All photos were rejected by quality issue

[EzyRider_II]

hello, sorry for butting in here in Helen's post, but I didn't want to strt a new thread. lately I get waaaay too many rejections. and I have no clue why. they simply say "quality". which is sortf like "I don't like your photo" to me. these are pics that get easily accepted by 4 other stock agencies (SS, Alamy, iStock and Dreamstime). and I am not exactly new to posting. have over 15000 pics all over the agaencies. any insight? is it some trigger happy AI doing this? any feedback is appreciated. 

(moderator detached from hijacked thread)

[Abambo]

I will start the thread for you. Quality issues is what it says: Quality issues with the picture, that you see, when you critically analyze an asset. 

Commercial appeal is a kind of "I don't like your picture", probably based on some solid experience. 

Having assets accepted elsewhere is not an argument to get your asset accepted here. Every stock database has its own rules and those are evolving. What has been acceptable 5 years ago may today earn a straight refusal. 

And why does it need to be always AI to refuse your assets. When there are bad assets in the database, buyers complain about nonexistent vetting. So, I suppose, Adobe is still not stringent enough, with some assets.

[EzyRider_II]

Thank you Abambo for taking the time. And I sort of see your point. I do! I
have photos (elsewhere) that sold over 250 times but not once in the last 6
months. It's like "come and go". But what absolutely irritates and bothers
me when out of 10 uploads Adobe rejects 9! And I am telling you they have
no serious reason for it. In the 10 I have stuff that has sold 5 times in a
week after uploading. Actually a bit similar to my sample I provided here.
Adobe's loss, Shutterstock's gain I suppose. But it is frustrating enough
that I stopped adding to my port for now. Just no point. I don't mind
processing/cleaning my photos cuz I upload to many other sites. But
key-wording at Adobe is such a hassle (sequencing) that it's just not worth
it to me any more based on the rejection rate. Further more, it happened
several times (!) that what they rejected off-hand, they accepted a month
later! Now where is the consistency in that? Thanks again and cheers!

[Abambo]

It's your choice. I quasi stopped uploading at Shutterstock, because it's not worth the hassle. I have more sales here and per sale more royalty. 

If you resubmit without modification, you can get banned for spamming. I always copied the keywords from one site to the other. And you can save your keywords in an Excel spreadsheet or somewhere else.

[EzyRider_II]

I hear you, but this is the thing: it happened to me not once, not twice, that when I submitted the same photo the 2nd time (O.K., I renamed it or occaisonally flipped it, just to keep it somewhat "different" from the original, but otherwise unchanged), it did get accepted!! so what does it tell you? a, it went to a different reviewer who didn't find (sufficient) quality issues with it to reject it. b, reviewers evalute based on different sets of criteria. so I rest my case about "quality issues" dismissals. different day, different reviewer, different outcome! my photo friend told me the same, that the 2nd time unaltered pics of his got accepted. is it risky to resubmit? perhaps a bit. but when you are sure that the photo would sell (based on the fact that it sells O.K. at other sites), I can be a bit stubborn. and I wait a month before resubmitting. as for shutterstock, you are absolutely right! I swore to myself a dozen times at least that I would never upload there again cuz of the 10 cent sales. yet I find myself uploading because when I have the photo and all the data already prepared, it takes 20 seconds to copy-paste to ss. and every so often they do sell a photo of mine for a pretty decent buck. but I am not overdoing submitting there either. have too many photos there already.  Adobe brings in about twice of the 4 other sites combined and with a 1/4 of portfolio size! moneywise Adobe is far superior for me.

[Abambo]

As for your asset, I would do a clean-up. Buyers don't like images, when they need to clean it. You should digitally hoover the asset. 

[EzyRider_II]

thank you Abambo. but I always clean my photos. to the point that I easily spend 5, sometimes 10 or more minutes with each in PP. I bet it may even sound excessive. I even do "crazy" things like cloning out cigarette butts from a street scene : ). if it's 15 butts (there may be that many), I remove 15. simly because they would bother my eyes, should I be a customer. out of respect to the potential buyer. or remove a fuzzy seagull from the sky if it's not enhancing the pic, but questionable to the overall appeal. probably extreme, but that's me. so all in all I do work more than my "fair share" for the customer.