First Time Contributor Rejections

[Brian24709386erg3]

Hi, I've just submitted images for the first time and they were all rejected for technical reasons, and I'm attempting to figure out how to improve.  Could some veterans comment on any issues they see? 

[reedesign1912 · Accepted solution]

Hi @Brian24709386erg3 , I think in the case of these photos you shared, your phone's camera let you down.  While it isn't impossible to get great stock quality photos from your phone, there are a whole bunch of added challenges due to the small sensor size.

It's always important to review your photos at 100-200% magnification on a large screen.  Images that look fantastic on your phone's small screen often reveal issues when you get to see them at full scale.  Here are a couple of examples I took from your photos - these are all at 100% magnification.

The sunset photo has great colour and lovely silhouettes of the trees give depth, interest and movement.  The problem is in the noise in the sky.  There is a lot of noise and artifacts, detracting from the image.

In your forest image, your phone has overprocessed the picture and lost all details in the leaves and bark.  When you look at the image at full scale, it seems more like a painted image than a photograph.  The colours also seem over saturated.

Looking at your other images, the issues are similar in each of them.  The Love Life rock is also out of focus.

Here are some resources that you might find useful:

• Smart phone photography - https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/smartphone-photography.html
• Submission requirements - https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustrations.html
• Reasons for rejection - https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html

Best of luck with your future submissions.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

While your images are lovely to look at, Stock photo customers expect professional, high quality images for use in commercial & print projects.  Even slight defects can be very noticeable when re-sized and printed.

Also the painted rocks (I assume they are trail markers) could pose an IP problem since you can't track down the "artist" who painted them and get a signed release to use the artwork commercially.  IP is a big issue because nobody wants a messy lawsuit.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

[Brian24709386erg3]

Thanks for the response.  The painted rocks are from a small, out of the way, local park where an unknown individual placed them.  I'll need to search the tutorials for more info on this, but the link you shared seems to deal more with well known landmarks rather than items as in my photos. You're correct, it would probably be impossible to track down the artist.   This type of situation is a bit odd because, in a way, one could consider the items to be adandoned, but I'm not familiar yet with issues of IP and how all of that works.  Thanks again for the feedback.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Brian24709386erg3 ,

From Adobe's perspective, they have no idea of the origin or background of any form of artwork. Therefore, all artworks are treated in the same manner, even graffiti. All artworks require releases. Outside of submitting IP it's best to submit these kind of images for editorial purposes. Apart from the fact that these have technical issues, if you are qualified, I'm not sure if these photos would be eligible for illustrative editorial, which is the kind Adobe looks for. There are however other platforms that would gladly accept this categories and behind the scene determine if they are licenced for commercial or editorial purpose. The thing is those images selected for editorial licencing might not experience frequent returns.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Nancy OShea]

Illustrative Editorial means brand names like BMW, Coke, Bayer, John Deer, Gucci, etc...   Editorial is newsworthy like war photos.

In either case, Illustrative Editorial or Editorial Use Only cannot be used for commercial purposes.  And I think it's by invitation only.  Regular contributors can't submit content for Editorial Use Only.

[Abambo]

Illustrative Editorial means brand names like BMW, Coke, Bayer, John Deer, Gucci, etc...   Editorial is newsworthy like war photos.

(...)  And I think it's by invitation only.  Regular contributors can't submit content for Editorial Use Only.

By @Nancy OShea

You can ask for an invitation for Illustrative content, if you have a collection of illustrative content somewhere else. You will be allowed to submit Illustrative content after having made 100 sales. It's a checkbox you tick during the submission process, when submitting such content.

See here for guidance on Illustrative editorial content: Adobe Stock illustrative editorial guidelines 

[Abambo]

Even creations of unknown provenance are protected by copyright, even that it is not probable that someone would claim ownership. But Adobe cannot rely on such assumptions. So either you produce a property release or you must abandon that picture for stock use.

This does not limit you to using the picture for your own artistic showcase, especially if the picture has been taken from a publicly accessible place and as long as you do not claim wrongfully to be the creator of the artwork in the picture.

[Nancy OShea]

the link you shared seems to deal more with well known landmarks rather than items as in my photos.

By @Brian24709386erg3

===========

No.  Art is art.  It doesn't matter if the art is discretely displayed in a cave or prominently on the side of building.  If an artist sees his/her work used in a magazine, TV or internet ad,  and he/she can prove design ownership (copyright), you and everyone connected to it are toast.  Adobe can't take those kinds of risks. 

Everything you submit to Stock must be 100% legally cleared for COMMERCIAL use.  Otherwise, don't submit it.

[jacquelingphoto2017 · Accepted solution]

Hi @Brian24709386erg3,

The forest and love photos are noisy. The forest photo is has color fringing on the edges and lens distortion.

The edge of the love stone is soft. 

Love and lizard photos appear to be composite. If I'm correct I'd suggest that you do not do composite, but just upload the photos as you take them. 

The late evening photo is underexposed. details are lost in the dark areas. 

The other photo is out of focus.

If you're using a phone camera or compact camera I suggest you select close subject since sensor size and depth of field might be a challenge when capturing landscapes or similar subjects.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Ralph Lear · Accepted solution]

In addition, the painted rocks are the main subject of those two photos and will require property releases.

[Brian24709386erg3]

Thanks for the tips.  You're correct, these were taken (and also edited) on a camera phone, which seems to be part of the problem, both with the resolution and the color reproduction.  There were no composites, but the phone editing may have lent that appearance.  I'm switching to doing this on a computer now, and shopping for a more appropriate camera for this kind of work.  Thanks again.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Brian24709386erg3 ,

You are welcome. You'll find Adobe Ps and Lr apps on mobile App Store if you wish to try either for editing. You may also want to take a look at the limitations of the different categories of cameras and some additional tips you'll find useful for future uploads.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Abambo]

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