Participating Frequently

Question

"Quality Issues" - Confused by Reason for this Image

Forum|Forum|1 year ago
November 20, 2024
4 replies
1253 views

I've randomly had a few images in the past rejected for quality issues. It would be nice if Adobe was more specific like Shutterstock or Alamy are. But usually I can look at the image and go, ok I guess they didn't like [reason]. Even when the same image is accepted by other stock sites (just like sometimes Adobe accepts stuff that one of the other sites reject). But I just uploaded a batch of about 40 images and one was rejected two days later while the rest still haven't been evaluated. I really can't figure out any reason this particular image should have been rejected so I wanted to see what I'm missing or if I should re-submit it as it was some kind of QA fluke.

This topic has been closed for replies.

Abambo

Community Expert

I've randomly had a few images in the past rejected for quality issues. It would be nice if Adobe was more specific like Shutterstock or Alamy are.

By @tylerw4749593

Writing extensive critics takes time, and time is what moderators don't have. They look at an image and refuse at the first error they see with a generic refusal reason. With photos they are quite good and refusals most of the time make sense. From time to time, you scratch your head and do some guesses, but very often the error is obvious to the trained eye. With Shutterstock I rarely have refusals, even on bad assets. With Alamy I have a 100% success rate. Only Adobe stock refused some of those pictures for reason.

BTW: Stock photography is very specific. A refusal does not mean that it is a bad picture, it just means that it is not fit for stock. If you really can't figure out why an image has been refused, it is probably best to move on.

From time to time I resubmit a refused asset with minor corrections. Sometimes they pass.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

T

tylerw4749593Author

Participating Frequently

True, I supposed I meant more like Shutterstock that at least gives a vague reason with some tags. Stuff like jpeg artefacts.

Jill_C

Community Expert

The problem is that many images have numerous issues, but it takes only one issue to make it rejectable. Frequent contributors in this forum often spend 5 or 10 minutes or even longer downloading images for feedback, checking them in the histogram, highlighting the issues, re-uploading to the forum and typing a response. If we were Moderators, we would be fired after the first day because our productivity would be way too low. Adobe Moderators probably spend 5-15 seconds per image zooming in and inspecting before they press the accept or reject button. And even with this pressure on Moderator productivity, many of us are waiting 2-3 months or longer for our assets to be reviewed. Adobe would have to hire a massive additional army of Moderators to provide detailed feedback, and that's just not financially justifiable.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

Ricky336

Community Expert

Hello,

It's because of the eagle's feathers on the head - most probably:

What I would do, if you can is to do some masking -though it may depend on your software application - but in Lightroom Classic or Adobe Photoshop, you can mask the eagle and bring down the highlights. I would also crop a bit, so the eagle is not lost among the trees.

Jill_C

Community Expert

Some of the eagle's head feathers are overexposed - possibly blownout. If you can fix the quality issues in your rejected images, they can be resubmitted.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

T

tylerw4749593Author

Participating Frequently

Thanks Jill, I suppose that must be it. Seems super nitpicky on an image like this where it's more a habitat shot instead of a portrait of the eagle, but it looks like dropping the highlights another -13 (they were already at -100 on an image I intentionally underexposed a stop) gets them under the limit of clipping on the histogram. The whims of a moderator I suppose.

Jill_C

Community Expert

I don't think it is a whim. They may very well be reviewing images by looking at a histogram, or maybe because they review a few thousand images a day they can tell at a glance....

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

daniellei4510

Community Expert

It's overexposed.

No, Adobe will not go into detail why an asset was rejected. That's why they put this forum here. Why depend on one Shutterstock or Alamy moderator to tell you what's wrong when half a dozen of us here can give you half a dozen different reasons. 🙂

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

T

tylerw4749593Author

Participating Frequently

Thanks for the response, but I disagree with it being "overexposed" if anything it would be underexposed. There are only a few crushed shadows in some dark areas but not a single point is clipped. Here's the histogram:

daniellei4510

Community Expert

My bac. Underexposed. It's late. I lowered the exposure and increased the contrast just a tad is the point.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

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