I'm a contributor for about 20 months now, have a 2800 pictures portfolio which sells reasonably well.
All my last pictures were rejected (a couple of hundreds at least) because of quality issues.
I am aware of most of the rules and understand that not everything is interesting or just not good enough.
But rejecting everything after so much work is a bit harsh.
Who could explain this a bit better? I didn't had that problem before. The camera I use is a Nikon Z6II with the 24-70 mm f 2.8 Nikon lens., that should not be the first concern
I allready sent Adobe this message twice, since no answer came, I try to get this clear here. Without a for me clear answer, I'm afraid that uploading new content has no sense anymore. Too bad, because income was growing steadily.
Here is the printscreen of the quality issues rejection.
I added another onother one. Checked it in LR. No under/over unequal exposure, noise, ...
So, one more time: why decline for quality issues?
I put a lot of time in these photos. If I don't get a reasonable answer from the moderators, I'm affraid, I'll stop uploading.
You won't get “reasonable” answers from moderators, as their task is not to make you a better photographer, but to protect buyers from bad assets.
The white balance is off.
OK, thank you, but not useful again. Nothing wrong with the WB here.
I would kindly ask you not to answer this topic again.
I would kindly ask you not to answer this topic again.By @Werner22361781mr90
If you don't want to know what imperfections we see, please don't ask this community of unpaid forum volunteers for feedback. It's a waste of everyone's time & energy.
This file is so tiny that is impossible to evaluate properly in terms of focus and noise. When I zoom in just slightly it looks quite pixelated; however when I look at it LRC, it clearly shows that it is overexposed by about 1/3rd of a stop. Adding a bit of Dehaze will also improve the cloud details.
You will not receive a further response from Adobe regarding rejected images; their decisions are final, and there is no avenue for you to dispute their findings.
Most have a slight exposure problem. Some of them also have a white balance issue.
First: out of focus look seem strange.
(you may have over sharpened!)
The only one that I find to be correctly exposed, but it's not level. You have moiré in the plants at the water border.
Fourth: the tree prominently in view is over exposed.
I still find it 'a bit' exaggerated to cancel about 270 entries.
This photo's have been uploaded on about 10 other sites without any major issues. And I did not had comparable problems in the past with Adobe. Delting so much in one time for the same reason looks more like a random descision then an in depth detail analysis. So , I would like to hear the opnion of the submission team too.
I agree with you and I had the same problem. It's hard to understand the reasons that almost the pictures were rejected.
All explanations are “ad hoc” explanations, as we don't know which error triggered the refusal. However, I looked into the histogram, and there were, with all assets except the second, exposure problems. The second is not level and has this moiré effect on the grass. The tree is overexposed.
The moderators are not intervening here. I have no problem with rejecting 270 pictures if they all have issues. Quality issues is a refusal reason that may include many reasons: out of focus, artefacts, white balance, bad framing, exposure issues. Each of your pictures may have one or the other issues. And we never know what issue triggered the refusal, as the first issue the moderator sees triggers the refusal.
Having acceptance elsewhere does not guaranty acceptance here.
The asnwers are always the same and not very helpful to me.
The reason I came here is that they do not respond to my first inquiry.
So, thanks for answering but it's not helpful.
I have been contributing for 5 years and in the last two months I have had 90% of my pictures rejected for quality issues. Trust me it is not you it's Adobe. I saw the same thing with Shutterstock before they converted to an AI approval process. It took them months to work the kinks out but I now get 95% of my pictures approved. I shoot with a Nikon Z9 and Nikkor lens. It's useless to send anything to Adobe Support because they don't support contributors. Their responses have been standard copy and past guidelines. They won't deal with specific issues. Sorry!
Hi @Dolores Harvey , I'm affraid you're right. I checked these pictures. Although, they are no 'price winning assets', they are decent. And since too many were rejected it's or Monday Morning Stuff or ... AI.
Indeed, I had the same with Shutterstock which works fine now.
Don't give up! I slowed my processing on Adobe until they get their act together. It might take a couple of months.
If you're looking for a pity party, you won't find one here. Stock isn't punishing you. You're punishing yourself and trying to blame Stock for your failures.
1. This isn't personal. Stock is a business. There's no profit from rejected assets.
2. Stock has thousands of contributors whose work is accepted and sells. Ask yourself why they're succeeding and you're not. What are YOU missing?
Best of luck on your next submission. 🙂
Thank you for not answering anymore. Please keep your arrogancy to yourself.
Best regards, Werner