Eager to produce better photos - Not sure why this was rejected for quality reasons - comments pls!

[paul_5081]

[paul_5081]

Just attached the file as well.

[Lucas Zone]

I'm not sure why this is the case, but many moderators are American and tend to have a subjective approach to photo reviews. I've also noticed that their perception of aesthetics differs from that of people from other countries. As a result, if you're from a different country, your photos may be rejected more often based on their personal preferences. I believe there's too much censorship involved. People have different tastes and appreciate different styles of photography. I for example like the New Topographics movement that steers away from traditional compositions, framing, colours, sharpness etc.

[Abambo]

I'm not sure why this is the case, but many moderators are American

By @Lucas Zone

I'm not sure, how you got this nonsense. We do not know where the moderators come from, but hiring Americans for such a task would be very expensive. Operations like this are normally done from low wage countries, with limited support from high wage countries. Image quality can be checked from everywhere in the world, and the criteria is not biased on personal perception of aesthetics. If you contribute for stock, you need to submit neutral assets, that the buyer can modify to their needs. Submissions can be artistic, but they need to meet the quality standards. Please note: stock is about craft, not art.

[Jill_C]

I'm quite sure that Adobe's moderation team is NOT located anywhere in the U.S. It's an ideal function for outsourcing to a country where labor rates are much lower. Regardless of location, Adobe sets the standards for moderation, such that the biases of the individual moderators are irrelevant.  

[Ricky336]

...many moderators are American and tend to have a subjective approach to photo reviews. I've also noticed that their perception of aesthetics differs from that of people from other countries. As a result, if you're from a different country, your photos may be rejected more often based on their personal preferences. I believe there's too much censorship involved. People have different tastes and appreciate different styles of photography. I for example like the New Topographics movement that steers away from traditional compositions, framing, colours, sharpness etc.

By @Lucas Zone

Hello,

Sorry, but I disagree, and I don't live in the USA.

I really don't think the moderators' perception is based on personal preferences. 

Anyway, Adobe Stock, once again, is about commercial use.

The New Topographics photography is from the 1970s.

Unsure what this has to do with Adobe Stock.

[Nancy OShea]

...many moderators are American and tend to have a subjective approach to photo reviews.

By @Lucas Zone

===========

Rubbish. 

1. American workers are expensive to hire. It's much cheaper to outsource to regions where wages are lower.

2. Photography is part science and part talent.

3. Stock is NOT a photo gallery.  It's a global royalty-free assets service for connecting talented artists with potential customers worldwide. 

Stock pays higher royalty fees than other services. As such, they expect the highest quality content for commercial use -- print, digital & merchandise.

Read your Contributor User Guide.  It contains good information about what's expected from Contributors.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html

Hope that helps.

[Jill_C]

It seems to be over-saturated and not sharply focused. The large blurry bushes in the foreground are somewhat distracting.

[RALPH_L]

I also believe the lighthouse and the side of the one building are overexposed.

[paul_5081]

Many thanks for the feedback on this.  If I can fix the saturation and over exposure,  I'll re-submit, as this photo sells really well on Shutterstock - by a factor of 4 compared to my others

[Abambo]

, as this photo sells really well on Shutterstock - by a factor of 4 compared to my others

By @paul_5081

That's quite astonishing. It's however a nice picture, if you can fix the issues.

[Abambo]

Artefacts:

Oversaturated colours and overexposed whites.

[paul_5081]

Made some changes, but are they enough

[daniellei4510]

Those bushes have got to go. And the sky could be more saturated.

[Abambo]

Clipping banding in the sky and white balance issues and that overexposed lighthouse make this picture unfit for stock.

[Ricky336]

The bushes ruin the photo.

Composition:
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/photo-composition.html

This is what it looks like without the bushes:

[Nancy OShea]

• The colors are oversaturated.
• The foreground is out of focus.
• You might have some IP issues (lighthouse and other landmarks).

To sell images commercially, you must ensure that you're not violating anyone's property rights or known image restrictions.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html

Read your Stock Contributor User Guide for more tips:

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html
• Model/Property Releases:
  https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/model-release.html
  https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html.
  
  

[paul_5081]

Thanks to everyone for your very useful comments, which have really helped my understanding of the requirements.  I really appreciate all of your replies.

[Abambo]

You're welcome.