Tons of rejections due to Technical Issues! Why?

What I am trying to say here is, that I am submitting what I have already, that was not purposefully shot for stock photography.  If it passes good, if not, that's okay too.  If it sells, great.  If not, it is no skin off my nose.  The way I see it is this, these images could sit on my computer with no chance of earning anything, or I can put them on line and let people decided if they want to buy them or not.  I don't see any harm in trying.

Now going forward from here is a different subject. I would like to try to learn to shoot better images for stock photography, and I am listening to hear good advice.  I cannot do anything to change what I have, but I can change going forward.  I have over 100,000 images already.  I am guessing maybe 1% or less will I submit to sell online.  I am being very choosy. I am shooting for images that are unique and that speak to me.  I know that is not the best criteria to go off of for stock images, but it is what I know. 

Take this image for example.  I put it up on another site and it sold in less then one hour after  being approved.  Blew my mind.

The reason I put this image up is that I could not find another image like it on stock image sites.  If you can guess what this image is off, I will give you a gold star.

Having said all that above, I understand that I am new to the stock imagery scene and that it is not about what I like and want, but about what other people like and want.  I admit I really have no clue what it is people are looking for.  I will willing admit that my style may not be what everyone is looking for.  Okay.  I admit that.

But what I want  you to understand is that the photos I am submitting now, were not shot for the purpose of Stock Photography.  They were shot over my 20 years of world travels in my real profession, which was not photography.   I have always tried to do my best to take pictures with the best equipment I could afford at the time, which was much better then what your average person had, not anything compared to what is on the market these days.  I have a few images that are so rare, that in the stock image industry, I am the only one who has them.  Do a search on adobe stock and see if you can find Saw-Nosed Lantern fly (Cathedra serrata)

Okay.  This image is actually one that was approved. I did not say it had been rejected, I only asked your opinion of it. Not only that, it was my very first picture to be bought.  Beyond that, this image was shot with a P&S camera while the first three images were shot with a DSLR. 

Now, I am not trying to make fools of you.  My purpose is to demonstrate my position as a beginner trying to find solid advice based in tangible facts, but finding nothing but inconsistent subjective situational opinions.  The first three images were all accepted at three other stock image agencies, where as the one of the of the Milkweed Blossom was rejected.  But here on Adobe, the three that passed everyone else's criteria were rejected, but the one that was rejected was accepted. 

Can you see how confusing this is for a person who is new to this industry and trying to learn the ropes?  I want to learn, but I don't know what to listen to, because there are no hard fast tangible rules I can put my finger on.  The fact that you guys criticized the image that was accepted just as much as the ones that were rejected, shows me that you really don't not know what makes an image acceptable or not.  Your opinion about this image were based on your assumption that it had been rejected. So you reason then there must be something wrong with it and you only looked for weaknesses, not strengths.  We live in a world where no perfection exist, so you will always be able to find imperfection if that is all that you look for.

Now, if one of you would have come back and said; "Hey, that is a nice image and I think it should have been accepted.  I can see some areas where it could be improved, but it meets all the minimum criteria for acceptance."   I would have then know that I was really talking to someone that knew exactly what they were talking about and had a solid grasp of what the rules of Adobe Stock acceptance are. 

This is where I am having problems.  All I can find is subjective opinions.

I am not saying you guys are wrong about anything your are saying to me.  I admit my images are not perfect.  I am the Nature Guy, not the "I am the Perfect Studio Conditions Guy".  Nature is Chaos.  Nothing in nature is the same.  Every snow flake is different from another.  Nature is random and chaotic, and that is what makes it beautiful.  It is the inconsistency of nature.  Expecting controlled studio conditions out of natural photography is just unreasonable.  If you shoot a flower on a bright sunny day you make get reflections off of the shinny petals.  That is normal, it is not over exposure.  That is the way it looks to the human eye as well.  There are many photographers that try to defeat the chaos of nature to try to produce images that look like they were shot in a studio.  I don't understand this mentality.  It is the chaos of nature that makes it beautiful.

Okay.  None of the image were cropped.  They are in the original format.

Tell me what you think is wrong with this picture.

Looking at down sampled images is difficult, but for technical issues it's ok. I can't see neither over/under saturated or a bad white balance.

Bad cropping is surely for the middle image the case. It could also be for the first one.

I do not know what the moderator thought, but the last one has definitively a focus problem, even on the small image.

The small images are also kind of over sharpened. Without seeing the originally submitted pictures an appreciation on this is difficult.

Even if you correct some of the faults -- the one that may be corrected --, you risk a refusal for lack of commercial appeal.

Hi Nature Guy. These images is not what we normally would regard as SDOF. Look here:

17 Beautiful Images with Shallow Depth of Field

Hello,

Technical issues means :

Technical issues 

When we reject a file based on technical issues, we have identified technical flaws other than focus, exposure, or artifacts, which we call out specifically.

White balance: The white balance may be too warm or too cool.

Note:

When you shoot in raw formats, you have great flexibility to adjust the white balance in your post-processing workflows.

Contrast: There may be too much or not enough contrast.

Saturation: Oversaturation may give your file an unnatural look, but under-saturated or spot color can also result in technical decline.

Note:

You may want to try the Vibrance slider instead of Saturation in Lightroom.

Selections: Editing must be done inconspicuously. Selecting objects out of their backgrounds (or masking) to composite into new images requires time, patience, and care. Do not submit images that have been poorly selected or look like they are not a natural part of the scene.

Chromatic aberration: Refers to color fringing around objects in the image.

General composition: Is your horizon straight? Have you cropped the image too much? Consider leaving a designer room to add their own text or objects.

Quality and technical issues rejected at Adobe Stock

In your 1st image - I think how you framed your picture could be a problem. You haven't left a lot of room at the bottom. I think it's cropped a bit too closely. I think you also could tweak the white balance a bit. Decrease the temp just a bit (-4) and decrease the tint slider to more green (-7) Just a very minor difference. It will help to make the petals more white:

The image is cropped too much.

I think with the others it's more about composition and yes, the other two pictures do have a focus problem. When you are doing macro shots with SDOF, you have to be very careful with focus and aperture. Because at such focal lengths the SDOF will affect areas that you actually want in focus, but are not due to SDOF.

So with these shots, I think the composition is the main issue and then focus problems (which is another category).

You did a 200% crop on a compressed photo, even after I specifically warned you about that  Hummm.....?  Sometimes I wonder whether I am writing English.  Shallow depth of field means that some of the image will not be in focus, in fact most of it.  It is perfectly normal, and what most people desire.  P&S cameras with tiny sensors produce images where everything are in focus.  Guess, I will ditch my DSLR and start using my P&S for Adobe stock. LOL!

Hello The Nature Guy, Each of the pictures posted has something wrong with it. If you look at these at about 200% enlargement you will see that they all lack excellent cropping and focus. The first one, the poppy. has some troubling things especially at the lower foreground. Yes, the background is a bit of a distraction - so you could fully blur it into a color and take out the bottom stuff. The middle one is without a WOW! factor and it too is poorly presented with many out of focus areas. The last one of the grass and lavender flower has the flower center and surrounding out of focus. Do not send your work before looking it at high magnification and studying the guidelines suggested here below this note. Composition, quality, focus, and exposure must be wonderful. Take a look at the accepted Adobe Stock and match it or better it or don't send it. Best regards, JH

To learn more about the reasons why we decline certain images, including technical issues, please visit this page: https://www.adobe.com/go/stock-contributor-help