Any idea of another stock photo platform that doesn't reject for "quality" issues?

Any idea of another stock photo platform that doesn't reject for "quality" issues?

=============

Good luck with that.  Every microstock agency has quality standards & submission criteria you must meet to get your work accepted & sold.  Some are less discerning than others but often they pay less royalty fees and have a smaller customer base that uses them. 

Adobe Stock's standards bar is higher because their customers expect professional quality images for use in commercial projects.

There's no law that says you must contribute to microstock agencies.  Many artists don't.  If you want to sell images direct without going through a review process, set-up an Etsy Shop where you handle everything:

• marketing & advertising,
• customer acquisition costs,
• sales,
• payment processing,
• order fulfillment,
• product distribution,
• customer complaints +++.

All really fun stuff, especially for young start-ups who have never done it before and have no idea how much time, work & money it takes to make an  e-commerce site into a successful revenue generating business.

I wish you the best of luck.

So here's my theory as a new stock seller and having tested a few things. I think there are multiples of people on the other end validating "quality" issues. I think it depends on who is actually reviewing your work. Give it some time, submit other work and then resubmit these. You'll most likely get a different reviewer and they could get through.

One of my tests was submitting images that were published in a magazine. I submitted one if the images. It was approved. Then I submitted the rest of the set, none of them were approved and remember they were all published images so I knew and the publisher knew they were of good quality. Basically ya got a 50/50 shot on who is reviewing your images on the other end.

I'm also a buyer of stock. Keep in mind how a potential buyer may use your images: blogs, website, magazines, corporate newsletter, print and on and on.

My 2 Cents!

Hello,

To me, these photos look as if they have been taken with a smartphone. The overall quality and the naming system of the file indicate this.

The issue with smartphone cameras and cameras that have a small sensor is that the sensor is small, so it is difficult to get a high enough quality that one can enlarge. The photos that you have shown will not enlarge very well. This is important in a commercial sense as they could be used for billboards - for example. 

Another thing is that the file is saved as JPEG, therefore, it is somewhat difficult to do further post-processing. It looks as though these came straight out of the camera. Post-processing is necessary when you want them for stock (and not only). For example, in a lot of your photos white balance needs to be altered a bit, lens flare removed, some cropping of the photo in some cases to improve composition, etc. That is why people recommended taking the photo in raw (DNG, CR2, CR3, etc) You can alter the raw file without destruction. (Saving a file as JPEG continuously destroys the file.)

Enlarging your photos shows some JPEG compression artifacts. Under the quality rejection issue, a subheading could be artifacts and noise.

Quality issues these days are becoming a lot more important, and people are becoming a lot more picky. 

Hence Adobe also needs to be stricter in its quality control.

Good luck with othr companies. You will soon expierience, that photos will get accepted by one but, not the other and vice versa.

I looked at your first photo (175151) and here is what i see:

1. The shadows (trees aned bushes) are underexposed.

2. The highlighted sun reflection is overexposed.

3. Due to the exposure difference between the bright sky and water and the darker limbs and the mountain top you have a white halo and artifacts.

4. The horizon is not level. The right side of the bank is slightly higher than the left.

5. There is too much noise in the sky and water. Some color noise.

6. The photo is not in focus.

7.  There are some spots in the water (a bird and the boat) which need to be removed.

This photo, I am sorry to say, needs to be better.

As you say, as a customer you would never buy the poor quality images that you have found. So, surely you realize why the standards are high and why your photo that I reviewed, cannot be accepted. 

From my perspective, over the past few years the game really has changed with Stock Photography in general.  Photography gear and software have gotten better and easier to use, and with that there isn't a shortage of high quality photos to be had.  The bar is just getting progressively higher with what is acceptable.  I feel sure there are a few photos in my own portfolio that wouldn't make it through these days.  There are also some photos from before Adobe purchased Fotolia that may be grandfathered in.

Although it may be hard to see at the time, a rejection is a great opportunity to learn to better evaluate your photos for the next round of submissions 🙂

I actually find Adobe to be the least "cluttered" out of all the stock agencies and can usually find what I need for a project with just a search of a few minutes.  It's not hard to locate the big names in Stock though, feel free to browse their catalogs.

With sincerity, I wish you good luck with future submissions!

Hi @D Strolis ,

Your first file is underexposed. You are shooting in the sun so you underexpose; that's not acceptable. Your photo must be as such it is close as possible to what it looks like in reality. With such a bright sun earth's objects would not be so dark. It means you'll need to employ techniques to filter the sun's light and to get light onto the shadow side of your subject without using filters. Besides, it is not recommended to shoot in the sun. Black areas do not do well for printing.

Lens flares are all over the second image. The plaque makes this an IP requirement. 

The third file has white balance issue and out of focus. It looks like a nice painting. I believe you did not have enough depth for this shot.

The fourth one also has no details. The perspective need correcting and there's blue color fringing around the edge in the highlights.

The fifth also has lost details. Seem over-processed and has a blue white balance issue. 

First off, if you found poorer quality than these on Adobe platform, you'd have pointed it out because it would mean you'd have paid for, and downloaded the actual photo and know how to check for issues. Judging from these photos you deem fairly good quality, you do not know how to check for issues and judging from your comment you have never bought a poor quality photo. You cannot check for quality from a thumbnail. So you found hundreds of images you do not like don't mean their quality are poor.

Inconsistency is expected since it's people that reviews the photos. However, I have never come across a file on the platform that I will consider of poor quality. So if you find any such file, we'd love to see it.  I rather sticking to a platform that I can grow with than one that takes anything. That is the reason I stick with Adobe.  

If you wish to stay with Adobe then you need to read-up on the Adobe Contributor Guidelines and Tip For Getting You Photos Accepted. These other tips will help you a great deal. Read the information of all the sub-links. The third link page title "Income Requirement and Payout" means if you want to get an income from your submitted files, you are required to to follow the guideline, which will help you get larger payouts.

Foap is a platform that takes anything you submit, so if you wish to try them you can download their app. Good luck selling. 

Best wishes

Jacquelin

Another Pacific Northwestener I see!  I like you photos.  With some of them I think some minor edits could get them accepted.  Soft focus and/or totally blown out highlights will doom them.  We are just guessing here, but I'd adjust the white and black point to maximize the tonal range.  I'd also adjust the transformation to get the trees more parallel rather than angled inward.  I've seen other say Adobe frowns on solar flares.  That could be an issue with the photo where the sun is dominant.  Don't give up yet.   

As far as other platforms are concerned I've had mixed result with them.  They have rejected photos that were accepted by Adobe.  It's been hit or miss for me.  Best regards, John

I don't think Adobe's standards are unreasonable, though there can be some inconsistencies in the moderation process. Occasionally we see a rejected image posted here for feedback in which the community members can find no flaws; but by and large the rejected images do demonstrate technical flaws.

Here's what I detect in the examples you posted:

1. Not in focus

2. large blownout area and lens flare 

3. White balance seems a bit too blue 

4. Soft focus

5. Focus and chromatic aberration 

There are indeed older images in the database, perhaps from Fotolia, that don't seem to meet the current quality standards, but digital cameras have improved dramatically over the years so I would expect the standards to be raised as well.