Participant

Question

The issue of photo review by unskilled technician

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
April 12, 2023
5 replies
846 views

Adobe stock technicians should learn which images to use motion blur and which images not to use motion blur. When there is nothing to separate subject and object in an image, there is no need for motion blur and focusing. If you focus so much on the focus of the photo, then you will say that the 18-55mm lens is useless? I see clear Adobe stock image review technicians fake reviews here. As a professional photographer I boycotted Adobe stock.

See the rejection pictures at attachment.

Contributors

This topic has been closed for replies.

RALPH_L

Community Expert

As you are a professional photographer, I am sure that I do not need to point out that the photos here have halos and artifacts between ligh and dark areas and that some of the subjects are not in focus. Also, some highlights are overexposed.

Ricky336

Community Expert

With all due respect to my fellow contributors, this post has been locked prematurely.

I respectfully disagree with the feedback that has been given.

Firstly, @adreyat what was the feedback given? Quality issues?

The ducks are not out of focus and obviously not the subject. I think a possible problem here, is that due to the red fabric, it has made the photo too red. I would try taking out some red and to reduce the red saturation a bit.

Are the ducks out of focus?

The guy hanging out the fabric, exposure overall is ok according to the histogram:

but would lighten up the guy a bit more, do selective lighting, and just even out the exposure a bit.

In the 3rd picture, the sky is too bright, so you need to bring more detail into the sky if you can.

Just a point @adreyat , when you use words like 'incompetent, unskilled, etc, it gets people's back up. So, it's best to avoid such terms.

(Discussion unlocked by moderator)

adreyatAuthor

Participant

Hello @Ricky336 . Thank your for yor reply. I am appriciate your opnion with respectfully.

I will answer your all questions.

#1 Photo: Yes the ducks are out othe image focus. Main focus is fabric. You are saying that the red color of the fabric is the reason why the picture is red? If you are good at understanding lightting reflection then you should understand that there is water under the fabric, the water reflects the red color of the fabric which is why the image has a red tint. This is a natural phenomenon that photographer has nothing to do with. If you are skilled then you must have checked the metadata of the image. No adjustments were made by any editing software. These images were taken in the camera's natural setting mode.As a result The images appear to be real in that lighting environment. And if I talk about the redness of the picture When a textile fabric is washed with dyes it naturally looks very bright and contrast. Are you saying the red saturation of this image should have been reduced? According to your opinion it appears that you value the edited picture more than the real thing. Your criteria includes adding any additional subject to the image or changing the image adjustment outside the rules. So you are the one breaking your rules and disallowing the photos.

#2 Photo: In the second image the lighting was not changed by any software. I dont know Why don't you give importance to original photography? If lighting correction is done through software
What images will be allowed?

#3 Photo: The third photo was taken in the camera's Natural mode. so This is a natural phenomenon that photographer has nothing to do with. If the brightness of the sky in the image is reduced through adjustment, will the images be approved?

I am talking about the #1 number one picture in detail, This photo was adjudged the best photo in the UNESCO Silk Road Photo Contest. see the attachment. Apart from this, this image has been approved in various stock market places without any ineligibility.There are no problems with these images anywhere else, all problems seem to be in your marketplace. Are these stock market place expert reviewers and international photography judges approved my poor photos? Or are you doing something wrong please check. Thank you.

Please see approve other marketplace . https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/textile-fabric-drying-sun-2287719247

I would like to know the exact reason why my contacts were not reviewed properly.

Regards
Adreyat H.

T

Test Screen Name

Legend

In case it is not clear: By posting in this forum you are asking for the opinion of other contributors, who can only share their experience. You are not making contact with Adobe staff or representatives.

"I would like to know the exact reason why my contacts were not reviewed properly."

There is no right of appeal to Adobe, no way to contact a reviewer for more information, and no path for complaints by suppliers. Adobe's decision is final, even if it is made in error. If Adobe were to allow appeals or complaints or discussions between suppliers and reviewers, it would increase Adobe's costs. You are of course free to withdraw your work from Adobe (but not work previously licensed to third parties), if Adobe Stock does not suit your financial or artistic model, or for any other reason.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Adobe Stock's acceptance criteria is clearly described in your Stock Contributor User Guide. Did you read it?

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

adreyatAuthor

Participant

I am aware of all the criteria but you are not following your criteria. Thank you.

Jill_C

Community Expert

Why do you assume "motion blur" is the reason these were rejected? Here's what I see:

1. Ducks are not in sharp focus.

2. Underexposed

3. The sky is blown out
I don't understand your comment about "Adobe stock image review technicians fake reviews here". Adobe Stock Moderators reject an image based on the first technical issue that they see. They aren't faking anything.

I also don't understand your question about the lens: "If you focus so much on the focus of the photo, then you will say that the 18-55mm lens is useless?" Could you restate this?

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

adreyatAuthor

Participant

You also seem incompetent.You also failed to provide the correct information. It makes me laugh that you talk about duck sharp focusing, Underexposed,sky blown out.
Even if you have little idea about focusing your photo, try to understand- If I were to expose the subject I would definitely photograph the ducks from the front.Since I took the picture from a distance you have to understand that I did not focus on Duck.These images cannot be considered on focusing,beacuse With this picture I have shown the whole thing where the fabric is being dried on water.Where ducks do not fall under any subject but you consider them as subjects. You are unable to catch my picture message.

Jill_C

Community Expert

No, YOU are missing the point. The Adobe Moderators, who probably have seen many thousands of images, can instantly spot the flaws in your images. They are flawed, and that is why they were rejected. My opinion is irrelevant as to whether an image gets accepted by Adobe. If you came here to this forum to have your opinions about the images validated, that won't happen. If you came here open-minded and ready to listen to the input from your fellow Contributors and are willing to consider that input to improve your photography, you're more likely to get future contributions accepted and maybe even sold.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

You're not talking to Adobe Stock Reviewers here. We are fellow product users and unpaid forum volunteers.

You might try one of the other stock agencies like Getty or iStock and see what they say. Getting a 2nd or 3rd opinion might prove beneficial. You never know.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

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.