We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
I recently opened my account in Adobe Stock and started uploading images very confident, because the same images are already approved and published -and even sold- in sites like Shutterstock, iStock, Alamy and others... However, for my surprise, a few of said images have being rejected for different reasons (focus, light, noise, etc). What kind of parameters does Adobe use? Does Adobe detect what any other site can't see? I don't get it, and will appreciate a lot some kind of light about this. Thanks.
My experience is that Adobe is very picky on quality of the pictures. Mostly, looking at the picture in detail, I find that they are right. Now to analyze the refusals, you would need to post an image with the reason, and we would be able to analyze and recommend corrections.
Thanks for your answer (in fact, thanks to everyone who help with my question). This are some of the rejected images:
Technical issues (I don't know what they mean with that)
Exposure problem (Really?!)
Thanks againg for your help.
I like your composition. I especially like the photo of the bird. I will start by commenting on the landscape/skyscape first. That image has a purple/blue overcast. It might be that it was underexposed when you took the shot, or the settings of the camera was not right for that time of day. Probably you had the white balance set to auto. Auto tend to give some weird results sometimes. With a photo editor, making white balance adjustment reducing the blue and possibly the purple concentration should add major improvement on that image. Depending on the outcome when you make those adjustment, you might still need to increase the exposure.
The bird, overall looks ok to me. However there is a spot in its eye that you might need to take out.
I will look closer at the horse and comment on it later.
In the mean time you'll find Reasons content is rejected at Adobe Stock and it's sub-links quite helpful.
The horse was taken against the background of cloudy sky. The artifacts forms lines of pink contours around the edges of the clouds.
In addition to the links above, we'd like you to take a look at some Do's and don'ts for selecting and editing photos for Adobe Stock and pay special attention to what is said about black and white at Image Adjustments.
Thank for your comments and your answer.
I think I have to add some info on the matter.
1. The landscape: Do you believe me if I told you that the colors of the sky in the landscape image are almost identical as the real thing? The picture was taken at dawn, around 4:30 am, it means the sun haven't risen yet, and the secene was full of "magic" (for lack of a better word), and if you check the histogram you'll find the exposure is good.
2. The bird: By "spot" are you referring to the light reflecting in the upper center of his eye? I can't detect another spot... And if it is that, I don't see the point of correct it, it's a natural effect.
3. The horse: Below is the original image in color, as you can see it wasn't taken against the sky, but against a forest. So... Are the artifacts created by the bush?
Thanks again and regards
Thank you for the corrections.
In reference to the landscape, I noticed you said "almost". Almost is not exact. Your image will sell depending on it's appearance. In my opinion it looks artificial in the area of the vegetations. It has a heavy blue overcast that needs to be corrected.
The bird: Yes, the light reflection in the eye of the bird.
The Horse: Thank you for the correction. It looks so much nicer in color. Any way, the artifacts is in the area of the bushes. Zoom the images at 100 to 200% magnification and inspect them properly before submitting. At 100% you see sharpness. At over 100% you better see artifacts, grains and noise.
Please read the suggested links above. I also suggest you read through the entire discussion at Attached photo rejected for exposure issue, but 2nd similar photo was accepted. ??? . Doing so should help you to make some point of view adjustment.
The mare isn't a great picture because of the framing. It may as well be refused for different reasons (commercial appeal for example). But I suppose that the moderator saw that the picture has been converted to black and white. The problem here is that that does not qualify for artefacts. But the dominant back is catching the eye and much more as in the colour version.
As of the bird, it was missing detail (feathers, legs).
As for the landscape, pictures like that pass rarely... as ricky336 correctly points out, there's a big area blown out.
Framing is a technical issue, and is very obvious; also if it is not commercially appealing. Therefore, in my opinion if the moderator saw the framing to be an issue, and also saw it as not being a commercially appealing image he/she would not have gone pixel peeping to find the artifacts. As the moderator said, the artifacts is there in the vegetation, and it is left up to Mauricio to zoom in, look for it and do some post processing to clean it, and resubmit or listen to all the noise and ignore it.
I know that framing is technical. I didn't tell that was the reason for the refusal. I just analysed what I saw. The artefacts are probably in the shadow clipping in the background. And with the correct tool they are quite easy to spot.
I'm guessing that moderators do not peep that much as we do. I think that they have software at their disposal to detect what may qualify as a defect and then the moderator looks or does not look at whatever he get's shown in detail.
Bird photo - white balance!
Bring down the highlights a bit to show the white feathers and increase a bit more yellow, so the photo doesn't look so blue!
Landscape, decrease the highlights.
Your photo - see the clipping:
Photo in Camera Raw Filter. Exposure!!
You can reduce the highlights and then everything is fine!
Horse photo - not sure about this one - it is too dark, so highlights need to be decreased and exposure increased.
Perhaps the moderator meant exposure??
And in this case after corrections you get this:
Though perhaps they were thinking about the horse's fur??
You see, you have to 'pixel peep' - otherwise, you can't see the flaws - esp for Adobe Stock! But there other things to think about as you can see!
Thank you, Ricky!
That was very helpful!
If you zoom your image to between100 and 200% magnification there are a lot you can see. Your image need to be sharp at the edges at 100% magnification. Artifacts, grains and noise shows up at the above mentioned range of magnification also. Adobe likes images to be average lit; not over or under exposed.
Here are some guidelines to follow:
tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle Tap on all the topics and sub-topics and read through all the information.
Create better photos for Adobe Stock with 7 tips for success | This also you need to read through all the linked information
As highlighted by Abambo, if you upload the rejected files to this forum, you will receive further assistance.
It seems that with Adobe Stock you do kind of need to 'pixel peep' as they say. If you do this, then you can see some flaws like chromatic aberration, focus problems, artifacts, etc, which Abode look for when examing a photo. To my mind, the other stock photo websites aren't so bothered about this (which may not be so important as the images are used for websites) whereas Adobe's clients may have a wider range of use - therefore a need to be more critical.
There are others that reviewers pixel peep as Adobe does. I'm familiar with at least one other.
Thanks a lot for your answer. Until you mention it I never heard of "pixel peep". Found this post and wanted to share it with you. Hope you enjoy it.