can anyone please enlight me by assesing this image and the reason was rejected?
of course it says techincal reason - it was taken on tripod, 100 ISO, f/16 - sharpen reduced to 0 zero from raw file
Is the file you posted the original you uploaded to Adobe Stock? I only ask because this one is only 1.5 MP and minimum requirement is 4 MP. Sometimes you can only see the issues at 100%-200% magnification of the original image. But, what I do see is that the image is slightly underexposed and has a white balance issue (too blue.)
I hope this helps.
The landscape photo is underexposed, both by my eye and reflected in the histogram. When pulling the exposure up, I think it really highlights where the information was poorly recorded.
I like the blue on the sky, but I think the buildings are too blue and a bit more neutral would be better suited.
This is taken at such a wide angle that some of the buildings are noticeably skewed.
I'm sure you did at least some of this purposefully, it just doesn't work well for commercial use. That's my opinion at least. But with some slight tweaks in shooting and processing I think there is potential.
Better luck with future submissions 🙂
Dismissing all of George's very valid comments isn't going to get your image accepted by Adobe Stock. We here on the Community Forum are other Contributors, and many of us have developed an eye for what is acceptable to the Moderators. It is also my assessment that it is underexposed, soft and hazy and the buildings are slightly tilted. The Adobe Stock Moderators will reject the image if just one flaw is detected, and they simply don't have the time to advise in detail every flaw that they see. It is not their jobs to make us better photographers; it is their job to accept images that are technically superior and have commercial appeal to their Buyers. Other stock agencies have different criteria for acceptance, so the fact that they've accepted your image is no guarantee that Adobe will accept it.
It's also important to realise that (in case you did not see this)
- there is no point arguing with us, because we are only trying to report what we see as Adobe's wants
- you CANNOT contact Adobe to argue or appeal in any way; time is money and moderators have to process hundreds, maybe thousands, of pictures each week; Adobe would prefer to lose some good pictures to giving up valuable time to arguing
- Adobe's rules are often driven by complaints from the Stock customers, who are not photographers, but who have clear simple wishes.
Hello George,First, the images shouldn’t be assessed based on your personal taste, that’s unproductive, the images submitted sgould be assesed from a neutral point of view, we all have different taste and preferences.
George's comments are not driven by personal taste, at leats not the first lines. The picture is missing blacks and that causes a lack of contrast. You could also increase the whites a bit. As you said, you need to understand the histogram:
Getting acceptance with other 4 big stock companies does not earn your acceptance here and vice versa. Each company applies its criteria, and from what I see from the customer side, the criteria weren't stringent enough at the time.
Thinking that a 50 mm lens has no distortions is a bit naive. All depends on the quality of the lens: https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/round-ups/50mm-12-way-lens-test-8669. Don't understand me wrong, I am not convinced that there is much correction needed, but distortion is visible.
I don't think it is underexposed exactly, but rather more brightness (brightness is different from exposure) could be added as @Abambo mentioned. The blacks and whites need to be increased. The sky could have more light added to it. Increasing the whites would do this. There should be a full range from whites to blacks rather than just mid tones.
I don't think there is any distortion that is worth mentioning.
Maybe, just maybe white balance could be altered just a wee bit. A tiny bit less magenta/blue.