Green Heron Photo Rejected Due to Quality Issues

[jamesn77628587]

The attached photo was rejected due to Quality Issues in Adobe Stock.  It is in focus, and I cannot immediately determine why the photo was rejected.  Any input is appreciated.

[Moderator moved the thread to the correct forum]

[yamato7 · Accepted solution]

Is this photo the same size as the photo you posted?

The color profile is Display P3.

Post in sRGB on Adobe Stock.

If you have posted other similar photos, try a different composition.

You shot at ISO 4000, so how do you process the noise?

Do not include keywords that are not directly related to the photo in the keywords.

No one will buy your photo if you include the name of a camera or a camera name.

AdobeStock does not recommend using brand or product names.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustrations.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/jp/stock/contributor/help/titles-and-keyword.html

[jamesn77628587]

The photo was cropped to 3037 x 5504, from 8256 x 5504.

I posted in RGB...my Nikon ZII has only 2 options in the Menu...sRGB and Adobe RGB.  I shot in sRGB...although Bridge shows only RGB in Metadata.  

I did post a similar photo, taken at the same time, cropped to a larger size (3429 x 2286), which was accepted.  Keywords, on the accepted file, did not include Nikon or camera type...that may have been a deciding factor.  Otherwise the accepted photo was processed in similar fashion.

Noise was processed in Camera Raw, Detail, Noise Reduction.

Your comments are very much appreciated.  The keywords can be easily resolved.  If anything I state above is of additional concern, your input would be well received.

[yamato7]

If you save with the default settings for CameraRAW, the color profile will be Display P3.
AdobeStock recommends sRGB.
Please check the metadata.

[Abambo]

The colour space is not about colours, it is about how the colours are represented. You can change the colour profile at any stage of the editing, but best is to do that at the beginning or the end of the editing. However, you cannot simply assign a different colour space, it needs to be converted into a colour space, and that conversion necessarily means that there are losses.

Adobe stock requires sRGB colour space, as that is the “standard” for many applications and has a linear gamut. If you are working in AdobeRGB or something different, and display the image as is in sRGB the colours won't be shown correctly. Indeed, colours will be “flat”.

This is not any more the issue, it once was (10 or 20 years ago), but it is still important to have a consistent workflow.

Check here for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space

You see, here, what Bridge shows for your asset:

The colour mode is RGB, so it is not CMYK, or greyscale or something else. The colour profile is Display P3, which is an Apple introduced colour space and is used natively on some Apple devices.

In Camera RAW, for stock at least, you should set the colour space to sRGB.

(As a side note: I do not know of any asset, that has been refused for using the wrong colour space.)

[jamesn77628587]

I appreciate everyone's reply to my inquiry.  I reposted the photo, updating the keywords as yamoto7 suggested, and the photo was accepted.  

Abambo's and other comments were helpful as well...every inquiry I have made has brought up ideas and directions that have been helpful in all of my postings.  It appears to me that Adobe is tightening their review and quality requirements...sometimes a challenge to meet.

[Abambo]

What post-processing did you do?

My guess is that you did cutout the bird to move it in a nicer position, or something like that:

There are indications of cutout errors.

[jamesn77628587]

Abambo...no cutout or movement of the bird in this photo.  I did do some work on the palm frond curvature lower left, but nothing on the bird.  

You trained me well on cutouts on PNG files in some of my past inquiries on rejections.  And I have had few problems in that area since.  Thanks for your input.

[jamesn77628587]

I am going to back off my prior comment above.  I did do some work on the bill, which was cut out and then replaced...I just noted a separate layer that I had overlooked when I went back to review the file.  The bird body itself was not moved.  Your observations on the bill are correct. 

[Abambo]

It would wonder me, as the beak surly shows some cutout issues, I would not expect such a crackled beak in nature. And indeed, checking the feathers brings up some lines and “hard” edges on the left side, while the right side looks a lot like a natural blend of the foreground into the background.

[Abambo]

You trained me well on cutouts on PNG files in some of my past inquiries on rejections. 

By jamesn77628587

I'm happy that I was of some help in that area. 😉

[Ricky336]

Hello,

In my view, the white balance could be an issue. It's a 'Green Heron,' but the heron isn't green. The green foliage has influenced the light reflecting off it, giving the photo a greenish cast. You have to correct this in post-processing.

Also, I would make some adjustments in the tone curve. You could bring the bird's feathers out more.

Maybe something like this:

[jamesn77628587]

Thanks Ricky!  The color of the bird's body is correct.  I do not know how the "green" got into the bird's name...but as with a number of animal/bird names, they are not always a true description of the actual color.  

In any case, your observations on of the detail and tone curve are well received...I will work with that.  Thanks for your input!

[Ricky336]

Yes, I know, I was making a joke about the heron being 'green'. My point is that the reflection of the green foliage gives a slight green overall cast to the photo. The same result would be if you were shooting a wedding with a white dress under a tree - the skin tones and the white dress would take on a greenish appearance. So, in this case, increasing the magenta in the tint slider compensates for the foliage and the tone of the bird.