Participant

Answered

Photos rejected due to technical problems, somebody an advice for me?

Forum|Forum|5 years ago
October 10, 2020
4 replies
718 views

Hi dear community, on my first submit, these two photos were rejected due to technical problems. Does anyone have any advice on what might be the reason for the rejection of these two photos? (original files are attached below)

With the fence post, I can imagine that the background of the sky did not succeeded very well (or could it be the spiderweb in the left corner? 🙂 maybe, but I don't have an idea where to start), but on the photo with the eye I don't have an idea what it could be. I'd be happy for any feedback, thank you in advance.

Contributor critique

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer Abambo

I've had photos rejected by Adobe that have been published via other sites.

Even submitting the same picture twice may result in an acceptance or refusal, depending on the moderator. Moderation is not a mechanical processing.

This said: Adobe is quite critical and very often refuses pictures that pass on other sites. I too have some of those and looking in depth into the picture, I agreed with the Adobe moderator.

In order to optimize the vetting process, there are only general information on the defects found given. That is not so dramatic. After a while you get a feeling for why the image has been refused. But giving more precise information on the refusal would slow down the vetting process considerably. The vetting process is optimized for speed, unfortunately not your comfort.

A

Arthur ReinerthAuthor

Participant

Thank you very much to all of you for taking the time and giving me the very helpful tips.

Now that I read it, I agree with you. Some of your ideas I also had in my mind
(and also I was thinking of that maybe the idea with the eye
is a bit to usual/common and not quite needed from many customers.

I guess there are already many eyes in database).

The idea for having it in portrait, was that for usual most eyes are in landscape
and in this case there would be more space for some text or other adaptations.

I will think about if I'll repair that or maybe just skip those two images
and find some more appropriate ones. Let's see.

Have a good day, all.

Abambo

Community Expert

is a bit to usual/common and not quite needed from many customers.

That would be commercial appeal if the picture is technically correct.

In addition what has been said, I think tht the eye picture is overexposed for the skin part too.

As for the framing, if the eye is your point of interest, get all of the surroundings like the eyebrow in the picture. With a little exposure fixing, it will be accepted. The reflection is probably also disturbing. I would get rid of that too, just to allow the buyer to put his or her reflection in.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

A

Arthur ReinerthAuthor

Participant

Also to the Pro, thank you too, and especially for explaining the moderators' review process. This is exactly how I imagine it: little time and a lot to do and sometimes it is not clear, but simply a matter of view (or even a matter of taste). I like the way they handle it. We talk about and learn from each other. That's great. For me, this is not a problem. It's all good. I'll check those few points maybe with my next update. Have a good day.

P

Philip5E44

Participant

Firstly: I agree that 'rejected for technical reasons' is not helpful. I've had photos rejected by Adobe that have been published via other sites. It would be nice to read what 'technical reason' they had in mind, even if it's a single word like 'focus', 'artefacts', sensor-spots' or, whatever.

As for your photos: I spend a lot of time photographing fungi and lichens on whatever surface they decide to settle, old fence-posts included. No matter how careful I am with focus, and I always use a tripod with timer-delay, they always tend to look 'soft'. This is what seems to have happened here. The first impression is a lack of focus. Despite that, I see a single strand of a spider's web on the left-hand side of the post, in focus.

As for the second photograph, beautifully clear and very sharp focus. But, I have to agree that the composition is out. Get that pupil dead centre. The eye is something we are automatically drawn to. The lighting reflection might have worked better if it had not encroached into the area of the pupil.

Abambo

Correct answer

Community Expert

I've had photos rejected by Adobe that have been published via other sites.

Even submitting the same picture twice may result in an acceptance or refusal, depending on the moderator. Moderation is not a mechanical processing.

This said: Adobe is quite critical and very often refuses pictures that pass on other sites. I too have some of those and looking in depth into the picture, I agreed with the Adobe moderator.

In order to optimize the vetting process, there are only general information on the defects found given. That is not so dramatic. After a while you get a feeling for why the image has been refused. But giving more precise information on the refusal would slow down the vetting process considerably. The vetting process is optimized for speed, unfortunately not your comfort.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Ricky336

Community Expert

Hello,

The fence post photo is also way too saturated - the grass is just too green.

The eye photo- yes, the framing is not good.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Image #1: Too blurry and white balance is too blue.

Image #2: Bad framing, you cropped it too tight. This might have been better in landscape rather than portrait.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

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