I wonder why my Adobe stock photo submissions got rejected 50%?

[Htike.A]

I’m a graphic designer and hobbyist photographer who enjoys capturing travel and landscape scenes. I share only the best of my work—images I believe have commercial potential—after carefully editing them to meet professional standards. And I didn't use AI generated content.

As of now, I’ve uploaded 721 photos, illustrations, and vectors to my portfolio. However, I’ve also received 524 rejections while these rejected photos are accepted in other stock sites. This means, statistically, about half of my submissions are declined. In some cases, I can’t even find my accepted photos through search—even when using the exact title and precise keywords.

This experience makes me question whether there might be a bias or disparity in how contributors from certain countries are evaluated. I assume Adobe see my photos require more professional treatment and doesn't meet as their commercial standard. Photography, especially travel-based, demands real effort, time, and financial commitment. Yet, the return per download is just a few cents, while platforms seem to earn significantly more from each asset.

I wonder if it’s time to reassess how royalties are distributed and whether all contributors are truly being treated equally although the Adobe subscription rates are getting higher year after year.

[Jill_C]

QUS7903.jpg - The foreground tree is quite blurry.

QUS7883.jpg - DOF is too shallow, causing the center of the flower to be out of focus

I don't know how long you've been a Stock Contributor, but Adobe's database has grown dramatically in the last ~1.5 years, resulting in increased competition in every niche, including travel and landscapes. If you search for your titles and keywords on any of your images, you'll see just how much competition you have. If your images don't appear in the first few pages of search results, Buyers may never see them. Additionally, it seems that your portfolio is not large enough to generate regular sales. Most of us believe that you need several thousand assets in your portfolio to realize a steady stream of sales.

There is no evidence that Adobe discriminates against Contributors from any country. If that was their strategy, why would they even permit uploads from those countries? The price of Adobe's Stock subscriptions has not changed in the 8-1/2 years that I've been a Contributor, and our royalties have remained constant at 33%. 

[Htike.A]

QUS7903.jpg I wasn't focusing on the foreground tree. I was focusing on the rianbow.

Anyway, I felt a bit upset with the judgment of my photos with the reason of "Quality issues".
I hope Adobe is not using AI to review our photos and automatically rejected. 

[daniellei4510]

Nevertheless, that was the reason for rejection. The tree is seen as the main subject and the background is secondary in this case. Use the foreground to frame an image is fine, but there is too much of the tree in this case.

[Jill_C]

Adobe has always claimed to use human moderators, though I think they're now using an automated program, perhaps AI, to determine if the submissions are similar or identical or other assets already in the database. I learned early in my journey as a stock image provider not to take rejections too personally. They are not rejecting "you"; they're just ensuring that the images they offer to Buyers are of suitable quakity. Rejections are a learning opportunity. I had quite a few rejections before I learned how to properly edit and evaluate my images BEFORE submitting. It is best to edit on a large screen, and zoom in and inspect every area of the image carefully for flaws. 

[RALPH_L]

Photo 903 is overall too dark, the foreground (the tree) is not in focus and the highlight in the top right is overexposed. Why do you think "bias"? What basis? I too submit photos and have a high acceptance rate. I see the quality problems in your photos. Fix these issues and your acceptance rate will rise.

I applied sharpening to your photo 883. Notice the difference?

Before sharpening
After sharpening

[Htike.A]

Thanks for the tip. I always stay humble to learn from the experts. 

As far as I know, I only earn 0.33-0.99$ (at the time of this post) per download.

[Nancy OShea]

I believe I have commercial potential....

By @Htike.A

===========

Maybe.  Before you submit, compare your work with current Stock inventory to ensure that what you have to sell is something that Stock needs and the quality is better than what Stock has now.

Stock already contains 67 million flower images.  Every size, shape, color and variety are represented. Your flower is nice, but it's unlikely to be seen, much less sold. There's too much competition from other inventory.  To succeed, find subjects that have less competition that a wide range of customers can use for commercial projects -- print, digital and merchandise.

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

Your other remarks make no sense, so I won't address them except to say that Stock makes no profit from rejecting assets.

• Stock is not an art gallery.  It's a global digital assets service with millions of customers worldwide.
• Stock makes money when contributors SELL something.
• They lose money when customers complain & demand refunds.
• That's why the acceptance standards are so high.