Image not accepted

[defaultfrr5daqvtunq]

Anyone know why this image was not accepted - there are 6 similar others also rejected. all commets gratefully accepted

not acepted

[Marianne-Deiters]

A reason for rejection is always given. What reason was given?

[defaultfrr5daqvtunq]

Thabks for looking.. Technical issues...

[RALPH_L]

I am going to say it lacks sharpness. The image is very soft.

I assume appeal also played a role. When submitting to stock, ask yourself,

for what purpose would a buyer search for this image?

[defaultfrr5daqvtunq]

Thabks for the reply Ralph. It is posted as a graphic... I imagine plenty of graphic designers see crative potentil in this and similar images. So i hope these werem't the resons for rejection because it deprives creatives of potntially effective backgrounds, wall papes etc. Leave the subjective decisons up to the users is my advice if this is actually the reason for rejection

[George_F]

I agree with @RALPH_L, I can't think of how I might use this photo in a commercial capacity.  I did a composite not too long ago that involved a snowy forest background and a snow foreground around my main subject.  I picked some well edited but straight forward photos for both and applied creative edits to better suit my subject.  I wonder what sort of composite you might use this in?

But the rejection wasn't for commercial appeal, the rejection was for technical issues.  This image isn't sharp, even at 200%.  It's also not out of focus enough to be considered blurred bokeh. That's my hunch.

Good luck with future submissions 🙂

[George_F]

After a second look I noticed the histogram indicated slight underexposure.  Upping the exposure some and setting the white & black points to just above & below clipping made a noticeable difference.  I still think the lack of sharpness is still the most noticeable technical flaw.

[defaultfrr5daqvtunq]

I think you both miss the point of the image... It is not intended to be sharp by nature of the technique used. It is a graphic background image created using photography.. As for a litlle underexpoure? Easy fixed.

I was good that you put your creative hat on for a moment at least... I imagine graphic designers using it as background for a book cover or annual report design with text overlay, maybe an app or website screen background... Again with text overlay and so on...

Once Adobe rejects images because the decision maker 'can't imagine' you take  away design opportunities from those clients who 'can imagine'.

In this case the decision maker needs to think like a designer and less like a photographer... which lets your designer clients decide.

Re sharpness... I am sure there are thousands of accepted  iimages that fail the sharpness tes. In this case it was taken of street, car and building lights in a CBD by using camera motion and longist exposure.

It's good that you 2 opened up this line of thinking... I hope it provides us all with a different perspective.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @defaultfrr5daqvtunq ,

I've seen some fairly sharp light photos. This is not sharp. I believe Adobe might be thinking that sharp photos have potential for more sales. Soft photos have greater potential to become dead stock, or low valued. I'm sure you have no interest in any of the latter.

Also remember many of whom license Adobe images also uses Adobe editors that are capable of creating what they desire from sharp photos.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[ricky336]

Hello,

In my view, this will never pass. Sorry, but I don't think it has any creative potential. What is creative about this? What background could this be used for? I guess it is possible, but there are tons and tons and tons and tons of better images on stock.

Simply, it will be rejected for technical issues - meaning focus in this case.  I guess you wanted 'colourful' streaks of light - were they from skyrockets? Nice idea, but it hasn't worked. (In my view.)

The lines created by the light streaks, take your eye straight out of the frame!

[defaultfrr5daqvtunq]

I am unable to reply to Ralph & George for some reason so this is for both of you..

I think you both miss the point of the image... It is not intended to be sharp by nature of the technique used. It is a graphic background image created using photography.

I was good that you put your creative hat on for a moment at least... I imagine graphic designers using it as background for a book cover or annual report design with text overlay, maybe an app or website screen background... Again with text overlay and so on...

Once Adobe rejects images because the decision maker 'can't imagine' you take  away design opportunities from those clients who 'can imagine'.

In this case the decision maker needs to think like a designer and less like a photographer... which lets your designer clients decide.

Re sharpness... I am sure there are thousands of accepted  iimages that fail the sharpness tes. In this case it was taken of street, car and building lights in a CBD by using camera motion and longist exposure.

It's good that you 2 opened up this line of thinking... I hope it provides us all with a different perspective.

So I will resubmit the imges witha version of this text added to one of the images to help the decision maker "imagine"

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @defaultfrr5daqvtunq 

It is nice for background or texture. However, it lacks sharpness. Always make sure your images are sharp. Customers will render whatever texture they wish.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[defaultfrr5daqvtunq · Accepted solution]

Thanks  jacquelin ... Appreciate your comments... I am hearing a lot about sharpness from your colleagues. There are no doubt many stock images that are accepted because of - or in spite of  - their lack of sharpness. Such as blurred motion etc...

I  don't understand why you all bow down to the god of sharpness for graphic design images. Surely the real judge is the client. The designers looking for fresh ideas for textures/backgrounds/wallpapers will never get the chance to choose with these images if this approach continues. Which will only serve to cement prejudices. No one can say if these appeal to the graphic professionals out there until they are on the site and available for download.

Maybe its time to rethink this sharpness mantra for images like this and see what happens.

[reedesign1912 · Accepted solution]

Hi @defaultfrr5daqvtunq , remember that we are all contributors here and do not work for Adobe.  We have no say on what is or what should be accepted.  We're just trying to offer an opinion based on our experience to answer your original question as to why your image was rejected based on Technical Issues.

I pesonally think you've been given some good advice - focus, lack of contrast and composition.  Take a look at some of the images that have been accepted.  When I searched for "light streaks abstract", about 74,000 images were returned.  Some are in sharp focus, some are intentionally out of focus with a lovely bokeh. It might be worthwhile for you to compare your submission to what's already accepted to get a better idea as to what Adobe Stock wants.

Best of luck in your future submissions.

[defaultfrr5daqvtunq]

Rob... Thanks for taking the time with this image. Your comments are apprecated

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @defaultfrr5daqvtunq ,

As said sharp images are more flexible and yield multiple sales.

Also, being in the industry for more than a decade, Adobe should pass testing stage and now gather enough experience to know what will sell multiple times in their market.

I don't think cusomers who wants soft edge or faded background will have a problem achieving same from originally sharp images using modern applications  I'd suggest you set that image aside, use this experience as teaching tool and move on to producing better images.

Best wishes 

Jacquelin 

[defaultfrr5daqvtunq]

I gave yoju the "corret answer" because you combined an awareness of the graphic application with the technical advice which went beyond what your colleagues had to say. thank you