I've submitted a few photos now to Adobe and many have been rejected. Attached is one example. Can anyone tell me why this photo was rejected. In my mind, it's as perfect as I can get it with my current equipment. Taken with a Nikon D2Xs, 18-200 lens, 170mm, ISO 200, lit with Eflash.
Is it composition, resolution, color, ..., anything? I'm open to a discussion. Does it have commercial or illustrative value?
Copy link to clipboard
Hi @SDT1954 ,
The composition is good. However, it is underexposed. Details are lost in the dark areas and also it's not completely in focus.
You need to zoom you photos to between 100 and 200% to see some of the issues. The details must be as such an artist can crop the subject from the background. Also you need to be able to see details a in reality, or almost as in reality.
You may want to take a look at the Adobe Contributor Guidelines and some Tips to Get Your Files Accepted and some other detailed tips you may benefit from. Be sure to read up on all the sub-links of all these links for full benefits.
In addition to Jacquelin's comments, the lighting from the flash is rather harsh, creating many speculate highlights and sharp shadows.
Thanks for your comments, I'll modify this lighting in the future. Maybe even toss in some fill along the way.
I would also have better key words too. The fruit is actually on leaves and not vines or canes actually.
I'll watch my keywords and make sure I describe the image as perfect as I can in the future. Thanks
What the others said is correct. Your depth of field has thrown everything deeper than a few centimeters out of focus and the flash has created harsh shadows. The background shadows could have been a little darker and the half berry on the left could have been removed. This could have been done in post editing.
Here an example:
I'll have to track those details more closely when shooting for stock. My background over the past 20 years has been photojournalism. In this field you can't be very picky about the shot, only if it tells a story. I'll be much more critical from here on out and will now strive for perfection and hone my critical eye. Thanks for your comments.
I don't think you mentioned the reason Adobe gave you. Did they say no commercial appeal? Technical issues? Intellectual property? Something else?
Nothing was mentioned, just that it was not accepted. That's frustrating on my part, not really sure what they're looking for. However, I do have some ideas why it was not accepted, and this stems back to equipment. The res is somewhat low; could be underexposed, (I'll track that much more in future submits); plus other basic photo techniques. I've read and viewed the tutorials Adobe puts out, but they don't really say anything specific. It seems like the folks who review submissions can be very picky..., 'cause they're Adobe. I'll chalk this up to a learning experience and move on.
No, rejections come always with a rejection reason attached. Most are rejected for "technical issues" and that includes a bunch of faults that where highlighted here. However, moderators do not point out a very specific detail why they rejected the picture. And they reject on the first issue, the moderator sees. It's very efficient from a moderation point of view, but it can be frustrating for new contributors. However, most of the pictures I've seen here are rejected for good reason an with only a few I had to speculate.
If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
Nothing was mentioned, just that it was not accepted. That's frustrating on my part, not really sure what they're looking for. ... It seems like the folks who review submissions can be very picky..., 'cause they're Adobe. I'll chalk this up to a learning experience and move on.
Hello, it's not really fair to say 'cause they're Adobe...'
To be perfectly honest, there are quite a number of stock agencies and a lot of them accept absolute rubbish!
And this makes people think that their photo is up to standard when in all reality, it isn't!
I hope I don't sound too harsh, but I think Adobe is trying to aim for a certain standard that may be a lot higher than say Shutterstock!
To know what they are looking for, try this:
and subscribe to it!
On your contributor page, go to "Uploaded Files"
Click on "Not accepted"
Click on the relevant image on the left of the page
Turn you eyes to the right of the page and read the caption - That's the rejection reason.
The rejection reason is also in the first paragraph below the caption.
For more details you are directed to two links - the guideline link and the forum link.
There is ALWAYS a reason. Please look more carefully for each rejected image. You can waste a lot of time if you aren't addressing the specific issue raised.
Just a couple comments in addition to the reasons given by others for the technical rejection, on how to correct the issues.
You may want to consider getting some lighting equipment. A couple years ago I got two white (shoot through) umbrellas, two reflective umbrellas, and two unbrella/flash stands for under $50 US from ebay. These would help you soften the shadows. You can even make a basic off camera lighting setup using things like tracing paper hung from a broom handle (I did when starting out, it worked reasonably well and is really cheap).
You will need off camera flashes as well, ebay has flashes that are pretty cheap, although you may need to set the cheaper ones manually. If you don't get ones that support iTTL, you will also need wireless flash triggers, but again, search on ebay, I got a set (1 x transmitter + 2 x receiver) for about $20. DON'T GET AN OLD FLASH MEANT FOR A FILM CAMERA, these use high voltages and can fry a DSLR if not modified.
Flashes will also allow you to direct more light at the subject, allowing you to use a smaller aperture, thus increasing depth of field.
The above will allow you to much better control your lighting which should increase your acceptance rate.
Finally, the 18-200mm zoom is not a great lens. Any super zoom like that won't be very sharp, and will exhibit other technical problems that will reduce the quality of your photos. That isn't to say they cannot be used for stock photography, but it will be more challenging.
Nikon F mount cameras can use many old lenses originally designed for film cameras and these can be found pretty cheaply. I bought a film camera that came with several old prime lenses for only $100, one was a 50mm f/1.4, one was a 200mm, and a couple in the 20mm range. Even old primes will give you better results (if used properly) than your 18-200mm, and if you search ebay, yard sales, flea markets, etc, they aren't too hard to find or very expensive. Plan on using a steady tripod if you want to do stock photography with manual focus lenses.
Anyway, that is my $0.02 on how to improve photos like the rejected one you posted.
Thanks for all the input. Actually I've been shooting for some years
now, but not to the standard required by stock photos. This is a whole
I'll be upgrading my ancient digital equipment within the next few
months to give me a much tighter razor sharp image.
Again, thanks for your thoughts.
[Email signature & personal info removed by moderator as per community guidelines.]
Buenas noche la pregunta seria, tu subiste varias fotos iguales ? porque si subes fotos de la misma serie no te aceptan que sean fotos repetitivas
Hello, I have just started and I am reviewing photographs of the forum to develop criteria and learn. I have read the previous answers and I have been able to see those problems in the photo. I have a question. Could the partial blurring of the leaves in the area on the right also be a technical problem? I personally find it unbalanced and I don't know if it would fit more as a technical problem to reject, or if it would be a matter of taste of potential buyers...