For commercial value - No. It is not interesting! It is indeed lacking aesthetic and commercial value!
I suppose it might interest other hermits who are living off the grid. 😉
But for the rest of us who use Adobe Stock images for commercial projects, not at all.
Better luck next time.
Perhaps it's interesting in the sense that it's a peek into another way of living; however, the Adobe Moderators have a good sense (and a list of guidelines) of the types of images that they know will sell and have sold. I have also had images rejected on the basis of aesthetics, and it's certainly frustrating, particularly when you know that your image is technically well executed. Remember this isn't an art gallery; it all comes down to what is saleable.
Thank you. I myself have written hundreds of articles, which I illustrated with my own and others' photographs. These were often very unexpected decisions. No one can determine the commercial value of an image only if there are many duplicates.
...I have written hundreds of articles, which I illustrated with my own and others' photographs.
"Editorial Use Only" is a totally separate license. Adobe Stock gets their EUO images from trusted partners and news agencies only. Individual contributors cannot submit EUO images.
Anything you submit to Stock must be commercially suitable for use in product packaging, merchandising, marketing, commercials, social media, websites, email, videos, etc...
No one can determine the commercial value of an image only if there are many duplicates.
It's a refusal for assets submitted. It does not say that the picture really does not sell. I have submitted pictures to Adobe stock that sell, but I would not buy them. This is the kind of discussion that I don't take. I got pictures refused for lacking ascetic appeal and commercial value... So, what? I move on! Don't take it as a judgement of your photography talent.