AS ALWAYS "problems with quality"

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Listen... I am getting a little embarrassed with all of these situations when a pack of those "adobe experts" moderators are putting "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" like in ancient gladiator fights, and all you can do is praying of passing an exam. All of the shots I do right now, are with the sony a6400 and sony fe 85 mm 1,8 lens. THIS IS +1.500 $ SET UP, and you want to tell me that THIS CAMERA with THIS LENS does not sharp images and you have problems somewhere with quality? My photos are clearly sharp at 100% (and that is ENOUGH), and there are no problems with exposure (list of the photos in link). Not underexposed, and not overexposed (and that even the editing program says the same). SO WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? Maybe let's do a minimal and optimal requirments of approving photos with equipment list? Like in a PC games. A founder of PC games always tells minimum and optimum requirments for a games, like a minimum graphic card or memory space, etc. Why not? What could be a minimal there to have no worries? Sony a7r5 with 5k$ lens, to pass the judges, and then maybe sell one image for 10 penies in a next 6 months? Optimal Sony a1? .. I am embarrassed like hell. So one sentence to the moderators who will judge the photos next time of the others who have the same problems: Not every one shots images with a set up for 20.000$, but that DOESN'T MEAN you have to decline every photo only because it is not sharp at 400% of zooming into the photo that was made in the darkest place on the planet. Horrific standards, and that is just my opinion...

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

I too get mad sometimes. But, unlike you, I do not think my photos are perfect when they are not. Your photos are not perfectly sharp. See below. 

I only looked at your first two photos. 

Photo 15 has no clear subject and a very shallow depth of field.  The shallow depth of field results in most of the photo being blurry.

Photo 13 is not focused. This is do to subject movement. Probably the wind and a slow shutter speed. See the image below. The shadow can be seen. Also the highlights in this photo are overexposed. The color is undersaturated.

 Adobe customers expect quality. I either have to supply this quality or I have to offer my work at a less reputable supplier.

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

I nowhere said my photos are perfect. I said these photos are acceptable. If adobe require a natural photo I CAN PUT A RAW and add "color it by yourself". There is a reason why the photos are with blurred backgroud, and there are reasons why the photos can be blue, green, yellow and whatever else. You build your style on some specific colours, some depth, and you deliver your own style and representation. People doesn't follow standards, and everybody of us know it. I just disagree with the rejection, and I am embarrassed with these decisions.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

This isn't a photo contest, it's a business. Adobe Stock knows what their customers buy and don't buy.  They make no profits from rejected images.  Profits come from accepting high volume of quality images that have good sales potential.

As an example, this image has focus problems, color balance issues (too purple) poor lighting (see Histogram) and little if any commercial appeal for use on posters, billboards, t-shirts, tote bags, TV or magazine ads.  If you were the customer, would you buy it?  What would you use it for?

You need to think less like a sensitive artist and more like content creator for your customers.  Give customers what they want & they will buy your product. 😉

Hope that helps.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

20230102_0015.jpg - very underexposed and very shallow depth of field rendering most of the image out of focus

20230101_0013.jpg - mostly out of focus with a blownout area in the center

20230101_0013.jpg - same as above

20230102_0012.jpg - again very little in focus

20230102_00171.jpg - underexposed and too shallow depth of field

Remaining images have similar issues - underexposed, overly shallow DOF, large blurry areas; frankly these have limited commercial appeal.

The settings you choose and the editing you apply to your images are equally important as the $$ you spend on your camera. I have had images accepted from my starter DSLR - a Canon Digital Rebel made in 2008, and also from my iPhone 8, though I now shoot with much more advanced cameras. 

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Hey, thanks for your opinion at first. But once again, the DOF have a point... And when you say "mostly out of focus" the point of it was capture not the entire scene but the thing. 20230102_0015 for me is on the edge of beeing overexposed (the scene is as I wanted it to capture, so the back is blurred and only low part of the first step is in focus). And so on. 

[Jill_C]

You can debate with your fellow Contributors as much as you want, but the fact is that it's Adobe's Stock business and their rules. Perhaps try submitting them to other stock sites and see if they're accepted and sold there... I agree that it's fun, interesting and challenging to collect such images for your own satisfaction and maybe to display on your walls or social media accounts, but Adobe has deemed them not a fit for their needs. I don't know why you find that embarrassing. 

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Hey Jill_C, believe me I understand you. You shorten something I wanted to say. But except Adobe rules, nobody know how many clients will go for these photos in the future. You can not predict. I can not predict. From technical perspective, you can say it's failure as Abambo said. But world doesn't work in "Zero One" system. Ok, Adobe said, it's not for their needs and I won't argue about that. I argue about rejecting something beyond he photo. Though of course I am not right, and I can put it on my social media if I want and sell on my own whenever I want, and that is the final of the topic - I get it since beggining.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your time and also for your advices.

