A

Anonymous

Answered

Rejected again, quality issue.

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
April 21, 2023
3 replies
862 views

Ok guys, Photos rejected again. What's wrong?
If my photos are not good, at this point there is no point in working with Adobe, the same photos that you rejected have been accepted by 4 other reputable stock photo companies, I will tell you the names privately if you are interested and give a 'look at my portfolio.

I received over 155 rejected photos in 4/5 months. I cannot afford to waste time and will cancel my account. I would like to know why these 2 photos were rejected. Thank you

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer RALPH_L

Both photos have underexposed shadows.

The second photo has artifacts in the sky.

The issues in the second photo clearly show that the review process in the other 4 reputable stock photo companies is not efficient. Adobe offers quality photos and for our photos to be accepted they must meet the standards.

I hope you feel differently about wanting to cancel your account. Remember, Adobe pays out 3x more than Shutterstock for photos sold to customers with a standard account.

George_F

Community Expert

Along with what the others have mentioned, I think a quick glance at the histograms reveals a bit about the rejections here. This may have been intentional on your part, but I believe Adobe would view this as underexposure. I do think these would benefit from at least a shadows and black points adjustment.

I think it's important to remember a rejection from Adobe doesn't mean it's a bad photo necessarily, but just didn't meet the Adobes criteria for a commercial asset.

Cheers!

George F, Photographer & Forum Volunteer

A

Anonymous

Hello, I make some correction at the photos. I would like to have your opinion.

Thanks

George_F

Community Expert

Moving in the right direction! If you look at the histogram though, there is still a portion of the whites area missing information, and some blacks that are clipped.

It is worth noting there is a blurry area in the tree/bush that will keep this photo from being accepted in my opinion. But I like this version much better.

Cheers!

George F, Photographer & Forum Volunteer

Abambo

Community Expert

2114: The shadows could be lifted, but generally, the exposure is OK. There is a white hallo around the tree. And then, there are artefacts:

There is a line running vertically through the sky (hard to see):

Colour clipping with the sun:

Finally, there may also be an IP problem with the inscription in the wood.

2117: artefacts:

In addition, the focus falls off at the borders. You could argue that the asset could have a lift of the shadows.

All in all, the refusals are correct. I don't know what those 4 “reputable stock photo companies” are looking for, but they did a poor moderation job. Refusals on these were easy, as one artefact is enough to refuse the asset. And yes, if all your assets are like this, it is indeed best to stop submitting.

As a side note: I have some HDR assets in the database, but I'm cautious not to push the sliders to the extreme.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

A

Anonymous

May I know how much you enlarged the photo?

Thanks

Abambo

Community Expert

200%. You see artefacts better at an enlarged size, but with your assets, no need for that:

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

RALPH_L

Correct answer

Community Expert

Both photos have underexposed shadows.

The second photo has artifacts in the sky.

The issues in the second photo clearly show that the review process in the other 4 reputable stock photo companies is not efficient. Adobe offers quality photos and for our photos to be accepted they must meet the standards.

I hope you feel differently about wanting to cancel your account. Remember, Adobe pays out 3x more than Shutterstock for photos sold to customers with a standard account.

A

Anonymous

Hi Ralph,

How much did you enlarge it, over 200? At that magnification you don't find any perfect photo. Except if you don't have a definition that goes beyond 50/60 mega Pixels. my camera has 32.5 MP

Abambo

Community Expert

Hi Ralph,

How much did you enlarge it, over 200? At that magnification you don't find any perfect photo. Except if you don't have a definition that goes beyond 50/60 mega Pixels. my camera has 32.5 MP

By @26775709

You see the artefacts at 100%, but most of the time, it is difficult to see exactly what happens, especially on my 4k screen. Therefore, I enlarge to 200-400%, but that is to avoid having to glue my nose to the screen. The artefacts got introduced with your processing.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

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.