Rejected. All of my images are suddenly getting rejected. quality issues

GIMP is freeware.  You're competing with pro-level photographers who have good equipment and software.  You don't get a pass for "not perfect."  Sorry.   Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual & technical quality for use in commercial projects. 

The statue is underexposed (too dark).  Check the white balance, it should be neutral; not gray.  The depth-of-field could be better.  And there is an IP problem.  Do you have a signed signed property release to use the statue?  If the artist can't be reached, you can't sell that image without their permission. 

The stars are too blurry. You would need to start over with different camera settings.

Read your User Guide for more details.

• 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
• Model/Property Releases:
  https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/model-release.html
  https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html
• Depth of Field:
  https://photographylife.com/what-is-depth-of-field
• White Balance:
  https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/white-balance.html
  

Hope that helps.

The Meditation image looks good - but the could be a problem with him having only four fingers and maybe the difference of the ears. In the other image one in the second picture, one part of the star is broken and some of the other stars do not fit together correctly.

The meditation:

It is not as sharp as it should be. Careful sharpening could save it and make it fit for Adobe stock, but chances are, that you will need a property release for that. 

The stars: They are out of focus. Indeed, everything is out of focus, except for a tiny small stripe of background floor.

The picture is not really underexposed, but it could bear a small amount of shadow lifting.

All you get from Adobe is a hint about the first problem Adobe saw.

My immediate reaction is that the depth of field is too shallow, rendering too much of these images out of focus.

The moderators appear to be getting tougher, particularly on AI (if these are indeed AI). I was looking through my accepted images recently and came across a couple from months ago that should never have been accepted and I removed them from stock immediately.

I've maintained a .05 rejection rate for months but each day inches closer to a point .07, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to determine exactly why this or that image was rejected. But upon close inspection (and I have to REALLY inspect closely anymore), I can usually find something. And if I can't, I'll either shrug my shoulders and move on or edit the image in an entirely new way, such as using Generative Expand to to throw the main subject off center and allow more room for copy before resubmitting. I've lately come to the conclusion that lack luster composition is often one of the reasons for rejection for "Quality Issues."

Anyway, as far as your comment that "it's a statue and doesn't have to be perfect," it does when it comes to stock. The image is not perfectly symmetrical as far as the jewelry and adornments are concerned, and I've pointed out some "dust spots" at 200% that could be eliminated. For the starts, the depth of field is such that only the starts in the center are in relatively good focus. Short depth of field seems to be an issue when it comes to stock if both the foreground and the background are out of focus compared to the center. If the red star in the foreground were sharp and the other stars gradually went out of focus from there, I think the image would have had a better chance of being accepted.

Adobe has never given a thorough analysis of an image that is rejected, I suspect that's just not a practical task to accomplish.  When I really deep dive into an image, it takes 5+ minutes or longer sometimes, not including the time to type this.

But that's what the forums are for in my opinion.  Getting many perspectives is much better than one 🙂.

I agree with @Ricky336, the headdress was noticeably out of focus.  This would be challenging to make a selection on.  To me, this appears to be a simulated shallow DoF effect.  This would also be better on a white background instead of paper in my opinion.

With the stars photo, there is too much out of focus to me.  I think it's easy enough to add a blur effect in Photoshop that I'd like to see more in focus here.  I would pass on this if I were looking to add something to a composite for instance.

Hope that helps!

Hello,

Could be that the headdress is rather blurry- the corners aren't clear!

And perhaps with the stars, the same reason. Maybe they should all be sharper? Greater DOF as it were.