We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
Not sure why this one was rejected for technical issues. When I look at the list of what constitutes a "technical issue" I don't see anything that matches this image.
I'm not super upset about the image being rejected, I just would like to know why so I can avoid spending time uploading others just to have them rejected too. Thanks.
Reading all the other posts here, looks like "Technical Issue" could also be synonomous with "this is a bad photo." However, I don't think thats the case with this one.
Technical issues are what it says: technical issues like noise, white balance, out of focus, …
It's not giving judgement for commercial appeal. That refusal is for pictures that are technically correct, but do not fit into the database.
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
Maybe the noise 😕 too much shade I don't know much about professional photography, but mine also were rejected, and I think are good photos too… I don't get what this site is about. I'm also feeling kind of pissed off.
I don't get what this site is about. I'm also feeling kind of pissed off.
It's impolite to hijack another Stock Contributor's request for feedback with problems of your own. Please start a new topic with 1 or 2 of your rejected images. We will endeavor to provide you with feedback and if possible suggest ways in which you could improve your images for commercial sale on Stock. That's the whole point of this community.
I'm also feeling kind of pissed off.
By @SRS photography
May I suggest you this: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors/photos-rejected/m-p/12205168#M32799
I spotted two things that may have led to it not being accepted on technical grounds.
The front part of the bridge wasn't in focus, I'm guessing because it was shot at f/4 at 48mm and the depth of field wasn't large enough to cover the entire bridge. The dark areas of the bridge were underexposed enough that there wasn't much shadow detail in there and it introduced a lot of noise when pulling up those shadows.
There were some chromatic abberations in the trees at the top of the photo.
I also think the photo would benefit from some sharpening when viewing at 50%-100%.
I hope that helps!
I think this composition works better without the sky included and cropped a bit. I think with the exposure and depth of field issues sorted out, I think this would be a decent image. I can't comment on the commercial viability though, that's best left to the experts.
I agree with you that the sky isn't doing any favours; however, from an artistic point of view I do not want to lose contrast in the image. I like my edit much more than yours.
When it comes to commercial viability, I'm throwing stones in a lake. I intend to upload many of my back catalogue of images. I went on a 1.5yr roadtrip around the US/Canada and figure "I can prob get at least one of these photos to sell at least once."
I think it's an interesting photo. But suffice it to say that what you think and what we think don't matter much. Bottom line is what the customers think. 🙂
Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in their own projects.
Hello @zedlyfe , the photo is underexposed. It needs to be sharpened, cropped and the trees and timbers need to be straightened.
@Ralph Lear is correct with the underexposure. You want to avoid losing too much contrast, but you need to lighten-up the shadows. At the same time, parts of the picture are in plain sunlight. You lose detail there too.
@George.Folster is right that the chromatic aberration needs to be addressed. And then you have a high noise level in the shadow areas.
And this something should be edited out: