Image declined

Forum|Forum|4 years ago
February 9, 2022
返信数 4.
849 ビュー

Hi,
Two images that I submitted for review were rejected and I would like to receive comments and suggestions about possible reasons. Can anyone here help?
thank you so much

このトピックへの返信は締め切られました。

解決に役立った回答 reedesign1912

Like @Jill_C commented on the butterfly photo, the colour manipulation and oversaturated are not what stock customers are wanting. I have had photos with selective colouring accepted in the past, but I've learnt it is better to provide full colour, natural toned photos. When you look at your photo at 100% magnification, there are more significant technical issues going on. It looks like there was some significant compression or overprocessing of the image, which makes it pixelated.

I am not sure what to make of your other photo. Is it a photo of an somebody else's image with the craquelure finish or is that a filter you added on afterwards? If it is somebody else's work, property releases would be required. If it is your work, you would still require property releases for the female and male art hanging on the wall of your photo. Because of the filter it was rejected.

If you are new to stock photography, it would be worthwhile reading through requirements and the "Do's and Don'ts" of post processing. Generally, photos should be as natural looking as possible with minimal amount of post processing. Adobe customers will manipulate the photos as they need to fit with their colour schemes and design specs. Think of it as appealing to a broader audience with more opportunities for people to license your work.

Best of luck in your future submissions.

Abambo

Community Expert

In addition to what has been said by @Jill_C and @reedesign1912, the second image would also be rejected on IP reasons because the main subject are those 2 iconic images. They are not only random decorative items.

And yes, @LarryDC55 is right, Adobe stock is not the place to publish artistic pictures. The pictures have to be of good quality in terms of craftsmanship and may also be of high artistic quality afterwards. A purely artistic picture like the two presented here will always be rejected, even if the noise, sharpness and so on are OK and only the colour manipulations remain. However, I regularly see pictures here that have been alienated in order to hide existing deficiencies in the pictures. That would make stock customers angry, as they invest much time into searching the perfect images.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

reedesign1912解決！

Inspiring

Like @Jill_C commented on the butterfly photo, the colour manipulation and oversaturated are not what stock customers are wanting. I have had photos with selective colouring accepted in the past, but I've learnt it is better to provide full colour, natural toned photos. When you look at your photo at 100% magnification, there are more significant technical issues going on. It looks like there was some significant compression or overprocessing of the image, which makes it pixelated.

I am not sure what to make of your other photo. Is it a photo of an somebody else's image with the craquelure finish or is that a filter you added on afterwards? If it is somebody else's work, property releases would be required. If it is your work, you would still require property releases for the female and male art hanging on the wall of your photo. Because of the filter it was rejected.

If you are new to stock photography, it would be worthwhile reading through requirements and the "Do's and Don'ts" of post processing. Generally, photos should be as natural looking as possible with minimal amount of post processing. Adobe customers will manipulate the photos as they need to fit with their colour schemes and design specs. Think of it as appealing to a broader audience with more opportunities for people to license your work.

Best of luck in your future submissions.

Rob R, Photographer