn't allowed on AS then I will stop doing it, moving forward! If it is then I would like to learn how best to accomplish something that would be permitted.

#3 Kind of same as above, where I focused on one area of the clouds to the front so the entire cloudscape wouldn't be in focus, showing depth and vastness (or attempt to do so, anyway) for use as a sky replacement or background. I specified sky replacement and background in title and keywords. I know that when I try to do a sky replacement, I get irritated having to remove trees, rooftops, land, etc, so I wanted to make it as close to the horizon as possible. For replacement purposes and for use as background or textures, is it really best to add a rule of thirds for submission? If so, I will stop getting close to the horizon, moving forward, and use a greater depth of field if fading to out of focus isn't desirable in sky replacement and background/texture.

#6. This is the one that confused me the most. It was a silhouette, listed as a silhoette. By definition, shouldn't everything else be underexposed, thus creating the silhouette? I have had other silhouette sunrise potos accepted so that's why I'm confused. Is it just that it's 0 instead of, say, 30 for exposure in the blacks? A silhouette shouldn't be pure black? I will adjust to what I need to (I darkened the blacks to get as dark as possible to exaggerate the silhouette and eliminate anything but the water, fog and sunrise) moving forward. I just have others accepted using the same technique so am confused if this is a subjective thing by the particular viewer or a hard and fast rule that got by, previously. I want to be accepted, not waste my time, so please tell me so I can get it right in the future.

Jill_C

Community Expert

#1 - Here's my trick for hunting down all sensor spots: In LRC push the Dehaze slider all the way to the right. The spots will be very obvious. Heal them all, then recenter the Dehaze slider. As to selective focus, certainly that's ok in certain situation; however in this case I can't really find anything in focus. The Moderators aren't necessarily going to use your title or keywords to figure out what you're attempting to do in an image.

#3 - Not all images need to comply with the rule of thirds, but there's so little foreground here that it provides no context whatsoever as to the environment that is being portrayed. The sky wouldn't have been any less interesting with more foreground to look at. And it's the foreground that needs to be in focus.

#6 - I think the major issue with including a lot of pure black in your images is that it doesn't print well. We have to think of the commercial applications that our images might be used for.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

RALPH_L

Community Expert

Focus is to soft

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.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded