Landscape, cityscape panorama (Rejected for Quality Issues)

[Hello PRO Photo]

The image was shot on a Canon R5 with a 70-200 lens (170 mm focal length), stitching 5 images together. The R5 is not even mine I waited to take this shot till I had a loaner from Canon so the quality would be the best possible. The resolution is perfect, 10923 x 6144, ideal resolution for vertical or horizontal use. It could be better but had to crunch it down a little to fit within the boundaries of 20mb file size limit.

I was shocked when it came back rejected on quality. Exposure and focus is perfect, there are no filters used post, I’ve even used a polarise filter in camera to sharpen the haze and contrast, I cut the noise back a much as possible before loosing detail, YOU CAN EVEN READ UTS ON THE BUILDING FROM 11km away!!! The overall detail can’t really be better for this type of cityscape panorama photo.

My question is how could anyone actually shoot the same shot any better? What is allowed if this type of landscape photo is not. What is actually the problem and how is it possible to achieve with the same high end gear I'm using, I’d love to see some examples of similar images accepted, bearing in mind not everyone can afford a Hasselblad.

I think I'm actually done with Adobe Stock after this but I'd appreciate any constructive feedback.

Thank you in advance

This is the issue listed

Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image. Unfortunately, this image doesn't meet our quality standards so we can’t accept it into our collection.

Common issues that can impact the technical quality of images include exposure issues, soft focus, excessive filtering or artifacts/noise. Learn more about our technical requirements

[RALPH_L]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Adobe. Both photos are grainy, have artifactsaround the buildings and nothing is in sharp focus. This could be caused by several factors. Probably heat waves or JPEG compression. At 100% this is not obvious but at higher magnification you can see this. The second photo is not cropped well and the logo "UTS" is visible.

[Hello PRO Photo]

I know it's grainy, it shot from 11km away! That’s my point, it’s a landscape shot, you can’t shoot it pin sharp without grain, what does Adobe expect?

It was shot with the best possible settings on a tripod, 1/800sec, ISO 200, F8 in the best possible light / time of day for the city shot from this angle with a beach in the foreground and specifically the airport. Who cares about some grain, that’s technically not even possible to remove in camera and even post without distorting the image, when the creative direction matters more.

The second shot was not submitted, I’ve just upload a detailed crop to illustrate the actual resolution.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

I know it's grainy, it shot from 11km away! That’s my point, it’s a landscape shot, you can’t shoot it pin sharp without grain, what does Adobe expect?

By @Hello PRO Photo

Interesting question, great answer, probably provocative in your eyes, but true: A perfect picture!

It was shot with the best possible settings on a tripod, 1/800sec, ISO 200, F8 in the best possible light / time of day for the city shot from this angle with a beach in the foreground and specifically the airport. Who cares about some grain, that’s technically not even possible to remove in camera and even post without distorting the image, when the creative direction matters more.

By @Hello PRO Photo

The buyer cares about “some” grain (your picture shows a lot of grain). The beach is a problem, if the picture is crisp-sharp because you could identify the people on the beach. It wouldn't pass if you didn't have a model release from them all. In addition, your white balance is not correct.

For a full assessment, you would need to upload the picture here as submitted to Adobe.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[Hello PRO Photo]

The focus was on the city intentionally, I didn’t want the people in focus, it’s more about the city and overall landscape. The white balance is correct, the waves, umbrellas and clothes are pure white. I even selectively balanced the city to be less blue, the clouds were that colour.

I understand the solution, it’s lame to just to resize the image or do whatever it takes to avoid noise, or grain, kill the detail and ambiance. I won’t be uploading the high resolution here of contributing anymore.

I don’t agree with this moderation or process so I’m not going to take part anymore. I don’t really have time anyway, this just tipped me over.

[Abambo]

The focus was on the city intentionally, I didn’t want the people in focus, it’s more about the city and overall landscape.

By @Hello PRO Photo

The people are in the frame. The only thing that counts is if they are recognizable. This is stock, not a news site and not a travel guide and not social media in a semi private setting.

[Abambo]

If that's the quality of your asset, it is not good enough.

As a side note: The UTS sign would be an IP violation.

[Hello PRO Photo]

The image is 10923 x 6144!!

But I think I get it now.

\\ POSSIBLE SOLUTION \\

From what I can gather very high resolution isn’t factored in, the common thought process is grain/noise bad, even though it can easily be resized to fix the problem. It's a bit flawed from a purists POV but going by what people are saying, to me that the actual solution would be to submit the file at half the size. Instead of 10923 x 6144 would be 5462 x 3072. When I crunch it down there are no artifacts/noise, it's still high resolution just not ultra high detail or as versatile but would technically pass I'm presuming. Just sort of defeats the point of stitching the shots together for a higher resolution.

[Abambo]

The image is 10923 x 6144!!

By @Hello PRO Photo

Still, moderators examine it at 100%!

From what I can gather very high resolution isn’t factored in, the common thought process is grain/noise bad, even though it can easily be resized to fix the problem.

By @Hello PRO Photo

That's correct, you are expected to submit “perfect” pictures in all circumstances.

It's a bit flawed from a purists POV

By @Hello PRO Photo

That can be discussed. But if someone wants a high-res picture, they expect it to meet the same quality criteria as any other picture … examined at 100%. They explicitly chose a high-res picture. If they need to scale down, they could also buy the lower-res picture.

