Why were some of my pictures accepted, while others werent? All rejections were tagged as quality issues.

Adobe Stock has different customers and higher quality standards than other services. Most Adobe product users are working professionals in print, graphic design, media, marketing, & TV/Film.

First, thoroughly read your Adobe Contributor User Guide. It contains important information that every Stock Contributor must know before submitting content. 

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

Second, select 2 or 3 of your highest quality assets and compare them current Stock inventory.

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=insect 6 million results

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=leaf+insect 1.9 million results

• As a customer, would you buy your assets?
• What would you use them for commercially?

Hope that helps.

When you are new, the first thing you shoot is bugs, trees, skys, backlit. Look through magazines and see how many ads feature leaves and bugs. None unless it is a bug or nature magazine, and the real professional who knows how to set up a bug scene has that wrapped up. I was in Peru when Nat Geo wanted a picture of a Jaguar digging. There was such a production for a still shot. They laid dead roosters under a mesh, filled it with dirt and rainforest trees, and put the Jaguar in the cage. In addition, they had backup animals of other species to do the same thing. I was gobsmacked when I watched them produce this picture. So, I never tried to compete with that again because that was some production and as good as AI as far as I am concerned. They don’t get all their pictures in the wild. AI wasn’t available when I watched from my hut. I did get many good pictures while I was there, but nothing could compete with that.

Hello,

It would be useful and helpful I think, to read about composition. Adobe has a help file which talks about this:

Composition

Composition is part of the quality rejection.

The depth of field is too shallow.
Adobe Stock prefers images with a wider depth of field.

And where should the focus be?
It's not enough for the focus to simply be sharp.

Composition on this one, and perhaps the green is oversaturated. I’d move closer and crop even more. This is a very quick edit, but you might want to consider applying the rules of thirds. I also lowered the saturation somewhat on the righthand side.

Adobe Stock and Shutterstock are two different animals, and Adobe’s standards have become increasingly higher compared to other stock sites.Compare to the two accepted assets, I can’t tell you why the wasp wasn’t accepted as well, as they seem at least comparable, but we can’t tell you much from looking at the thumbnails alone.