[Jill_C]

I wish you success in whatever venue you find to share your photography. You are obviously passionate and skilled at it. Personally, I have had lots of fun for 15 years now sharing my images on Flickr. Their collaboration with Getty Images was my first taste of stock photgraphy and I earned a bit of money there, but they required exclusivity (meaning I couldn't sell the images anywhere else). Adobe Stock has been a much better outlet for me to sell stock photos, and I've learned which images are likely to be accepted. I, too, have some artsy, more creative images im my archives, but I don't bother uploading those to Adobe. It's not what they're looking for.

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

I got you Jill. Will try to post something soon there. I clearly see there are looking for something that is not really I want to show to the others (even assuming technically no issues). And I wish you more success than you already succed. Your last two sentences are the most important in your career, and that is literally the worst there. 

[Abambo]

20230102_0015 for me is on the edge of beeing overexposed

By @SzymonBednarz Photography

The histogram says otherwise.

Even artistically, I would call this picture a failure. As I said earlier, it's not that your lens can do f1.8 that you need to do f1.8.

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Thanks Abambo, I take it into consideration 🙂 

[George_F]

Regardless of how much or little it costs, any camera and lens combination can take photos that aren't sharp and have the exposure be off.  I use a camera that is 9 years old now and I still have a high acceptance rate.

The Community Experts you see here on the forums aren't Adobe Employees or Image Reviewers.  We are Stock Contributors and Adobe Users just like you are, and I volunteer my time to give back to the community that helped me get started.  I'm sure others who contribute often have their own reasons.

@RALPH_L and @Jill_C have already given their thoughts on the technical issues, and I agree with their opinions.  I hear what you are saying when you say it was intentional, but an artistic image doesn't necessarily make for a useful commercial asset.  I think it's important to think about how an asset will be used.

When I look for stock images to purchase for a composite for instance, I look for something that is well exposed, not stylized, and mostly in focus.  I always apply artistic edits to match the rest of a project if needed.

We're always happy to offer guidance based on our experiences so feel free to keep asking questions if you'd like.  I genuinely wish you luck 🙂

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Hey there, thanks for sharing your opinion. Based on the topic, the photos are sent on the forum, where as you said "Stock Contributors and Adobe Users" give their opinion. I perfectly understand this part of the forum, no need to translate who is the addresse. But believe me, adobe workers also pass through the topics, and sooner or later they will visit, and at least read what community is saying even if they are not interesting in to listening to that.
And there is replay to yours - artistic photos are artistic photos. The aperture is the aperture. If the aperture had no point, then nobody would shoot portrait photos with exact aperture. As you know from your experience, the f1.4-1.8 gives the look (of course 6400 is aps-c but this is no the topic) you want to do as same as everything changes at f8+. If I wanted to make landscape photos without any blur, i'd go for 35 mm and shoot at f/11, not 85 mm with f1.4-1.8 with blur effect.
I am not here to argue with Contributors, but there is a grief where from my perspective, Adobe pushes most common photos, that dies inbetween thousands of the others and the ones that are different doesn't pass. I never said mine are perfect and original. I say, the style is important. It feels like style (and ALSO artistic presentation as you said) like mines is pushed away from the Adobe Stock maybe because of photo problems (I don't think that, as many people say there are A LOT worse photos that passed exam), or maybe a moderator mood. Chasing for the rules, is chasing for the boredom. Because now if I take into consideration all of yours opinion the most important is:
1. Overexpose the image (for me it's better to under, because you still can edit it by yourself)
2. Forget about shallow DOF when there are more than ONE object in the LCD screen.

3. Stop making original colorstyle, the best is to put raw colors, upscale to what it was in nature, and don't even sacrifice the time to focus on that more than 30 seconds.

[Abambo]

Chasing for the rules, is chasing for the boredom.

By @SzymonBednarz Photography

Stock is boredom. As a stock customer, I look for pictures that I can mend to my mind. I do not look for pictures with such a swallow DOF that I can't compose my picture into something greater.

[SzymonBednarz Photography · Accepted solution]

I got you. Next time I am going to shoot differently just for stock, and check twice if it's under/overexposed, and we will see what the effects gonna be. I guess the same - "Not in needs/Quality problems" but.. as I said, we will see, so thank you for all, and see you soon (for sure)! 🙂
Wish you the best in the new year, by the way! 🙂

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

Hi Simone,

It is a misconception, thinking that the price tag of your camera makes you a good photographer. Indeed, most good photographer don't get ask with what camera this picture has been taken, but how they took it. It is certain that the higher the price, the better the quality you could expect from a camera and equipment, but as always, it's not always the priciest horse in the stable winning the races.

My pictures pass, mostly. Just to say. But I have my share of refusals too.

I now opened one picture randomly: 20230102_0001

And the picture is underexposed. Furthermore, your picture has such a narrow DOF, that it is probably unusable. In addition, on a side note, there is a certain amount of noise.