When I crunch it down there are no artifacts/noise, it's still high resolution just not ultra high detail or as versatile but would technically pass I'm presuming. Just sort of defeats the point of stitching the shots together for a higher resolution.

By @Hello PRO Photo

Well, one method to get the noise down and have still a sharp picture at the pixel level (100%) is effectively to reduce the size. Keep also in mind the IP issue, the model releases and the white balance.

There may also be a possibility to get rid of that disturbing fence in the foreground.

[Hello PRO Photo]

Thank you I apprecate your detailed response. I undersand a lot better what they require. Just not for me anymore, just going to shoot for myself now. I was mixed about the fence, but you're right from a stock POV. Was easy enough for me to step over and setup but I actually like it for some forground perspective and when it's cropped vertically. Thanks again for your feedback and time. Late night have to put my kids to bed!!

[Abambo]

Late night have to put my kids to bed!!

By @Hello PRO Photo

That's important. 😃 Have a nice rest of the day.

[Jill_C]

I always "shoot for me", and if some of those captures happen to be good enough to submit to Adobe Stock, I do so. 

[Abambo]

It could be better but had to crunch it down a little to fit within the boundaries of 20mb file size limit.

By @Hello PRO Photo

Where do you see a 20mb file size limit?

It's not a quality picture based on the detail cut out that you posted.

My question is how could anyone actually shoot the same shot any better?

By @Hello PRO Photo

Yes, I could, with my Canon Mark II, which is currently the oldest camera that I own. It's not about Hasselblad or about Canon or about Nikon. It is true that a mid-size sensor can deliver a different quality than a smaller size sensor. But quality is not a matter of hardware. I have submitted some stitched pictures that got accepted, but to be honest, it is not worth the additional work that it makes. I do it for the fun of it. When I need a picture of a bigger thing, I make sure that I can take that with one shot, if ever possible.

[Hello PRO Photo]

I could take a better shot with my Canon Mark II too because the resolution is so crap the flaws don’t show up. But they do when you’re pushing the limits and capturing at higher resolutions. Hence the solution of just crunching the images down till it means the no noise standard.

The camera setting I’ve taken the shot with are not something magical, just balanced for that time of day.
I do it for fun too and just submit the shots I think might be nice as stock.

I can’t remember the size issue, I just remember it giving me an upload error and the file on my hard drive is just under 20mb. But it strangely becomes a quality picture based when it’s half the size.

[Abambo]

I could take a better shot with my Canon Mark II too because the resolution is so crap the flaws don’t show up.

By @Hello PRO Photo

The resolution is not crap at all. 🤷‍:female_sign:I think you are too hardware fixed. It's the lens that makes it happen. If you have a sharp lens, that's worth multiple megapixels of resolution.

But it strangely becomes a quality picture based when it’s half the size.

By @Hello PRO Photo

Half the size in mega pixels or megabytes?

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

The issue I see immediately is your white balance which @Abambo pointed out.

You used a polarising filter on the lens right - a polarising filter helps to cut out the reflection, but still, you have a lot of glare! So when post-processing, sometimes you have to tweak the white balance. Currently, it is just a bit too blue/green.

As it is a beach photo, and I guess in the middle part of the day, there is a lot of reflection! And in Australia, it's summer, so the sun is very strong! It's the wrong time of day to take photos really! You're getting a lot of atmospheric haze, so this doesn't help with the buildings in the distance.

The fence I think does not add to the photo, it detracts from the main scene.

This shot could be improved - exposure, composition, time of day, and so on!

High end gear does not make a perfect photo - it's a misconception! It's how you use what one's got!

[Hello PRO Photo]

I took about 20 different versions which included unpolarised versions, I liked the crispness of the polarised. I know the water is more green, It’s intentional, everything else like the sand and actual white objects are balanced.

I need to take a photo at the beach in the middle of the day while people are using it! That time was also convent for me and I found a parking spot. There is nothing wrong with the exposure, it’s was also shot HRD, nothing blown out in the highlights and lots of detail in the shadows, it was a very high contrast day and windy, hence the high shutter speed on tripod. Sure composition and things could be improved, I could go to great inconvenience to be there at the perfect time and come back over an over once the clouds align and everything is just perfect and I know it’s not the most amazing artwork, I accept peoples criticism, totally not offended, but a to be rejected like I’m submitting for a competition, it’s stock art of the city of Sydney shot from what I think is an interesting perspective which should really take priority, if someone else takes a better looking shot don’t buy mine, no problem.

I’m only really a stock hobbyist and have very minimal downloads, I hadn’t submitted anything in years and was thinking about getting back into more seriously it but the message I take away from your comments and the others is genuinely appreciated and clear, I need to think and actually be a stock photographer technically and creatively, I don’t care to, I currently enjoy working with people being a portrait, event and wedding photographer. I’m out. I think the shot is technically and artistically fine and I don’t agree with this level of criticism for stock art. I’m not going to waste one more minute of my time jump through hoops and distort in any way the way I think about photography which would likely compromise the way I approach my day to day work.

I’m a dad with 3 young kids and extremely time poor, I genuinely thank you, you’ve probably just saved me a ton of time and creativity going down a path that’s not really for me.