Known Participant

Answered

It's me again with issues on "Quality issues"

31 replies
303 views
Translate

I think Adobe should find another reason to reject photos instead of randomly citing “quality issues”.

A simple “No, we’re not interested” would be fine, because non-existent quality issues lead to frustration for the photographer and cast doubt on the evaluators’ actual competence.

Actually, sometimes they use “Similar content in our collection”, but it’s a bit strange that you can find nearly two millions of “Pink rose” but they discarded my “Squat lobster” even if they only have 600 or a small fish called Royal gramma with only 300 occurrences…

Anyways, I’d like to share these additional rejections (quality issues) that I’ve attached:

Leopard in high-key

Moray eel

Nudibranch

Batfish

I’d like to discuss them with you, if you like.

P.S. The response “Adobe aims for photos with commercial potential, and these don’t have it” is more than appropriate, but here we’re talking about quality.

Thank you for your attention

daniellei4510Correct answer

Community Expert

@Luigi_C Personally, I would never be able to handle the job as a moderator. I get tired of looking at my OWN work day after day. Moderators, I assume, have little to no experience as photographers beyond being trained about what to look for, such as noise, composition, poorly rendered AI, exposure, focus, etc. I liken them to film critics. They may not know how to write, direct, or produce a film, but they generally know when a movie is good or bad, and have their own opinions about what does and doesn’t work when it comes to a given film. They might not always agree with each other, and the best we as their readers can hope for is that their opinions are based on objective reasoning and not personal biases. And, hopefully, not for lack of proper training. I just hope moderators get a reasonable number of breaks during a given day, because I give myself plenty of them when it comes to editing.

Adobe Community Expert | I have miles to go before I sleep, but I'm all done on this end.

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

I understand how frustrating it can be when you just can’t get it right. However, most times refusal selected is the correct one. I don’t believe your main purpose for being here is to vent your frustration. I think you want to know what to look for so you can improve your next submission.

I’ll first address the similar refusals. The reviewers do more than just checking you images. They also check the caption and keywords. If you use the same batch of keywords for multiple assets, you are likely to get a similar refusal. If your caption is similar to another caption on the website, even though your asset is different, you are likely to get a similar refusal. It is best to add meta data to each of your files separately. Your caption and keywords must describe the file you’re uploading. You can learn more about similar contents here

The 4 file you post have genuine quality issues.

The first file has a white balance issue. It is a bit cool.

Too much of the second and third files are out of focus. As a result details are lost.

The highlights are too high for the fourth file. That file also has a white balance issue. If you look closely you will see a blue tint mainly concentrated around the edge of the subject.

Zoom in at between 100 and 200% and check your files for issues before submitting them.

Best wishes
Jacquelin

Translate

L

Luigi_CAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks,

I appreciate that you pointed out issues: I'll be more careful in the future.

I'm a bit surprised by the white balance point…

Thanks also for the hints on keywords, even though a batch of underwater pictures will finally have the same.

BTW, I noticed that if I upload 4 similar pics, 1 or 2 are rejected and the other are ok: but the funny thing is that's not always the best ones that are accepted.

Translate

daniellei4510

Community Expert

In theory, Adobe allows up to three images of the same subject so long as easy one is given a vastly different treatment. But since the start of the similar content rejections, I’ve been limiting such submissions to two. Also, if assets are so similar to each other that it’s difficult to provide unique keywords to them in terms of camera angles, lighting, the addition or removal of other objects, etc, then they probably are too similar to one another.

Translate

Adobe Community Expert | I have miles to go before I sleep, but I'm all done on this end.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

I think Adobe should find another reason to reject photos instead of randomly citing “quality issues”.

============

Would you like more direct refusal reasons? How about-- “Your photographic technique sucks, do better next time.“ Would that land better?

I’m joking of course. But quality is all about your technique. It covers a wide range of technical & artistic factors from composition, lighting, & depth-of-field to camera settings & aesthetic appeal. All those factors & more go into good Stock Quality Photos.

In another life, I worked at a 250,000 gallon marine aquarium, so I understand some of the challenges of underwater photography. It’s an imperfect science. Light waves & water waves intersect in haphazard directions. Salt, sand & plankton only add to the frustration. We rarely get perfect pictures in sea water. That’s why post-processing skills in Photoshop or Lightroom are vitally important to the success or failure of underwater images.

Translate

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

L

Luigi_CAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks,

yes, that made me laugh… but saying just quality issues is not very rewarding too because, sometimes, you don't know what the problem is: those are photos, not AI. The perfect shot doesn't exist (unless, in studio, maybe).

The good think of discuss with more people is that some details I didn't see were pointed out: the white bands of the Batfish overexposed, branches on the top border of the Leopard picture to remove… all good points.

