Hello, I'm new to Adobe Stock as a contributor. I've submitted a couple hundred photos over the past few months and none of them have been selected. I can understand if it's a formatting or quality issue, but the consistency in what photos are selected leaves me scratching my head. I submitted this image of Thun, Switzerland that was rejected. I thought maybe it isn't large enough, but other similar photos at larger sizes I submitted were rejected.
Then I see photos on Adobe Stock that look like this:
So I'm wondering what specific criteria I'm missing? Are the photos I'm submitting too saturated? Are they too small? Thanks in advance.
What was the rejection reason? Technical issues?
Your picture does not meet the quality requirements for Adobe stock:
In addition, if the picture would nicely focussed and sharp, you would probably need model releases for the persons here:
And you may need to edit out the logo here:
The picture you showed, that has been accepted, is not a good picture, and I wouldn't buy it, but is technically correct and technically in a better shape than yours. And I see that even on the preview.
If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
First, thank you for the detailed response. Second, how is the other photo in a better shape? (I'm not even asking cynically) I see a number of issues with the photo, and that's why I don't understand the selection process. I'll have to read more in the links you provided, but the feedback given for rejections is not specific, just reasons that it might have been rejected. I feel like a little more in depth feedback would help prevent people like me from dumping a bunch of unacceptable photos into the review stream.
The Stock photo may have been grandfathered in from Fotolia when Adobe acquired it several years ago. Quality standards keep rising as cameras and contributors get better. Please refer to these links.
It might help to join a photography club to get feedback & tips from other photographers.
The second picture is not exposing the troubles I detected in your picture. I do not know what issues you see with this picture, but I suppose that you see the issues that I pointed out on your photo.
Especially this painterly look, typical to small sensor cameras due to excessive processing is not present on the second image. By far it's not a good picture, and I would not buy it, but you should concentrate on getting your picture accepted and forget about other pictures. It's not an argument, to let pass your bad picture, because a different one, may be as bad, passed.
All day, I see that someone is complaining because a picture they licensed does not meet the quality requirements. Those pictures will be deleted from the database. If you license your second one, and find that the full size image has issues, you can post in the stock forum, so that Adobe takes a second look.
I thanked you for your response, but your second response was not charitable or even helpful. You are either intentionally avoiding the point I'm making or you simply don't understand. You seem to just want to say my picture is bad. The second picture shouldn't be used as a measuring stick for sure, but it does raise questions for a new user who sees a photo with poor composition and lack of detail among the images on Stock. Your response seems condescending to me, sorry.
You seem to just want to say my picture is bad.
Your picture is great. Posted on social media, you would earn my like. But it is not good for stock.
I'm not here for being charitable, however. We are not social media here and the second picture is (I can say it a third time) bad enough, that I would not buy it, and I would not see commercial appeal in a picture like that, even when not having technical issues.
I see a lot of commercial appeal in your picture, however. But the technical issues need to be cleared first, and the painterly look is not correctable, when you do not have access to the raw file.
I hope, this gives you more information on what I think of your picture. You asked why it got refused, the reasons of the refusal are clear. I do not know why the other picture got accepted, and I really do not care. Stock is not a competion. I submit now, my picture gets accepted now or refused now.
I feel like a little more in depth feedback would help prevent people like me from dumping a bunch of unacceptable photos into the review stream.
I never "dumped" more than 5 in a row. Chances are high, that you have the same errors on all, if there is an error. And chances are even higher that the same person is looking at your pictures and if they are picky, all will fail. Some moderators are more picky then others, but you will see some consitancy in refusals.
Moderators only choose generic reasons for refusals and they refuse on the first error they see. Your picture was a matter of less than a second to refuse for quality issues. They could refuse hundreds of assets in the time it takes me to describe one error in your picture.
That is a reason, why I'm thankful, you did not post 10 refusals. It would probably not change much to the reasons and I would probably refuse to check on more than 3 images.
@Abambo So you're saying they don't carefully review the submissions. Good to know.
No. The refusal of your picture is correct, and it took the moderator less than a second to decide.
And most of my refusals, after having a second look, are correct. For one or the other, I simply let it go.
I think the issue is that all assets are reviewed by human Moderators, so there is a certain amount of variability in the process. We very occasionally see a submission here in the Forum for a rejected image and we can't see anything wrong with it. That happens maybe less than 1% of the time. By and large, based on the activity here in the Forum, it appears the Moderators do catch and reject images that do not meet the current quality standards. However, there's no way to know whether they let a lot of flawed images slip through the net. No one is going to post here if they send in a "bad" image, and it gets approved anyway 🙂
No one is going to post here if they send in a "bad" image, and it gets approved anyway 🙂
There are currently a lot of erronous generative ai assets in the database. Moderators were simply no trained to detect them. A lot of customers complain to get them out of view when searching for assets.
