Another rejection. What's wrong here?

[SLoganPhotos]

Hi everyone,

I'm still trying to understand why I can't get a single photo accepted onto Adobe Stock. Can someone tell me what is wrong with this photo that it was rejected for quality reasons? This wasn't created by a filter, all I did was slightly up the saturation to bring out the red. The dirt is actually that colour. The sky isn't blown out. What kind of insane quality guidelines exist on Adobe Stock?

Thanks for your input.

[daniellei4510]

Actually, the sky is kind of blown out if one were to add a sky replacement for comparison.

[SLoganPhotos]

Okay, the problem with real life photography of course is that sometimes it's just simply more overcast than what a photographer wants. So, Adobe apparently doesn't want too much editing, but in this case it would've been better for me to completely edit a new sky into the existing photo? Just good to know if I want to submit any other images. Is the sky the only issue here?

[daniellei4510]

"Is the sky the only issue here?"

@Jill_C makes some additional points but no, I can't guarantee that adding sky alone would get the image accepted. One can only try. 

[Abambo]

 So, Adobe apparently doesn't want too much editing

By @SLoganPhotos

Where did you find this rule? Adobe does not care how much you edit your asset. Adobe only wants to get quality assets, and sometimes that asks for heavy editing. 

If you submit assets, those assets need to be sharp (DOF is allowed, however, the DOF should be logiv^cal and the main subject needs to stay in focus), well exposed, free of artefacts, free of noise, with a correct white balance and correct saturation.

You can edit anything in your picture, as long as you manage to do that correctly. This means also replacing objects, including the sky. We are not working for the National Geographic here.

[SLoganPhotos]

Ok I get it. I guess I was thinking of the "not overly filtered" rule.

[Jill_C]

When I zoom to inspect carefully (which is exactly what Moderators do), I see blue and a loss of detail. Was this shot with a mobile phone camera? There's also chromatic aberration among the branches.

[SLoganPhotos]

Okay thanks. No it wasn't a mobile phone camera, it was an older dslr. Could you also give me an opinion then on a brand new photo I took with my Nikon Z5 that certain maintains detail without any chromatic abberations? (Also rejected for quality reasons). Would just be interested in your opinion.

[SLoganPhotos]

Is it because some of the leaves are in soft focus? I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around is that artistic choices regarding things like focus are irrelevant in trying to get something approved on here.

[Jill_C]

Putting the focus and blank sky aside, the chromatic abberation alone would have resulted in a rejection, and that's one of the easiest things to fix. Chromatic abberation is more a function of the lens that the camera itself. I have a high end Canon 5D Mark IV and L lenses and often get CA in my images. I ALWAYS look among tree branches and leaves because that where it often occurs.

[Abambo]

Is it because some of the leaves are in soft focus? I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around is that artistic choices regarding things like focus are irrelevant in trying to get something approved on here.

By @SLoganPhotos

There is nnothing in. forcus, so yes, that is an issue. I'm not sue, what "artistic choice" about the focus you took, all images need to be sharp, where it counts, and there are well established rules for this. Check your asset at 100% and tell me, where you did set the focus.

[SLoganPhotos]

Yes, the leaves closest to the camera/me, on the right side of the image, are in focus.

[Jill_C]

Regarding falltrees.jpg, this is not the type of scene where you'd commonly see CA. It usually occurs when the branches are highlight against a bright sky. But not to worry, just one slider in Lightroom will easily get rid of it. This image seems to be quite softly focused. Zoom in and look at the bark of the brightly highlighed trees. 

[Abambo]

Could you also give me an opinion then on a brand new photo I took with my Nikon Z5 that certain maintains detail without any chromatic abberations? (Also rejected for quality reasons). Would just be interested in your opinion.

By @SLoganPhotos

Chromatic aberration is a lens issue and all lenses have that, even the most expensive ones. 

I did not look deep into your picture. I immediatly saw "problem zones":

Especially the trunk of the tree is overexposed and this must be corrected. In addition you need to check the white balance. I also feel that the image lacks contrast.