Mediation between processing, non-processing and museum photos

[to227]

Hi everyone,

I've recently begun submitting content to Adobe stock and luckily, some of my images have already been accepted, however not the ones I was from my own perspective almost convinced they would make it. The reason in nearly all of thoses cases are "problems with artefacts". Well, the problem with occuring artefacts can be solved easily with respective software, but the explanation also contains the following line: "we found that the picture may have been overly-processed or contains too many artefacts/noise." My focus is set on the term "overly-processed".

I understand that customers of photos wish to add their own special effects, filters etc which requires the content to remain widely unprocessed apart from basic tweakings such as contrast, brightness and so on. But when is too much too much in accordance with the guidelines? Because on the other hand I read the sentence on the site: "Please try to work your photos so that for customers, only little to no post-production is required." Makes me a bit unsure on what to do, how far to go and what to omit.

Another thing I came across was that, according to the guidelines, pictures of Museums (the art affected itself is clear to me) are not accepted when there had to be an entry-fee paid. But what about museums that are free of charge to enter? Especially in London, UK but also elsewhere in the world I know this is the case. To give a concrete example, I have an in my opinion acceptable image of the British Museum's entrée, am insecure now tho whether to try to submit or not. The British Museum as most of the other London museums is free of charge.

Anyone a good advice for me?

Thank you very much in advance for your replies, I'm eagerly taking any hint into my future work process.

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hi,

Regarding your artifacts problem, this seems to be a common problem. I had two images yesterday rejected due to artifacts, and for the life of me, I cannot see, what the reviewers are referring to. Only a very small amount of post processing was down. The usual minor adjustments. So, how much is too much? How long is a piece of string? Sometimes, I do almost no processing - settings in Lightroom are near to 0, and just sometimes, it gets rejected due to artifacts.

People have posted examples on here asking this question. Sometimes, there is noise etc -so justified, and sometimes - don't know. You can post an example here if you want so others can give their opinion.

As for the IP rights, even though the British Museum entry is free, bear in mind, that the photos you upload are for commercial purposes. And commercial being the key word!

The British Museum is owned, even though it is free for the public (at the moment), you still may need to get written permission to use the photos commercially. To be safe you should contact the staff and ask them.

[v.poth]

Hi ricky336,

if you dont know the the correct and official answer as an ACP, you should not answer in this way. You should know what are you are talking about and do not unsettle the provider and do not give here an assessment on the basis of your own rejected pictures which should apply here for generally valid rules. Sometimes images are rejected for this reason and sometimes not is no help to the questioner. Too much image processing manifests itself in image errors and these are clearly recognizable and are defined in case of rejection.

Without examples of pictures from the questioner or even from you ricky, an exact assessment cannot take place.

I think if you don't know the limits of image editing, then you shouldn't write anything on the subject. Every experienced supplier and photographer knows these limits and processes his pictures accordingly. Here basic knowledge of photography and image processing is in demand and every provider should certainly bring this with him when he uploads pictures to an agency or can be able to judge the works of others.

[joanH]

How would you then reply to this question? Set us an example. V.poth you are one of my favorites. Regards, JH

[v.poth]

Hi joanh,

I'm not an ACP anymore and only answer questions if I want to. I continue to watch the Adobe Stock pages as I found them very interesting. But I won't give any more analyses here, because the time spent and the remuneration paid by Adobe don't really match in my opinion. I prefer to invest this time in image production, because I benefit much more from.

Greets,

v.poth

[joanH]

Thank you for taking a moment to reply. I enjoyed looking at your stock page. Regards, JH