I don't understand how this image could be rejected due to "quality issues"

[colinb94927612]

I don't understand, this photo was rejected because of "quality issues". It was shot with a Nikon Z9, Z24-70 lens, uncompressed 47MB RAW file, finetuned in Lightroom and Topaz Photo AI, exported to a 300DPI JPEG. I can't get a higher qualtiy JPEG than this. What could possibly be the issue?

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

All of your comments let me think that you do not understand the quality requirements. When I use a Hammer and nails as a builder, that does not mean that my construction is good enough to meet the required standards.

---

@colinb94927612 wrote:

It was shot with a Nikon Z9, Z24-70 lens

---

It's a great camera with nice specs. I do not know the lens; however, I know that they come in two build levels (f4, f2.8). But anyhow, it looks like you have the correct combination to produce good results. The question now is whether possessing a fast car is sufficient to win a race, or is the driver's performance also a factor?

---

@colinb94927612 wrote:

 uncompressed 47MB RAW file

---

That's great. That means that the quality of the asset is not degraded by the internal processing, nothing more. You will agree that I can produce bad pictures with the very same specs.

---

@colinb94927612 wrote:

 finetuned in Lightroom and Topaz Photo AI

---

Furthermore, those are great products. The output quality, however, is dependent on the input quality and the operator's talent to fine tune the asset. They can “save” an image only by so much!

---

@colinb94927612 wrote:

exported to a 300DPI JPEG

---

300dpi is not a quality parameter. It is, indeed, in the world of photography, a nonsense parameter. The same picture would show exactly the same quality at the same resolution in pixels at 1 dpi and at 30,000 dpi. You should google the meaning of DPI. In the world of photography, the only measurable quantity is the resolution of your sensor and the resulting picture resolution (in pixels). However, having plenty of pixels does not automatically mean that the picture is at a higher quality. There is a lot that plays here in, like the size of the sensor, light, post-processing, and yes, also the operator.

---

@colinb94927612 wrote:

I can't get a higher qualtiy JPEG than this.

---

In JPEG terms, quality means compression. As JPEG uses destructive compression methods, the higher the quality, the less they are visible to the human eye. But JPEG files also accumulate compression defects for each generation. That is why I recommend doing all edits non-destructive and outputting a final JPEG file only to give to the customer/end-user. If you use the built-in Lightroom export to Adobe stock feature, your pictures are in a sufficient quality to meat all end users' requirements, if the asset is in a good enough quality.

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

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

Seen at 100%, I would say that your fine-tuning was not that fine:

The asset misses sharpness, and detail. I think that the asset is oversaturated and the white balance is not correct. Some noise reduction and sharpness applied did introduce fine artefacts. The DOF is not good enough for a picture like this, but the missing sharpness may also be due to the higher ISO and the quality of the lens.

[RALPH_L]

I too think the main problem is DOF and over sharpening.

[daniellei4510]

The contrast seems excessive to me, as if it has been over processed.

[oleschwander]

It's overprocessed, colors too saturated and it is out of focus.