1 Correct answer
What you are speaking of is consumer over the counter scanners, that are mostly design for scanning prints and docs.
But you are 100% wrong to generalize, and that is not an opinion.
By @ZALEZPHOTO
You did not read: “highest quality scanner”! That's not a consumer scanner. And I have used drum scanners about thirty years ago, to scan highly professional pictures taken with highly professional film cameras at that time. I'm a professional. I know what I'm talking about.
...Of the two samples
58
Replies
I totally get the challenge with monitor color calibration.
if you're not shooting manual exposure, when you learn to control light, your work will improve 10 fold.
By @ZALEZPHOTO
Don't forget about Shutter/Aperture priority. That is very useful if one knows how to use it!
By @Ricky336
I'm also a fan of manual settings, and I probably shoot more than 90% of my pictures manually, but on ocasions, I use some more approbriate settings, I'm however forgetting always about Auto ISO. I'm probably to old to keep that setting in mind, even that my camera produces still great pictures at quite high ISO, if you know how to use the noise reduction tools effectively.
Personally, I don't follow or believe in composition rules... in fact I think most rules photographers speak of, is a bunch of bs. Yes you need to remember breathing space on your photos, but if something feels right to you have fun with it.
By @ZALEZPHOTO
Without having a good arrangement of your elements in a frame, the elements in that frame will be higgledy-piggledy. One has to know the rules in order to know when to break them. But even so, the elements in that frame still have to be carefully arranged, so it is not higgledy-piggledy!
By @Ricky336
As with all tools and all craft, you need to know the basics of what you're doing, before deviating from them. https://mymodernmet.com/rule-of-thirds-definition/
Adobe agreed with you when they wrote this blog: https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/design/discover/golden-ratio.html
Quote: “On a graphic that might be pretty busy, so placement is everything,” says graphic designer Jacob Obermiller. You can use the golden ratio to help guide you.
And then there are these pictures from a well known contributor to this forum:
I'm pretty sure that this portrait follows the rules of thirds, as well as this picture:
Quite obviously, the Instagram account from @ZALEZPHOTO is much more following classic composition rules than what the comments here let think. And the Instagram pictures from this artist are much more impressive than anything he shows here. Instagram pictures are not full size, and that lets room for hiding issues, but never the less, they are nicely done and processed.
The advice I give is: DON'T follow rules, shoot INTUITIVELY.
That's what I do.
By @ZALEZPHOTO
I was trained in medical imaging (x-ray & ultrasound) before I got interested in personal photography. Trust me when I say this. There's no such thing as shooting intuitively. Proper technique is essential, particularly when working with radiation. And if contrast is involved, timing is mission-critical. The opportunities for do-overs are almost non-existent. Messing up an exam with poor images could have dire implications later.
The preparation skills I learned in medical imaging served me well in photography. The same basic rules apply regardless of light source. In short, you don't get something for nothing. You can't just randomly break eggs unless you understand how to make the omelette first. Suggesting that you can is a disservice to people who don't know better.
So while I thought my colors were perfect, they were probably over there wondering if I’d shot my photos through a glass of orange juice. Lesson learned.
By @jia1674
Instead of a glass of orange juice, rose-coloured glasses are better!
On the square photo, is the whale print your photo and already submitted to your library, if not that is technically a copyright violation.
By @ZALEZPHOTO
No, it's only a copyright violation, when the photo has not been taken by OP. You need to be the creator of that. picture too, but you do not need to submit that somewhere.
Adobe-Stock prüft scharf und gründlich.
By @BB-Digitalfotos
Das war mal. Seit Adobe auch KI Bilder aktzeptiert, werden viele Bilder nur noch halbherzig geprüft. Die meisten KI Bilder würden bei Prüfung laut Standard abgelehnt.
Adobe Stock clearly has a type: they love technically perfect, crisp, digital-looking images.
By @jia1674
Yes!
Anything with creative character — like special effects, scanned film shots, or especially those dreamy CineStill rolls — is basically uploading at your own risk, because chances are, it’s not going to be welcomed.
By @jia1674
Well, a refusal is not risky, as there are no negative consequences to be feared. So it's not risky, but anything that is more art than craft will get refused, as stock (the business, not Adobe's preference in general) is not about art. When I buy a stock image, I will need to be able to mend it to my customer's needs. So the more neutral the shot is, the best are my chances to transform the image, including adding those nice genuine film looks.
