Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi, I have been photographing the sky and weather for about forty years and have my images available at skyboyphotos.com . Most are of the sky, but I also include nature photography and astrophotography. I would like to put many of these photos on Adobe stock but my first two submissions being rejected made me want to ask what might be going on. Here are the two photos that got rejected:
By the way, white border was not part of the sumission, it's my display thumbnail.
So I am guessing that the rejection had most to do with marketability or potential buyers for the image. I will post five other photos from my collection, and would appreciate any opinions on what direction I should be going, and which if any of these categories would be a good fit for Adobe.
Here are some other samples:
Sorry, that's way more than five...but I appreciate any comments about their market potential here. Thanks
Hi,
welcome to the world of microstock!
As far as your pictures shown here are concerned, you can generally be said to move around in subject areas where millions of pictures are already available in the database. So it's hard to get new pictures from the beginning and sell them successfully. A note from the Contributor User Guide:
"Note:
Common subjects like flowers, pets, sunsets, and food are already heavily represented on Adobe Stock. New submissions for these categories are approved if they st
...Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi,
What is Adobe's stated reason for the refusal of the two pictures?
Greets,
v.poth
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Well, that's what had me going...they listed "Aesthetic or commercial appeal of images" and referred me to the guide...but I don't have anything more specific than that. I don't what the specific reasons were. Perhaps I just need to start putting photos up and see which ones make the cut?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi,
welcome to the world of microstock!
As far as your pictures shown here are concerned, you can generally be said to move around in subject areas where millions of pictures are already available in the database. So it's hard to get new pictures from the beginning and sell them successfully. A note from the Contributor User Guide:
"Note:
Common subjects like flowers, pets, sunsets, and food are already heavily represented on Adobe Stock. New submissions for these categories are approved if they stand out and show the common subjects in unique ways."
A good way to do is to compare your images with similar existing ones in the Adobe database and try to improve your images accordingly.
And yes, it is generally so in the industry that you have to find out for yourself which pictures will be accepted and which sell well. However, there is a lot of information about this on the net or in books of successful stock suppliers.
Good Luck.
Greets,
v.poth
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Привет! Я новичок- новичок. Только учусь. Но свое виденье могу высказать, и вы на меня не обижайтесь. Первые две фотографии, на мой вкус, очень тяжеловаты, и в них отсутствует эстетическая привлекательность. Остальные фотографии мне показались более интересными , за исключением зимнего пейзажа. Фотография не несет никакой ценности. Ну стоит кошка с собакой . Ну и что? Вас самого привлекает эта фотография? Вы бы повесили её на стену.? Удачи вам!!!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Благодарю вас за вашу вдумчивую и проницательную критику! Ваши добрые и щедрые слова заставляют меня чувствовать себя намного лучше о моей работе, и я благодарю вас за то, что вы нашли время, чтобы по-настоящему изучить и дать мне свое мнение. Это было очень полезно для меня, и я надеюсь услышать больше от вас в будущем !.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thanks so much for your answer! I appreciate the suggestion to check out other photos in my categories in adobe stock...the most obvious way to find out what sells, don't know why I didn't think of it. I'll keep putting photos up but this definitely helps narrow down what in my photos is commercial and what isn't...as well as photos I take in the future. Thanks again,
David