Images rejected even though they have sold elsewhere

[justinc66972204]

I'm making the switch after 20+ years with Getty to Adobe after my sales dropped drastically. This set of images were rejected due to quality issues. These images were accepted and sold multiple times through Getty. Just confused why Adobe would reject. Any insight would be great thanks.

[Jill_C]

In the first image I see a bit of chromatic aberration and the whites on some of the balls are blownout with no detail.

in the second image, some of the balls in the foreground are oblong - perhaps some lens correction is needed?

[daniellei4510]

Adobe is a whole different animal when it comes to acceptances and rejections (sometimes annoyingly so). In the third image, there is a loss of detail on the lit side of the golf balls where the dimples are no longer visible.

[RALPH_L]

I agree with @Jill_C . I also think that the whites are blown out on all photos.

[ricky336]

Hello,

Adobe Stock is different to Getty/iStock. iStock, before Getty took over was not that picky and would accept a varying array of photos. But even when Getty took over, in my opinion, they let through photos that should have been rejected.

Anyway, regarding your photo, well..., there are a couple of things. White balance - small, but important. There is a hint of blue/green ( you should compensate a bit for the green background) and I think the blown highlights of the golf balls could also be a reason for rejection. You should try to recover the highlights.

[Nancy OShea]

Compare your work with current Adobe Stock inventory to ensure 1) they need more of what you're selling and 2) your quality is as good if not better than what they have now.  Ideally, yours should be unique in some way and suitable for commercial use on print, digital and textile media.

• Golf Balls
• Golf Balls On Green
• Golf Balls Near the Pin

Remember, you're competing with thousands of very talented Adobe Stock Contributors.  What you submitted in the past and sold on Getty is irrelevant here.  Getty has a different customer base, different quality standards & different pricing plans.

Hope that helps.  Good luck.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @justinc66972204 

All three file have white balance issue. The white area is blue. The first file has a purple color fringe around the ball edges. 

The second image has purple and green color fringes.

The third has cromatic noise

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[justinc66972204]

Thanks for all the feedback. All very valid points. In the future I'll be a little more carefull with the color correct.

Although I might argue the white ballace comments. The white ball is picking up the blue from the sky overhead and the green grass below making the odd shifts in temperature. That's how it looked in real life so I kept it that way.

Thanks again for all the time and feedback.

[ricky336]

The human eye interprets colour differently to that of a camera sensor and even film. The green affects the colour temperature as well as the blue sky, as you can see, therefore, this really ought to be compensated for in post processing.

 Even in the days of film, you had film which was balanced for daylight. Perhaps it is a minor point, but nevertheless still valid.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @justinc66972204 ,

The white balance issue is a camera setting issue. Blue is cool. If the ball was capturing the colors of it's environment, the green would not be at the further end from the grass (the top of the ball) while purple and blue are closest to the grass (the margin between the grass and the ball). Besides, purple would not be introduced in your capture. You are looking at camera issues due to settings and other in-camera factors that causes these defects namely chromatic aberration, that I refer to as color fringing. It is a common optical phenomenon that occurs when a lens cannot bring all wavelengths of light to a...

You can look it up.

Best wishes

Jacquelin