And don’t forget to set your color space to sRGB. Most photographers today work in Adobe RGB, but when it comes to stock submissions, sticking with sRGB could save you a lot of headaches.
By @jia1674
sRGB is the required colour space, because some applications simply presume the asset to be in sRGB, and using a different colour space will cause the colours to be badly represented. I have to say, that since aboutb 15 years, I did not see any serious application that did not manage the colours correctly, probably because for most applications the OS takes care of that. However, I experienced formerly some issues, when my pictures were in AdobeRGB. (Besides: most professionals are working in raw, so the colour space is only important, when you leave the raw world. I'm working in ProPhotoRGB or sRGB in 16 bits! https://photographylife.com/srgb-vs-adobe-rgb-vs-prophoto-rgb
But all my exports to JPEG get converted to sRGB, for cause. JPEG allows only for 8bits per chanel.
Here’s a typical example of one of my scanned film photos — it gets slapped with the dreaded “missing generative AI flag”
By @jia1674
==========
Reviewers tasked with thousands of assets to examine sometimes hurriedly check a wrong box on the form. They're humans, not machines.
In all fairness, this image has two main problems.
1. Quality/Technical issues.
2. Property Release. Without a signed release by the current property owner, your image can't be used commercially.
Assets get one rejection reason per submission, although there may be multiple reasons for a refusal.
Personally, I don't think this is worth resubmitting. But you can do whatever you think is best.
Good luck.
By @jia1674By the time you click through all the forums, subforums, help centers, and “contact us” pages, half your day is gone and you still haven’t found the one place that might actually help.
Contributors (as contributors) aren't customers, the are suppliers. There is no universal right to be a Adobe supplier. This said, it is very probable that the moderator did select the wromng refusal reason. Old scanned film based pictures do normally not meet the clean digital needs. In our today's world, they will be considers as noisy and not sharp. Helmut Newton and Edward Steichen would get their wole collection of picture refused, as of today's standards.
If you're getting the AI refusal for non-AI assets, the rcommended path is to generate a property release and state in that release that you are the creator, and that they are not generative AI. There is nothing more that can be done in this case, except trying the really difficult path to contributor support: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/Need-Help-Contact-Us.html
(BTW: this isn't Adobe, but we are fellow contributors here. Adobe is not present here, except in very rare cases... )
We are not chatbots. Just unpaid forum volunteers & fellow product users like yourself. 😁
By @Nancy OShea
Years ago, the rumour was running that Mat Hayward would be a bot. He vehemently denied this rumour. At that time Mat was occasionaly participating in discussions. But today, probably because of our professional and highly qualified answers 😜 that we give for free, they decided, that they do not need to intervene, even if we would love to get, from time to time, a clarifying word about this or that topic.
What I've learned from my presence here is that moderators do follow the Adobe instructions for moderation, and that they err from time to time (since Adobe allowed generative AI, the moderation quality has gone down, and they err more often, very often in favour of the contributor and against the interests of the customer). But in all circumstances, moderators do not have the time to think about what they like personally when they are moderating. There is absolutely no personal input from them. Refusals are codifyied, and they probably even never read the text that I got sent.
What you are speaking of is consumer over the counter scanners, that are mostly design for scanning prints and docs.
But you are 100% wrong to generalize, and that is not an opinion.
By @ZALEZPHOTO
You did not read: “highest quality scanner”! That's not a consumer scanner. And I have used drum scanners about thirty years ago, to scan highly professional pictures taken with highly professional film cameras at that time. I'm a professional. I know what I'm talking about.
Of the two samples I'm sharing, the one with the sun behind the cotrol tower was shot on fuji Velvia, it got accepted on the fourth try... the other one was shot from the world trade center north tower... I gave up submitting after multiple rejections.
I remind everyone... you're all entitled to your opinion, not to your own set of facts!
By @ZALEZPHOTO
The two samples submitted here should have been clearly refused for quality reasons. That's a fact, not an opinion. The fourth time, you just had a moderator who was not doing their job correctly. That happens if you try hard enough.
Unless you have a top-notch film/Transparency scanner, I wouldn't bother.
By @Ricky336
Well, the scanner can scan only what is on film. And the film look is not clean… as required in our today's digital setting. For websites, they are probably good enough. For print too, and for billboards too. I've used terrible quality pictures for roll-ups or photographic walls in an exposition booth. The average visitor did not see the issues. They didn't care.
But customers (or Adobe) expect really clean, high-resolution pictures, and that can't be done on film.
AdChoices
