Skip to main content
A
Auggie Ferns
Participant
January 11, 2022
Answered

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

  • January 11, 2022
  • 4 replies
  • 608 views

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.

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer Ricky336

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!

4 replies

Nancy OShea
Community Expert
Nancy OSheaCommunity Expert
Community Expert
January 11, 2022

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. 

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert
    A
    Auggie FernsAuthor
    Participant
    January 12, 2022

    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

      Ricky336
      Community Expert
      Ricky336Community ExpertCorrect answer
      Community Expert
      January 11, 2022

      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
      Javier Peribanez
      Known Participant
      January 11, 2022

      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
        mccjeff
        Participating Frequently
        January 11, 2022

        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.

          RALPH_L
          Community Expert
          RALPH_LCommunity Expert
          Community Expert
          January 11, 2022

          The photo is also very noisy

          reedesign1912
          reedesign1912
          Inspiring
          January 11, 2022

          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.

           

          Rob R, Photographer
            Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
            Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices