Help understanding image rejection for "technical issues"

[cloudjammer]

I'm a new contributor and am trying to understamd the "technical issues" rationale for rejection. I'm trying to adhere to Adobe's posted recommendations for stock and many opf my photos have cleared review.

That said, the two images attached were just rejected for "technicall issues" but upon close review in PS, I'm not sure where they fell afounl. Any feedback would be appreciated.

(Side note, as a UX designer by trade, I find the vague reporting frustratingly unhelpful. There must be a short list of standard violations—why not share that detail with the photographer so they know more specifically the issue?)

Thanks!

[PepeCastro · Accepted solution]

I agree with you, I like your photos, the first one I see that you should work the light a little better, the second one is overexposed, the whites and areas of reflections have been burned and it has left magenta halos, they are easy things to correct in the next shots, the essential, which is the idea and the whole I like a lot

[Ralph Lear · Accepted solution]

Focus is an issue in both photos. The focus is too soft and in the first photo there is not enough depth of field.

The shadows in the first photo are underexposed. Highlights in the second photpo are overexposed and the second photo is cropped too tight on her feet. 

[reedesign1912 · Accepted solution]

Both photos also have a lot of noise, probably because of the higher ISO.  And as @PepeCastro already mentioned the overexposed dress of your model causing the purple fringing / halos.

Regarding the rejection because of "technical issues" that is often a frustration for contributors.  It basically comes down to the amount of time the reviewers have for each submission.  Once they see the first issue for rejection (there may only be one, or there may be many) they select the corresponding rejection reason (technical issues, IP violation, non-compliant, etc.)  It makes it faster and more efficient to get submissions reviewed.  It has also been pointed out to me that the reviewers are located around the world and speak multiple languages.  The list of rejection reasons have been already translated into multiple languages and there is no risk of misunderstanding because of a language barrier.

The fact that you are already a contributor, it is assumed that you are a skilled photographer and you are able to be critical of your own work based on a high level rejection reason like "Technical Issues."  If you struggle to see the reason yourself, this forum is a great place to get other contributors to take a look at your photos and tell you what they see.

Here are some resources that might help you out as well:

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

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

Best of luck to you.

-Rob

[cloudjammer]

Thanks, @PepeCastro — I can't belive I missed the halo (it's an easy fix, too). And Thanks @Ralph Lear for the notes about shadow exposure and @reedesign1912 for the note about noise.

@reedesign1912 Your notes about the review process make a ton of sense. Though the UXer in me doesbn't like the notion that an internal operational limitation defines the user experience (and not the other way around). But that's all academic. 🙂

[Abambo]

Though the UXer in me doesbn't like the notion that an internal operational limitation defines the user experience (and not the other way around).

By @cloudjammer

You are not a “user” you are a “contributor”. Adobe expects contributors having some experience with the assets they contribute. The check-ups are not to give you a good reason for a rejection, but to ensure that the assets that finally make it into the database are up to the quality requirements of the buyers. It's nothing more frustrating to buy pictures just to see that they have been poorly reworked. I currently work on a project, where the customer bought now the fourth image that is unusable (same contributor, however) because of substandard photoshopping.

I can assure you, that as a contributor, I got my first refusals quite early. I analysed them and tried to find the faults. Some of my assets got corrected and re-submitted only after having acquired some experience and a good sense of what gets accepted and what not.

Continue and you will get a sense for the refusals, and you don't need to submit here any more, to get a feeling for why your asset got refused.

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.

[cloudjammer]

FYI: From a design perspective, a "contributor" is just a type of user. Anyone who interacts with a system is (unless they pay, then they're a customer).

[Abambo]

But the “users” of the stock database are not the “contributors”, but the buyers. You are a supplier. If I have ten suppliers and one is supplying erroneous equipment, I'm just refusing with “technical issues”. I do not need to give more detail. More detail will cost my resources.

And to come back to stock:

We are fellow contributors. We give you more detail based on our experience.

Moderators, however, refuse on the first error they find. It is probably not the only problem.

And more: It is an international business. The moderator may be a Spanish-speaking person somewhere in Nicaragua, the contributor may be a Russian-speaking photographer somewhere in Russia. In what language exactly do you want to get your detailed critique? How much time the moderator has, to explain that your picture has, in this specific region, too much noise? What if you resubmit after correcting and a different moderator tells you in Chinese that the picture now is lacking contrast. When you correct again, a different, Swedish-speaking moderator tells you, that you have logos in your picture.

From Adobe's perspective, the moderation is highly effective. A moderator can check hundreds of pictures a day, he does not need to write a single line and says only 1 for technical, 2 for IP, 3 for … you get the point. If he does not find anything, he accepts the image. By experience, after having looked at hundreds of pictures here, I can tell you, it's easy to spot the problems. Two seconds to see an image is not OK, 5 minutes to say it has too much noise, up to an hour to write an extensive critique.

If you are an experienced contributor, you will check the pictures on your own and see immediately what may pass, and what gets refused.

Part of your “user experience” is this forum. You don't see it, we will have a look at it. And believe me, cases, where the defects are not easily to detect are rare.

[cloudjammer]

Very much a side issue, but we've got a semantics dissonect:

From UX perspective, regarding Adobe Stock:

• Moderators and contributors are both platforms users (and it seems both their user experiences could be improved based on the insights you and @reedesign1912 shared about operational process)
• Buyers are platform customers (and, having been one, I think the platform offers a pretty solid experience for them)

But I'm happy to report that everyone's feedback here was not only much appreciated but equiped me to remedy the technical issues in the affected images. And to better understand what to screen my own work for in subsequent submissions. It's a learning proicess and I appreicate everyone's contribution. Now, on to try some video contributions! 🙂

[Abambo]

Just to stay with the semantics: Buyers are also platform users and as they are customers, their experience is what counts. They are the front end, we are at the back-end. If you look at it from a business perspective, they are at the side of the decorations, music, light, nice presentations. You want to keep them happy. We deliver our parcels at the supplier entrance, steel door, industrial lighting and naked concrete, and also bad-tempered employees from time to time.

[Jill_C]

Haha, great analogy. 

[George_F]

That is such a great way to think about it!

[Abambo]

…and as I'm here to spend my time with you, I had also a look at your pictures now:

• Out of focus: the major problem is that your pictures are out of focus. Either you have a focussing issue with your lens, or you aimed at the wrong body part. In portraits, you should always have the eyes crisp sharp.
  As you were taking your picture at 1/25s, I suppose you used a tripod. If not, camera movement may be the issue. Your lens is stabilized, and I have taken hand help pictures crisp sharp at 1/30, so it should be possible, but difficult.
• Noise: Both of your pictures are noisy, at ISO 1000 and ISO 400 that's not a surprise. If you shoot raw, what I suppose and anyhow recommend, give a denoiser a try. Photoshop and Lightroom/Camera Raw do a decent job with denoising, but DeepPrime is really the best in that category.
• The shadows on the first picture are too harsh. I think that the use of a flash or a reflector would have helped.
• The pipe is a bit unfortunate in the composition. If the chair had been moved a little, it would have made a better impression.
• With the second picture, the exposure is not that bad. But lowering the exposure one unit would have helped, as the shoulder is clearly overexposed. You also have chromatic aberration in the shoulder region.
• I agree with Ralph that the cropping is unfortunate here.