Known Participant

Answered

Rejected photos due to noise, let's discuss!

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
October 7, 2022
5 replies
2192 views

Hello everyone!

My photos have been rejected due to the noise and I'm not sure if you agree with me but I really love the noise on the pictures, it gives them a documentary look, specially if you take pictures with a fujifilm camera with the gorgeous textures it generates. And I'm not taking about high ISO, the ISO are fine on my pictures (see on the attached image the ISO is 160)

So I'm feeling very sad that I can't upload my pictures due to the noise which I don't think is bad at all, at least on most of my images. And the noise is not very visible on a 27" screen (but it depends on each picture), so normally it's only visible when you zoom in or when you have flat colours like a clear sky.

It seem Adobe just want very clean and perfectly made shots, which is sad, I think the final user should at least decide which picture to use or not. Or the internal people who approve each photo should at least understant what's a high ISO and what is just a simple texture.

Anyway, what do you think? Attached is a 50%/100% comparison.

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer George_F

I suspect you are right. Adobe is looking for clean well exposed photos. Think about it like this. It's very easy to add noise to photos, but very hard to reduce noise. It's very easy to lighten or darken a well exposed photo, but not the other way around. It's very easy to blur a sharp photo, but not the other way around.

It's also more difficult to take a noise-free, well-exposed, sharp photo. The difficult things to take are what people buy, and what Adobe therefore wants. In my opinion at least.

Good luck with future submissions 🙂

RALPH_L

Community Expert

Definately too noisy. A blue sky does not have texture. It has noise. The ISO is not the sole creator of noise. The sensor plays a role, low light plays a role.

George_F

Community Expert

@RALPH_L Absolutely spot on with this!

George F, Photographer & Forum Volunteer

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

Hi @hanzmade,

The whole idea is to maximize the potential file sale. Most customers prefer clean photos. You acknowledge that zoom shows up the noise. Many customers will need clean zoom. I've seen noisy photos printed. It don't look good. Cleaning noise from your files is a standard for the stockphoto industry except for those that your files will not get sold. So the best thing to do is to submit clean files.

Noise is not the only issue with these file you show us here. The white balance is off and there is also an intellectual property issue.

If you are new to stock I suggest you take a look at the Adobe Guidelines. Also the Seven tips to get your files accepted and these additional tip that will help you produce better quality files.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

H

hanzmadeAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks J! I really appreciate all the links you provided 🙂

That image was an example of the grain, I really didn't take that photo thinking about uploading it as a stock photo. But I thoight it could be useful for some people to have a cruise ship for a blog, post or advertising. So instead the picture is forgotten in my harddrive I prefer upload it so anyone can use it and earn some penies 🙂

The thing about the Adobe guidelines is that sometimes is not super clear... I just erased the logos on the cruise ships, but that would be enough? or it's impossible to take pictures of any kind of property? What if take a picture of Chicago cityscape? Should I ask for permision to the city council? To each building owner? That's wild and out of any logic. I also don't belive any picture with and iPhone has a permission from Apple. Finally are animals considered property? Like a dog of someone on the street?

Cheers!

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

Hi @hanzmade ,

This Property Release link will cover all your property concerns. Please read it carefully. Be sure to read all the internal links also. After reading, if you have any further question, please feel free to ask.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

T

Test Screen Name

Legend

It's easy to say "the customer should decide". In fact they do. Adobe's stock customers are not photographers, not artists. Many of them zoom in to check for quality; they can easily see noise and other "defects". They ask for a refund, and Adobe's reputation suffers. So Adobe are set up to reject anything that will trigger this kind of rejection and refund, no matter how good the art.

H

hanzmadeAuthor

Known Participant

Yes, could be... I totally get it... But I think there could be another section maybe for photos with a tiny touch of an artistic touch? For example I love the pictures of unsplash which are normally moody, but it's true some of them are not usable due to the artistic touch...

Abambo

Community Expert

Yes, could be... I totally get it... But I think there could be another section maybe for photos with a tiny touch of an artistic touch? For example I love the pictures of unsplash which are normally moody, but it's true some of them are not usable due to the artistic touch...

By @hanzmade

Customers make their choice on small previews. They don't always see "your artistic touch". It's about craft, not about art.

If you manufacture a seat, the most important feature is that it is functional. You should be able to take a seat! If it's beautiful, you will sell more, but if the buyer can't sit on the seat, he will complain, anyhow, how beautiful your seat is.

Stock is for selling pictures who don't want to hire a photographer to take a picture. The buyer want's to get a clean picture, correctly exposed, no noise, no artefacts, no legal troubles. And then he will modify it: adding noise, his logos, artefacts at gusto. And the same picture may do it on a billboard, a newspaper ad, a book cover, a mug, a poster, a website. You won't know what the buyer will do with it. So, it needs to fit all… You will get a small amount per sale and need to sell countless pictures. If you shoot only cat pictures, you won't make your costs.

If I want to do artistic photos, I do an artistic photo, add all sort of distortion, apply sharpness and blur at gusto, add weird filters, … Then I prepare my expo, sell maybe one or the other picture. The price will be accordingly to my name in the scene. As a nobody, I won't make my costs. It's a different market.

If you do art, you need to find a different POS. There are art galleries showing off your art and selling it in your name. Those are not stock sellers.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

George_F

Correct answer

Community Expert

I suspect you are right. Adobe is looking for clean well exposed photos. Think about it like this. It's very easy to add noise to photos, but very hard to reduce noise. It's very easy to lighten or darken a well exposed photo, but not the other way around. It's very easy to blur a sharp photo, but not the other way around.

It's also more difficult to take a noise-free, well-exposed, sharp photo. The difficult things to take are what people buy, and what Adobe therefore wants. In my opinion at least.

Good luck with future submissions 🙂

George F, Photographer & Forum Volunteer

H

hanzmadeAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks George! Those were my thoughts when Adobe rejected loads of my photos haha... I think I have to create a special preset in my fuji so the pictures I intend to upload here are noiseless and as perfect as possible.

Maybe there are other places where I can upload my grained images? Apart from shutterstock... Any ideas? 🙂

George_F

Community Expert

Put yourself in the customers shoes for a moment. What real world use does a photo like this have? With that answer, other sites or companies should be easy to find.

With noise so easily added in Photoshop, I don't think these have a lot of commercial appeal even if they are accepted. A technically perfect photograph can be used over several projects for instance, even if one of them has a photo with noise in it.

George F, Photographer & Forum Volunteer

Jill_C

Community Expert

The noise in these images is quite objectionable and definitely does not meet the Adobe quality standards. The guidelines specifically state that they want clean images with no added grain, filters or textures. These images would have been rejected for IP issues also, as there are numerous logos and identifying marks on the ships. In general, shooting at a harbor is going to require a lot of editing work to make the images acceptable, so I usually don't bother trying to submit such images to Adobe Stock.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

H

hanzmadeAuthor

Known Participant

Thanks Jill! Not even for editorial porpuses?

Jill_C

Community Expert

It's possible that, had there been no technical issues, the image would be accepted for Editorial use, but not guaranteed. I have had technically perfect images rejected for editorial use because there was no strong editorial concept. Here's what the rejection says:

We are looking for imagery intended to illustrate articles on current events and news, focused on conceptual imagery using real brands and products to convey strong ideas.

The most common cases for rejection from that collection are:

- The file includes identifiable people.
- The file is news or documentary editorial.
- The file did not have a strong editorial concept.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

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