Here is a mysterious reject. no gammut. the top is the original bottom is adjusted.& rejected

[PopeyeDoyle1963]

  

[Jill_C]

There is noise and chromatic aberration.

[PopeyeDoyle1963]

Here is the original picture, converted into a JPEG from the original RAW
file. This was taken with a D200 in 2011 with a nikon lens and from an
open air helicopter, thus no glass distortion. Does this photo have the
same defects?

[image: ORIGINAL CATHEDRALS FROM RAW.jpg]

[PopeyeDoyle1963]

 

Ok here it is with chromatic abberation fix with lens correction.  THough it is done on auto.  i am able to specify my camera and lens in photoshop. I honestly see no difference when i zoom in to the same spot.  I toggle back and forth and cannot detect a change in that spot.  I think I better give up on this picture since I don't know how to change what Adobe is seeing

[daniellei4510]

CA aside, to me the image lacks contrast and is slightly overexposed, especially on the left hand side.

[Jill_C]

Not sure what editing software you're using. It's best to make this adjustment on the RAW file. In Adobe Lightroom Classic or Adobe Camera Raw, there are two tabs in the Lens Correction section. One says Profile. Here's where your lens info should appear. You'll need to click both Enable Profile Corrections and Remove Chromatic Aberration. Then on the other tab, labelled Manual, slide the purple and green sliders until the CA disappears. You need to zoom way in to the affected area while doing so.

[PopeyeDoyle1963]

Here is the original shot from the RAW file converted into a JPEG.  Taken from an open air helicopter with a nikon lens and D200.  I guess the camera is flawed somehow.  Please take a look. Thanks

[Jill_C]

Zoom in and inspect the same area and you can clearly see the chromatic aberration (CA) which is caused by the lens under certain lighting conditions. It's not a camera flaw. It's easily corrected on the Lens Correction panel in LRC.

[PopeyeDoyle1963]

ok thank you. This is my first time with this platform (adobe vs getty
etc) and it appears the quality specs are higher, since it was accepted by
those 2 others. Hopefully I can resubmit it . I don't know if they allow
that. Thanks again

--Mike

[daniellei4510]

Re-submission is OK following edits, but we highly recommend not resubmitting more than once. Then it's time to move on to other assets.

[Jill_C]

Yes, it's okay to re-edit to address the quality issues and resubmit. Meanwhile, be sure to read all of the Adobe Stock Contributor guidelines on the help pages to ensure that you have a good understanding of all requirements:

Stock Contributor Learn & Support

[Nancy OShea]

Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in commercial projects. Emphasis on commercial use— print, digital & textile.

• 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/contributor/help/how-to-submit-distinct-content.html
  
  

Hope that helps.

[PopeyeDoyle1963]

this picture was rejected for CA.  Photoshop 2025, the most advanced software offered by Adobe, can't find any adjustments to make in auto, even though the camera and lens are in the database.  On manual of the three adjustments possibles, there is virtually no detectable change in the fringes, and particularly in the area that is suspect by reviewers.  Chat GPT examined this picture and found no AC.  I wonder if reviewers have been to this area in a helicopter and seen what it actually looks like.  I can assure that this what the na pali coast looks like.  There are fringes of different colors caused by natural fauna.  i can't resubmit this photo if there are no adjustments that Adobe's best software can make.  someone is welcome to download this picture and make changes so that I can see what is going on

 [moderator merged this with the original post. You can reply to your own post, if you wan't to add additional data or information.]

[Jill_C]

You don't know that the image was rejected for CA. I said that I saw the CA, and it's one possible reason for rejection, but the truth is that Adobe simply doesn't provide us with such detail, so it's a guessing game. I also advised that you could use Adobe Camera Raw to correct it on the RAW file. Have you tried that?

[Nancy OShea]

The tools of choice for digital photo correction are listed below, with links to their dedicated product communities. The experts there can assist you with specific product questions.

• Lightroom (cloud based): https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-ecosystem-cloud-based/ct-p/ct-lightroom
• Lightroom Classic for desktop:  https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic/ct-p/ct-lightroom-classic
• Adobe Camera Raw: https://community.adobe.com/t5/camera-raw/ct-p/ct-camera-raw

Keep in mind that refusals for Quality & Technical reasons covers a wide range of topics. 

• 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...

[Abambo]

Adobe does not specify chromatic aberration. Adobe says "quality issues". At least at a first sight, I would guess that you have contrast issues with this asset. I also would add more sky, it would make the asset more appealing to buyers.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @PopeyeDoyle1963 ,

The picture is noisy - both chromatic and luminance. They are underexposed with white balane, and color fringing issues.

Best wishes

Jacquelin