Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hard to say. I think maybe the reviewer was looking for a more crisp imge. I think it is a little soft. Also, at 450%, I can see some artifacts.
There is too little in focus due to shallow depth of field, and the large, featureless black area seems to dominate the image. Practicing your photography and editing skills on flowers is useful, but there are already millions of floral images in Adobe Stock, so it's unlikely that you'll ever sell any.
Do you print your photos before submitting them? This is not sharp enough to give good print results. Therefore not of value for commercial use.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hard to say. I think maybe the reviewer was looking for a more crisp imge. I think it is a little soft. Also, at 450%, I can see some artifacts.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you for your comment!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
There is too little in focus due to shallow depth of field, and the large, featureless black area seems to dominate the image. Practicing your photography and editing skills on flowers is useful, but there are already millions of floral images in Adobe Stock, so it's unlikely that you'll ever sell any.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you. I will take this into account!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Do you print your photos before submitting them? This is not sharp enough to give good print results. Therefore not of value for commercial use.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
This photo was not printed. But I enlarged it in parts and considered that what I had in mind was in sharpness. Thank you for your comment! It looks like this is too artistic photo for a stock - in terms of depth of field and color.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Enlarging an image or any part of it beyond it's native size rarely works as hoped. More often than not, it introduces unwanted artifacts. For this reason, Adobe Stock says DON'T enlarge images.
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/editing-dos-and-dont.html