Can Adobe be more specific than just "Photos rejected for Technical Issue"

[Auggie Ferns]

If a contributor has to take the trouble of filling up all the data, preping the file the least the moderator can do is be specific why an image has been rejected.   e.g this image has more than 40 downloads on Shutterstock and quite a bit on Istock getty as well. and here it is just rejected. and so many such images of mine have met with the same treatment.

[reedesign1912 · Accepted solution]

Your photo is a nice concept, but technically it is very noisy and the cup isn't in sharp focus and underexposed.  Look at it at 100%.  You also have sensor spots on your photo, very noticeably near the horizon to the right of the sun's reflection.

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

The photo is also very noisy

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

Adobe do give a reason as you know, but not very detailed. There are certain categories, but to identify each one is quite a lot of work actually. Also it (probably) isn't in their job description. So, to get more detailed feedback, you can post here where you can get good advice. And here it can be more detailed.

Istock and Shutterstock seem not to be quite so picky, they pretty much accept anything (within reason). Adobe seem to be more picky!

There are a few 'faults' - the sun's reflection is too burnt-out (this may seem picky) and general composition. The cup could also be better exposed. 

Have a read of this. It's a brief guide on image quality:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

You may find it a bit too brief though!

[Javier Peribanez]

I agree the author of this thread. Adobe, could be a little bit more careful with the contributors and could give a minimum of details why our pics are rejected. After all it is our work that gives them the money.

On the other hand, I would like to thank you for the advises you give here, cause they are very useful for me, but many of the errors or failures that you comment here, I can see them in many other photos within the Adobe catalog.

As I say, a little bit more of consideration with contributors would be appreciated.

My English is not good enough, so I apologize. Thanks

[mccjeff]

I agree that Adobe could be more supportive of their contributors as their contributors are the ones that help them generate quite a bit of profit from stock images and videos.

[Jill_C]

Adobe assumes (and prefers) that their Contributors are experienced, competent photographers who are able to provide high quality assets for inclusion in the database. This means that you should be able to carefully examine your own photographs and cull out the ones that are not acceptable and cannot be edited to comply. Is it NOT their job to make us better photographers by spending a lot of time examining our submissions and providing detailed feedback. The Moderators have only a few seconds to zoom into a submission and press a button to either accept or reject; if rejected they choose one, and only one, reason for rejection. My early acceptance rate was probably about 70%, but is now about 95% because I have developed procedures to carefully examine the images and cull out the inferior ones. 

Fortunately, Adobe has provided this forum and has cultivated competent volunteers to help our fellow Contributors who need assistance.

[mccjeff]

My acceptance rate is 99%. That being said, many stock platforms will specifiy whether an image is out of focus, has too much noise or has another issue rather than giving an ambigious answer. There are times when even some of my images get rejected erroneously for random reasons.

[Auggie Ferns]

My issue is not in the rejection.. if as contributers it takes hrs to prep files I think the moderator can take a second or 2 more to state the rejection, like say, out of focus, or grainy.. 

Having said all that I get someone having higher standards than other stock libraries but the very same image with all the faults pointed out yet sold more than 40 times for me on another site 

[Nancy OShea]

SHUTTERSTOCK:

I've nothing against Shutterstock.  It fills a niche and does so with success.  But being accepted by Shutterstock is no great "badge of honor."  It says nothing about your skills as a photographer or your quality of work.  Shutterstock's business model is based on high volume.  To achieve high volume, they're not too discerning about quality & technical standards.  It's been that way since early 2000's when micro-stock sites first appeared and hasn't changed much since. 

As a micro-stock customer myself, when I need an image for a "not-too-important project" and have extra time to sift through their massive inventory, Shutterstock is a decent resource.  Overall, their pricing is good and their quality ranks somewhere between 3-6 on a scale of 1-10.  However, it's not my go-to site when I need outstanding assets.  In those cases, I look to Getty or Adobe Stock where submission and curating standards are much higher.

FEEDBACK:

Adobe Stock reviewers have a huge quota (hundreds) of assets to examine each week.  Owing to time constraints, they can't give personal feedback to every contributor.  Providing users with feedback is not their job.  Their job is to evaluate assets quickly and accept or reject based on Adobe's criteria.  Your job is to submit your finest work.  If you want feedback, submit 1-2 photos here with the rejection reason or join a photography club.

REJECTION:

It's no fun being rejected but don't ruminate over it.  Rejection is not personal.  It merely means your asset didn't meet Adobe's criteria this time.  Fix the problems if possible and resubmit or move on to the next one. 

IMPORTANCE:

Adobe Stock and Stock Contributors are nothing without customers.  As such, the customer is numero uno. 

[Auggie Ferns]

Thanks for your detailed response.

While I agree to most of what you said, just in my little exprience the approval process is not very consistant. Same image submitted twice can recive aproval which was rejected earlier. Also I have had getty approving some images which shutterstock rejected so kinda proves my point that appcetance is subject to the modrator.

The moderator may have a lot of images to go through to approve or reject. Chosing a pre-set rejection (like focus or grain) can take only a few seconds, after all it is their job. The money they make comes from the sales of these images. Also I noticed the larger the batch they seem to apply the same rejection on the whole batch, feels like saw 2 images and rejected the rest too irrespective of quality.

I know its not Adobe's job to make us better photographers but knowing why an image is rejected helps. I purposly posted this image knowing it has faults, since this was one my earlier days of clicking but having said that this has been accpeted and sold multiple times. There are times when I cant tell what was wrong and why the image has been rejcted. its for those times that feedback would help