I'm also questioning the Commercial Appeal of this picture.

DSC(...): Chromatic aberration:

and such a narrow DOF, that also this picture is unusable. If your lens is capable of doing f1.8, that does not mean that you need to shoot at f1.8. The histogram shows that your picture is rather flat. You could add blacks and whites to enhance the contrast.

20230101_0013:

The image is underexposed, besides the narrow DOF:

(blacks are missing)

I also think that you desaturated this picture quite a lot. In addition, there is chromatic aberration and there are artefacts, where I have difficulties to understand how they get created:

I have such phenomena when compositing different shoots together.

I'll stop here.

My advice:

Stop shooting everything at f1.8, it makes wonderful pictures unusable. I very often bracket my exposure, but also change the opening to see, at what opening the background get this nice blur, and the subject is in focus.

Don't take refusals personal, you should work on them to get a better photographer. Your equipment is great, you have a good eye, work your technique and avoid the extreme. I too, I have f1.4 lenses, but I rarely go down to 1.4. There is a nice bokeh even at higher f values, but getting the subject sharp is much easier or even only possible at a higher f value (2.8, 3.2, 4.0 …).

BTW: the “Adobe expert” moderators are really only giving you a thumbs up, if they don't detect an error. But they refuse at the first one they see, even if there are multiple ones… That's very effective and fast.

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Thanks for your time. 

I understand all of you, you understand me. As I said up there, overall, chasing the standards, and rules at Adobe is the point of passing and only way. Don't get me wrong. I don't say about myself a "photographer" since I am only "a owner of the photos".
"Photographer" can be you, or people that gives me advices, as an Experts. I respect other people, their time and effort they put into the job, and the experience the other have. 
But something I need to say... I know, I should change the aperture but after that this is killing something I want to create at exact time. 
Anyway, I take into consideration ALL OF YOURS opinion, and will try once again very soon. 

[Abambo]

You're welcome.

[Henrik Heigl · Accepted solution]

Hi,

as some other pointed out the technical issues I also want to add, that those photos that are for Stock Agencies like Adobe Stock but also for "the others" are made for people who want to use them in commercials, in Advertisements, etc. so there is a very high quality Standard. In those Marketing Agencies and whatsoever there are also Quality Standards. If these quality standards are not met, no pictures are sold and in the end the stock agency is not in a good position either, because a potential buyer would always be presented with inferior photos. So it is VERY good to have such a Quality Check BEFORE having the Stock Photos Online. Hope that helps.

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Hi Henrik 🙂

Thank you for your advices, and sacrificing your time. Will follow up the advices, as the rest ones up there. 

See you soon!

[MatHayward · Accepted solution]

Major shout out to the community members here providing outstanding, thoughtful and detailed feedback as was requested by the OP. Rejection can be hard to accept, but it's part of the business. You have to find a way to learn from them and evolve your style so they happen less frequently and you create content with much higher sales potential. 

Technical issues aside, in the half dozen photos I opened here, I saw very little, to no commercial value. You have to ask yourself, if you were a customer buying stock images, what would you use this image for? If you cannot answer that question, you need to change your shot list.

Check out the Adobe Stock Artist Hub for motivation and inspiration on what to shoot. You'll find plenty of calls for content and trending topics there: ARTIST HUB

Better luck next time with your future submissions.

Mat Hayward 

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Hi Mat 🙂

Appreciate your time and your opinion. As I said up there, I respect your experience, so there is no discuss. I just see differently, though I know exactly what you mean. I have dozens of ideas of purpose with selling my images (not the one you mentioned), though it's a good opportunity to skill up shooting to perfection in a perspective of time. I expected my photos to pass from my point of view, because the options of using these photos are unlimited. I understand Adobe have standards which are high (very high), with what I disagree and a little agree at the same time, but I understand technically they are failure (for Adobe, for me personally not, but could be better of course), though there are worse examples as people say, that passed verification. That's it. 
Wish you best in your photo adventure 🙂 Thanks once again!

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

With all due respect, I think you misunderstand stock photography. In my personal opinion, the photos that you showed here, don't have any value in a commercial sense.

Stock photography is NOT about art. The photos etc have to have a purpose; you might be able to think of a lot of uses for your photos, but how can moss on a step be used in a commercial setting, (with how you framed it, and the focus you used apart from exposure and white balance)? Weed killer?

Even from a photographic point of view, I do honestly think that the depth of field you used is just too shallow. 

One makes money on stock by providing assets that people want, and having numerous downloads! Sales by volume!

Having a few sales a month in my view is just not worth the effort!

This is where the 'Artist Hub' can be a very very good read! You should really have a look at it!

Of course, we can agree to disagree, but think a bit more about what the others here are saying!

[SzymonBednarz Photography]

Hi ricky

I respect your opinion, I take all of your guidance to my next photoshots 🙂

best regards, Simon