Adobe Stock submission reviewers

[Nothappynothappyatall]

I am curious, who the reviewers are for submissions to Adobe Stock? I don't mean who are the specific individuals, I mean what are the qualifications of the reviewers, their training and where are they located? How does Adobe Stock hire them?

I've had some real problems with the quality of Adobe's customer service in general, which seems to be all outsourced to India. After a recent episode in which I was trying to upgrade my Creative Cloud subscription and gave up in frustration, it started me wondering if Adobe is going the same low-cost, low-quality route on its reviewers.

If this is the case, it is a disservice to Adobe Stock contributors. It is a waste of our time. I am perfectly accepting of photos being rejected. It is when they are rejected for reasons that are patently wrong that I have a problem. In example, I've submitted photos of landscapes in winter with snow falling. They are rejected for having a "grain/noise problem". I've then shown a number of other people the same photos and those people thought they were beautiful photos -- and they are individuals that have no problem telling me when something is crap. Is it that the reviewers don't know snow on a personal level and can't recognise it as anything other than grain/noise? That's just one example.

The reviewers are also very inconsistent. I've taken photos that were rejected and, after a time, resubmitted them to have them accepted on the second time around.

I don't have a problem with outsourcing. I've done it myself for a company I've run. I do expect that when you outsource you ensure quality service and ensure that all staff is trained to an acceptable, consistent, and professional level.

[twaritar3263062]

Moving to Adobe Stock Contributors​

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi whatevertheexcuse

I can understand your concern. In most cases when images are rejected for grain/noise it is due to the contributors not making corrections after shooting. There are certain amount of minimal post processing that is necessary before uploading. This includes removing noise and grains. Photos taken at correct exposure might have little or no noise, but still grainy. Grains are visible in lighter colors, and/or sometimes in shadows. For example an image with cloud or sky, you'd look first in the sky or cloud for grains. Images with human, you'd first look at the skin area for grains, and so on. In your case the snow might be the first place to look for grains. You must look for noise/grain at 100 to 200% magnification with your photo editor. If you upload one of the rejected images to this forum, we can assist in helping you to identify the noisy areas. Many smaller point and shoot cameras are more prone to noise than bigger cameras, and sometimes during postprocessing pixels get damaged. Even though with bigger cameras, there might be less grain/noise with proper exposure, there's still need for correction.

If your images are rejected for noise/grain, all you need to do is make the correction and re-upload, and use that as part of your learning curve. I cannot speak for what would be the reason for inconsistency. What I do know is that different people are involved in reviews and as human, except being infallible, oversight is possible.

For more insight you may read the articles at

tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle

Create better photos for Adobe Stock with 7 tips for success |

Best wishes

JG

[Nothappynothappyatall]

I'm sorry, but what is with the

"Hi, whatevertheexcuse"?????

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Check your Adobe username whatevertheexcuse​ . That's my salutation to you.

Regards

JG

[Nothappynothappyatall]

Weird. No recollection of choosing that screen-name. Senile, I guess, or something. Per my other comment, I plan to stop contributing to Adobe Stock. You mentioned post processing -- minimal. Even that is not worth the time given the amount paid by Adobe. As another poster stated, he was earning about $1 an hour after everything and he was much more on the professional side. Personally, I am having more luck (and make more money) selling select prints and it is far more gratifying.

[jacquelingphoto2017 · Accepted solution]

The thing with stock photos is that each image has the potential to be sold many times over. In addition If you have a large size portfolio, there's the opportunity to sell several within a day. For many people, at least at start, the rejection rate is high, however after a while, and after you get an understanding  of what is required the acceptance rate becomes higher. What I look at is the residual income that'll be there from images that are not current.

Regards

JG

[Abambo]

you can change your screen name, if you want. We only see you by your screen name like you see me by my screen name as Abambo. You see, however your posts tagged with your real name.

[Nothappynothappyatall]

Never mind. I'm just not going to bother with Adobe Stock anymore. Too much time and too little reward.

[Abambo]

your welcome too leave. I do not stock for a living but I take pictures that I have and load them up. som sell decently, some do not. No problem for me, as the work I need to do to get the pictures on sale is minimal.