True is that a WOW picture depends or by the subject (that should be ashtonishing - very rare) or an excellent technique. The two together are difficult to find.

Translate

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Some sites don’t bother giving a reason at all, and this forum is basically a courtesy established by Adobe for contributors to get help with their images when needed. Moderators can also only select one reason for rejection when there might be many, and they don't have the time to make individual comments. They probably have only seconds to make their decision before moving on to the next batch placed in front of them. As such, mistakes can be made, sometime for better or worse.

Translate

Adobe Community Expert | I have miles to go before I sleep, but I'm all done on this end.

Jill_C

Community Expert

In the third image (orange creature), remove the blownout spot and resubmit.

Translate

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

L

Luigi_CAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks,

yes, I could try to

Translate

N8.

@Luigi_C
let’s take the Jaguar image.
Potentially there is commercial value.
I would remove the strangling branches, do something w the sky, and find a way to make that Jag pop!
It is a cool image.

Nate

Translate

L

Luigi_CAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks and sorry I made some mess: this is not the best answer.

Well, the Leopard was badly backlit and this lead me to make the picture in high key.

I think the shape of the animal and the tree pop up pretty well particularly because the back is very clear and white.

Yes, probably removing some branches on the top border would have been an advantage

Translate

Jill_C

Community Expert

Though it appears that the cat is properly exposed, the entire image reads as over-exposed due to the bright sky. That’s easy to fix.

Translate

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

A

avid_Aurora3c09

Participant

Hello, 22 out of my 30 photos have been rejected due to quality issues or similar content. Ironically, the photos most resembling a 'typical photo' of a place are flagged for quality issues, and the ones I haven't seen anywhere have been labeled as 'similar content in our collection'. I don't think the reviewers' criteria are very appropriate.

Judge for yourselves if they seem like low quality; they are uncropped photos of the same quality as other approved ones.
https://gyazo.com/e68d77956a3771e9e1e151d97303a036

Translate

L

Luigi_CAuthor

Known Participant

Actually it is impossible to evaluate your pictures from the screen shot you attached. A part the cats the Halstatt shots might be fine although very common

Translate

A

avid_Aurora3c09

Participant

Sure, the intention isn't to send all 22 photos through here, but I think it's clear that many rejected images—all of them flagged for quality issues and similar content—make no sense. There are photos rejected for similar content that don't even exist in stock, perfectly exposed, framed, and defect-free. The way they were rejected with so little context doesn't seem fair; it just makes you think the moderator simply didn't feel like doing their job that day.

Translate

daniellei4510

Community Expert

I can’t locate the official “lack of commercial value” rejection text (which I believe I’ve seen the the past), but this quote from an Adobe helpx page states specifically that “a lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal is one of the most common reasons content is rejected,” as per this page: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/artist-hub-migration/use-smart-submission-strategies.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

If a specific rejection reason doesn’t actually exist, then such issues as noise, poor exposure or composition could conceivably be grouped under this particular heading.

Translate

Adobe Community Expert | I have miles to go before I sleep, but I'm all done on this end.

L

Luigi_CAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks,

well, yes, I agree

Translate

O

oleschwander

Legend

You’re right about “Similar content in our collection”.

Translate

Ricky336

Community Expert

Hello,

A few issues:

The highlight on the fish is overexposed - it won’t pass - and some other distracting objects.

Composition is important, but I understand that taking a photo into a fish tank is not easy! And hard to get the right composition, but you do have to be careful of the background and try to get the exposure correct. Also, be careful of your depth of field.

Translate

L

Luigi_CAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks,

Yes, I could have retouched a bit the white of the highlights…

About the depth of field, often some areas (foreground) are blurry to enhance the main subject

Translate

yamato713108855

Community Expert

To verify the quality, you need to examine the actual posted version.
Issues such as noise or focus problems cannot be identified when the image size is too small.

Based on this photo alone, the following points can be assessed:
Overexposed highlights (blown-out highlights)
Composition
Focus that is too shallow

Translate

L

Luigi_CAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks,

you're right but the system does not allow too big images: I had to reduce

Are you talking about the Batfish? Frankly I don't see big issues of composition and the fish (eye) should be on focus. The rest of the picture should be blurry to enhance the main subject.

Translate

yamato713108855

Community Expert

For large files, you can either convert them to the WebP format or use an external storage service such as Google Drive.

Images with a shallow depth of field are subject to rejection.
Adobe Stock prefers photographs with a deep depth of field, where a wide area is in focus.

In the image of the sea slug, there is open space in front of the subject, but the rear is cut off, making the composition feel incomplete.

Translate

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.