No point in that. As mentioned, I've been doing this a very long time. Critiquing images is perfectly right to do. This is NOT about that but more about the criteria that Adobe seems bent on adhering to. I get it, some stock agencies want entirely crisp, sharp images which is not the way the world works and certainly not what the buying public often looks for. All I[m saying is that some of the rejections here sell well at other places...the names you know, the names that preceded Adobe Stock for a long time. I thought if I asked the question in a contact it might be seem by senior editors who might than think about the reason for the question. Anyway, thank you...end of story. I;m covered elsewhere.
It would be helpful to see an example of a rejected image you are referencing. Our standards are very high as the level of expectation for quality is at the top level from our customers. The images are reviewed manually by a very experienced team of moderators but it's also possible we made a mistake. It is a human process after all and in most cases the criteria is subjective.
Regardless of whether you post an image or not, your feedback is appreciated and I wish you the best of luck with your future uploads.
Mat Hayward
AdChoices