Participating Frequently

Answered

What is wrong with these macro images

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
March 9, 2023
5 replies
1008 views

All were just rejected because of quality issues. I can't see any issues but maybe I just miss something here?

Contributor critique

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer Ricky336

Hello,

Just another opinion, for what it's worth.

In my view, I have to agree with the other comments - namely focus. As they are macro shots, the depth of field is really narrow, so in this case I would try to increase the depth of field. What aperture did you use?

Secondly, I think the white balance could be tweaked a bit in most of the shots. They could be warmed up a fraction.

As for the white lilly shot, the black negative space isn't a problem, because this can be cropped to size.

Ricky336

Correct answer

Community Expert

Hello,

Just another opinion, for what it's worth.

In my view, I have to agree with the other comments - namely focus. As they are macro shots, the depth of field is really narrow, so in this case I would try to increase the depth of field. What aperture did you use?

Secondly, I think the white balance could be tweaked a bit in most of the shots. They could be warmed up a fraction.

As for the white lilly shot, the black negative space isn't a problem, because this can be cropped to size.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. At first glance, these appear to be highly decent images but on closer inspection the flaws reveal themselves. It's not personal. It comes with the territory.

Metaphorically speaking, I have shoe boxes filled with failed photos. But I learned something from every one of them. I guess that's what separates being "the victim" from being a "good student."

Best of luck on your future submissions. 🙂

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

Henrik Heigl

Community Expert

Hi,

For the small technical defects on the pictures I must agree with previous Commentators. If you have other pictures with the same issues getting approved, than you maybe had luck or they was from a technical better quality, but we can't judge that any further at this point. Please keep in mind that stock photos are always a different kind of photography, such as holiday photography, architecture, fashion, macro or landscape photography. These images should always have a selling or advertising character, so that they can be used well in the advertising industry.

Most of the Photos have a very narrow DOF but it woule be better also have more of the Background in Focus to work with.

Maybe try other angles and Cropping the Image to other 3:2 ratios maybe could help. Hope that helps to understand it.

regards,Henrik

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

Hi @henrik91936021 ,

The first file has a high level of artifacts. It seem to be excessively compressed. There seem to be missing a balance of exposure and highlights. |The highlights could reduce a bit and the exposure up a bit.

For the second file the highlights are blown out. The image is noisy, has a white balance issue and not in sharp focus.

Too much of the flowers is out of focus. It's noisy and has a white balance issue. It has a blue cast. The edge of one of the petals has a cropping appearance as if its a poorly selected crop.

The mushroom also is poorly focused and has small color fringing on the edges.

The other file is also noisy underexposed and out of focus.

Please check you file at between 100 and 200% before submitting.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

H

henrik91936021Author

Participating Frequently

Thank you very much for your comment Jacguelin.

The original size of the first image is 7533 x 5022 px and 14,3 MB jpg. The only compression is due to the limitation of this forum as I had to diminish the file size before exporting from Lightroom to this forum.

This quality control makes no sense to me as I my acceptace rate in adobe seems to fluctuate now between 100 % and 5% and I can't find any logic behind this. I check the images at 100% but have no clue why one set has 90 - 100% acceptance while the next has maybe 5% acceptance rate. Believe me or not but I know this macro stuff, what is good and what is bad and what is OK. I have done this for a very long time and my gear is top quality. I just can't figure out the criteria adobe is using, seems utterly random.

Abambo

Community Expert

Yellow: I suppose you made focus stacking. There may be a sharp/unsharp error:

I also see strange artefacts:

The ladybug is out of focus.

Mauve: artefacts and out of focus and noise:

Tree fungus: I need to guess: out of focus?

Your last is missing part of the blacks:

Maybe you could also lift the shadows and contrast a bit.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

H

henrik91936021Author

Participating Frequently

Thanks for your comment. No focus stacking here. I have not uploaded for a while to adobe so this 25 out of 29 rejected and all for unspecified quality issues is a bit perpelexing as I have over 20000 images uploaded to various agencies and close to 100% acceptance rate. I shot these with Canon R5 + RF 100mm so nothing wrong with the gear either. I wonder if this is some AI based rejection or maybe adobe is no more interested in macro images? Of course no image is perfect and there is always some aspect that can be done better.

H

henrik91936021Author

Participating Frequently

Here is a few more images from the set, all rejected because of unspecified quality issues

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