Help with photos not accepted due to quality

[danirevis]

Hi,

I have done a session with my model studying at dusk and at night in a room, so the images don't have too much light, and have been rejected with the following explanation: "Common problems that can affect the technical quality of images include exposure problems, artistic flou, excessive filtering or artifacts/noise."

These photos were accepted in other agencies that are known to be very restrictive with no problems. I find the photos are not overedited, they don't have noise and the luminosity of the scene is the corresponding one to the idea I want to transmit.

Thank you in advance!

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

IMG_3054-Editar.jpg - underexposed shadows and overexposed highlights. Her hand/arm are the brightest and most noticeable part of the image.

IMG_3076-Editar.jpg - similar issues here. The hands, which are presumably the focal point of the frame, are not in sharp focus.

IMG_3048-Editar.jpg - underexposed shadows. The large book should have been removed from the foreground.

IMG_3141-Editar.jpg - harsh lighting creates unattractive shadows in her face 

[Nancy OShea]

Adobe Stock is not other services.  Stock have higher acceptance standards because their customers expect top quality assets for use in commercial projects.

• 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

Even exposure, good lighting, neutral white balance & proper focus are essential.

Compare your work with other stock inventory. 

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=study

It might help to see what other contributors are doing in this keyword category.

Hope that helps.

[danirevis]

Thank you very much.

The other stock service that accepted them was ShutterStock, which has a background of accepting me lees photos than Adobe, thats why it shocked me.

After having a look at your suggestions I have a doubt. What should I change if I want to make a low light scenario of a model studing at nigth?

The low light atmosphere is already in my pics, and the quality I would say its not that bad.

Thank you again.

Best,

Dani.

[Nancy OShea]

Little known fact:  Most nighttime scenes in movies and television are actually shot in full daylight.  Why?  Because it's simpler to subtract light from a well-lit scene than it is to create something from nothing in post-production. 

The same techniques can be applied to still photos in Photoshop or Camera Raw, giving you greater control over light/shadow and exactly where adjustments are applied.

[Abambo]

Shutterstock is not very demanding in quality. I do not know about your experience, but I have many accepted assets with Shutterstock that I would today not submit anymore. They were refused here at Adobe and that rightfully, in my eyes. 

[glum person]

Yes, everything changes. About year ago Shutterstock refused about 80% my photos, Adobe only 20%. Month ago Shutterstock took 80%, Adobe refused 80%. I worked on quality a little(lower iso, higher shutter speed and less post-processing) now Shutterstock  accept 100%, Adobe about 80% again. Mostly one shot nature pictures.

[Abambo]

You should always get the best light to your model. 

they don't have noise

By @danirevis

Sorry, but they have noise:

I have also experimented with low light situations, and my results (not intended for stock) are not conclusive. But for stock, you should use other methods to give the night impression. A clock would help, a lightsource would help.