And there are pictures that got refused, where OP proudly proclaims that after a second submission, the asset got accepted. It's rare, however.
There are many reasons why photos may have been acceptable in the past but are no longer acceptable. There are also legacy photos from before the Fotolia acquisition that may also not meet today's standards. I suspect I have a few photos in my portfolio that wouldn't be accepted in by today's standards.
But we're always to review photos and offer some feedback. You didn't mention what reason is given with the rejected photos? It would be helpful to know. I see both technical issues with a blue color cast and oversaturation, and potential IP issues as there appears to be a building in the photo that stands out more than the rest. There is a plane in the sky that should probably be cloned out, and the clouds have some odd coloring to them that may be a result of the oversaturation. I'd prefer to see a bit more detail in the mountains, but I'm not sure that led to the rejection. There is a halo around the top mountain.
At first glance it really is a nice photo and I really like it, but the small details are important when it comes to commercial work.
Including the metadata along with your photos will also help get more specific feedback
I hope this helps, feel free to reach out with more questions 🙂
Thank you for the feedback. The reasons given for rejection are very vague; usually "quality issues" but not a very specific reason given. I understand that giving detailed feedback on every photo would be impossible but I feel there should be a bit more reason given, if for no other reason than to help people avoid submitting unacceptable photos that need reviewed.
Adobe Stock assumes that you are already an experienced photographer with the ability to capture and edit high quality images. They are not in the business of making you a better photographer, though there are certainly other divisions of Adobe that offer plenty of advice and help in that regard. The Moderators are incentivized to quickly accept high quality images into the database and quickly reject inferior images, and it would slow them down immeasurably to have to denote the various quality issues that they see.
A cursory examination of the first image shows that it's quite over-saturated, has a soft focus and a white balance problem and some artifacts either from a small sensor or excessive processing. I agree that the second image isn't of particularly high quality and could be a legacy of Fotolia or escaped the close scrutiny of a Moderator. Keep in mind that Adobe has >327million images in the database, acquired Fotolia in 2015, and probably adding many millions in the 8 years they've been in the business. During that time, camera capabilities have improved by leaps and bounds, and the quality standard has increased also. I don't know whether Adobe has an active program of culling older, unsold images of questionable quality, but I think they need to do so.
I feel they should be culling images that don't meet their standards, otherwise vague rejections based on quality lead to numerous questions about their standards and selection process. I appreciate your feedback as there is genuinely no way to know why they won't accept an image based on their response given. I had a feeling some of the issues you raised were likely a cause of the rejection, but seeing low quality images in the stock results lead to my skepticism. Thanks for the feedback.
I think the very fact that you are comparing images by looking at the preview of the image and deciding which one is pleasing means you aren't in touch with what Adobe need. They are not snapshots. There are great compositions and fair compositions; the great composition will sell a lot better. But Adobe's photo-buying customers will download what they buy, and look at it with a 200% magification. If they see technical problems, like the sort of blurring they find in your image, they will be horrified, they will complain, they will ask for a refund, and Adobe's reputation will suffer. Your images need to be world class commercial photography, technically perfect. If you can also make them a great shot, and choose a suitable (underrepresented) subject, then they should sell well.
The problem arises from seeing photos like the one I posted from Adobe Stock. I understand my image isn't to their standards. The issue is finding what their threshhold is for quality. I understand and accept all the criticisms from my photo. That being said, the second photo (The one on Adobe Stock) is far from world class commercial photography. That's why I was confused, and why I made the comparison.
You're welcome, and good luck with future submissions!
I had a feeling some of the issues you raised were likely a cause of the rejection
No, they were the cause of the rejection.
Some people submit a second time, and they are lucky and get accepted, but not on a picture like yours. And if it gets accepted, the first buyer with the need of a higher resolution picture for print would get angry at Adobe stock and post a quality claim.
I think it would be equally as upsetting for Adobe to include a partial list of quality issues. Imagine fixing the quality issues they list only to have the asset rejected for a different set of quality issues. Once a quality issue is spotted, I feel sure they reject it and move on instead of looking for additional quality issues. It really does take quite a bit of time to thoroughly review a photo, 5-10 minutes wouldn't be surprising to me.
Let us know if you have any other questions or if there are any other photos you'd like us to review 🙂
It really does take quite a bit of time to thoroughly review a photo, 5-10 minutes wouldn't be surprising to me.
A trained moderator needs maximum a minute to check the quality. When you do not need to justify your refusal, you are fast. And for most of the pictures you are very fast to refuse.