rejected

Be happy with your publishing experience. Even is the asset has been used in a Nikon magazine, that does not mean that it is fit for stock. I do not know the QA of that magazine, but I would not have used this asset.

You have random out of focus parts...well and other errors.

It's beautiful in an artistic sense; but some of the feather quills (eyes?) are sort of pasted in and not attached to a quill and just sort of floating... I think Adobe is looking for more realism in these sort of images.

Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in commercial projects.  Posters, billboard ads & TV commercials, merchandise like t-shirts, tote bags and calendars...  Read your Stock Contributor User Guide for more details on what's expected.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustrations.ug.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html

Better luck with your next submission. 🙂

I agree with @jacquelingphoto2017 , the details appear both soft when viewing between 100%-200%.  It also appears some noise reduction or heavy sharpening has been applied resulting in some unwanted artefacts.

With small print such as a magazine, I suspect this image would be fine.  But I think it's important to keep in mind all of the uses a commercial stock asset may be used.  I don't believe this would stand up well with a large print scenario.

Being rejected as a commercial asset doesn't mean it's a bad photo though.  Congrats on being published in a magazine!