can anyone say why those photos where rejected

[ricardor58363743]

[Jill_C]

The first image is a bit underexposed, and you would have needed to submit a model release for the surfer.

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Perhaps composition is one thing to consider...

cutting off the feet.

White balance and composition. Maybe a narrower view?

composition:

[erik@@@]

Credo che la foto di ognuno di noi sia soggettiva...quindi non deve essere additata da altri, pwerchè quel tipo di fotografia potrebbe essere valida per un ipotetico acquirente!

[Abambo]

I think everyone's photo is subjective...so it should not be pointed out by others, because that kind of photo might be valid for a hypothetical buyer!

By erik@@@

Well, cutting of the feet is not subjective, that is real. And there are indeed composition rules that you should know and follow. If you check the Adobe contributor instructions, you see that composition is part of the quality issues, as is the white balance.

[daniellei4510]

Certainly, if there are photographers who don't recognize quality issues in a photograph, then there will be buyers who won't recognize them as well. There's no accounting for tastes. But that is no excuse for accepting assets where such issues exist and that are apparent to others. We hear it over and over from contributors: "I don't know why Adobe didn't accept this image due to quality issues. Stock site X and stock site Y accepted them, and they have sold." But those stock sites are not Adobe. 

[Ricky336]

Composition is important. Well known painters - Michelangelo - didn't cut off feet in his paintings. These early painters knew about composition!!

[Abambo]

For the surfer at least, you also have chromatic aberration:

As for the rest, you should post here your originally submitted assets, not downsampled assets. A lot of the issues can't be checked in downsampled assets.