The message given for rejection is this:
"Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image. Unfortunately, during our review we found that it contains one or more technical issues, so we can't accept it into our collection"
Unfortunately this gives me no isight into what is wrong with the image/s, this has been applied to the last 4 images submitted, no idea why
First photo: the focus of the thorax is not sharp:
Also, you could give more room around the antennae - it's a bit close to the edge of the frame.
2nd: the edge of the wing is out of focus - more depth of field. I think the whole of the moth should be in focus:
3rd/4th - white balance - they are just a bit cold-looking, so add more warmth - increase the colour temperature a bit.
Also, increase the depth of field a bit more in the 4th.
You could also give the moths a bit more room around the frame. I think they are a bit too closely cropped.
You want the buyer to be able to crop around the image if necessary.
Have a read of this from Adobe about how to create better photos:
...and this. It's a brief guide on image quality:
Thanks for your input, though I'll have to disagree
These are near macro shots, when shooting such subjects at an angle it's simply not possible to get that kind of depth of field without killing the creature and focus stacking just to make 30 pence (not going to happen with me)
Does the same apply to super models in portraits?
They're on f/11 and 60mm
The images are virtually uncropped, minor trim on one or two to alter aspect ratio
As for colour balance/white balance, really?, the whites are supposed to be white, not orange, if anything one of them is a tiny bit warm, anyone using these images will want accurate representaion not pinkish whites to match their handbag
Having said all that we're still completely in the dark as to exactly why they were rejected, pure guess work and difficult when it's not obvious what the reviewer has an issue with
Personally I think they're being over the top with selectivity and it'll bite them in the ass because it will leave the door open to newer stock agencies
I'll see what happens with the other pending submission but at this rate I'll probably abandon the idea and close the account, simply isn't worth the time investment so far
...As for colour balance/white balance, really?, the whites are supposed to be white, not orange, if anything one of them is a tiny bit warm, anyone using these images will want accurate representaion not pinkish whites to match their handbag...
The last photo of the bluish moth would go well with a light blue handbag.
If you use the colour picker and sample the white wing of the moth it will give you this:
That is not what this moth looks like, nor what the stones on my house look like
I wonder if the reviewer also uses gueswork to determine true colours and reject if they don't match their own expectations?
Yes of course they use guesswork. Adobe do not employ reviewers based on their knowledge of the natural appearance of Euproctis, but on their ability to review very quickly indeed to meet a reputed daily workload of 100,000 images submitted to stock. Quality control is largely a simple application of rules; this is obvious when we look at the pictures (especially drawn graphics) which are actually embarrassingly bad, but don't have technical faults. Typing explanations would take time, Adobe would rather lose the image, and by extension the phorographer. There are plenty more. The fact that you are still arguing, and not even with Adobe people who might have an influence on the process, rather than trying to learn what you have to compromise to make the sale - from those who already learned what to compromise - suggests this may not be the microstock agency for you. This is not a criticism of your pictures in any way; a willingness to compromise is a commercial decision, not an artistic one.
You're missing the point
It is not entirely about an unwillingness to compromise, it's about having absolutely no freakin idea on which direction to go in.
Adobe's arrogance will be their downfall, it's what's allowed Serif, Phase One and many others start to take huge chunks out of them.
I may be the small fry they can ignore, but there's millions of me.
Anyone?, am I wasting my time uploading to Adobe now?
The last one on this page (Brown Tail Moth) not only seems properly exposed with no artifacts, very little processing on these but it also has no others like it on Adobe stock, Brown Tail Moth - Euproctis chrysorrhoea
Stock is NOT a natural history library or gallery. Adobe certainly do not look to see how many other photos of a given subspecies they already have. Each picture has to be technically perfect to the highest professional standards. This means a lot of great art and unique shots cannot be accepted. It also means endless repetition for some easy-to-find and stay-still subjects like flowers, which Adobe may one day need to address.
Really, how many countless replies to other contirbutors when their submissions are rejected do idiots state that there's already too many on that subject?
Go search you'll find loads, it's probably the most common response and to ignore the fact there's a lack of a particular subject matter would be stupidity in itself
And as for the "highest standards" bullcrap, perhaps before making such claims you should first take a look at those Black Arches moths which are already listed and live on Adobe Stock
Many contributors to the forums have said some picture classes have too many examples. Never heard Adobe suggest it. Anyway, Adobe will apply their capricious standards and contributors will like it or leave.
OK, so it seems that images are not vetted based on a strict set of criteria as mentioned above but rather mostly subjective with internal justification loosely using the set rules.
First batch reviewed 4 out of 4 rejected
Second batch reviewed 12 out of 12 accepted
Third batch reviewed 3 out of 3 rejected
ALL images taken with the exact same settings, equipment and techniques, all at the same time (well at least within 1 hour of each other), rejected and accepted images share the same attributes (shallow depth of field due to being macro shots, closely cropped etc)
Obviously they're not all perfect images and some images could have been better, very frustrating vetting method and I use the term method lightly as there appears to be no dicernable methodology involved making it impossible to improve/change
So, it's pure "shotgun" approach for submission and re-submit those where reason is not clear at a later date