Welcome Dialog

Welcome to the Community!

We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.


Adobe rejected content published in other sites

Community Beginner ,
Apr 11, 2019 Apr 11, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi there

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.

TOPICS
Contributor critique

Views

1.1K

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Adobe Community Professional , Apr 11, 2019 Apr 11, 2019
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.

Likes

Translate

Translate
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 11, 2019 Apr 11, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Apr 13, 2019 Apr 13, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi, Abambo

Thanks for your answer (in fact, thanks to everyone who help with my question). This are some of the rejected images:

A white mare looking at you.jpg

Artifact problems

Black-crowned night heron.jpg

Technical issues (I don't know what they mean with that)

The first sun beams lighting the cluds over Iguaque mountain.jpg

Exposure problem (Really?!)

Thanks againg for your help.

regards,

Mauricio

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 13, 2019 Apr 13, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi mauricio

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.

Regards

JG

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 13, 2019 Apr 13, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi mauricio

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.

Best regards

JG

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Apr 14, 2019 Apr 14, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello, Jacquelin

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.

And finally:

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?

horse.jpg

Thanks again and regards

M

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 14, 2019 Apr 14, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Mauricio

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.

Best Wishes

JG

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 14, 2019 Apr 14, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 14, 2019 Apr 14, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Best wishes

JG

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 15, 2019 Apr 15, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

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.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 14, 2019 Apr 14, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Bird photo - white balance!

Black-crowned+night+heron white balance.jpg

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:

Exposure problem.jpg

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:

A+white+mare+looking+at+you lightened.jpg

Though perhaps they were thinking about the horse's fur??

horse artifacrs.jpg

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!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Apr 14, 2019 Apr 14, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you, Ricky!

That was very helpful!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 11, 2019 Apr 11, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi mauricioa

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.

Regards

JG

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 12, 2019 Apr 12, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Adobe Community Professional ,
Apr 12, 2019 Apr 12, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Ricky

There are others that reviewers pixel peep as Adobe does. I'm familiar with at least one other.

Regards

JG

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Apr 13, 2019 Apr 13, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi, Ricky

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.

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2017/03/16/how-to-stop-pixel-peeping/

Regards,

Mauricio

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines