Misty Morning - Rejected

[outonalymm]

I have recently become a contributor to Adobe Stock and one of my landscape images has been rejected for 'Quality' reasons.  It is a large file, pretty well composed, taken at base ISO (so no noise) and accurately focussed but has a 'soft' feel as you might expect having been taken in the mist - which was entirely the point. Small file version below.

Has anyone else had this issue or have I just missed the point? 

[Test Screen Name]

As you may know, Adobe examine at 100-200%. Reduced files aren't much good for us to help you spot much beyond issues with composition or colour balance. Please post original file. 

[Abambo]

You have missed the point… 😉 Your picture is overexposed as you can check with the histogram:

If you want a correct analysis of the picture, you need to post a full resolution picture, as artefacts, noise, and sharpness are really only to check at the original resolution.

If you correct the overexposure, you can try resubmitting.

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

[outonalymm]

It's true that the histogram is well to the right but the image is not overexposed and there is no clipping.  With heavy mist the histogram is what should be expected.  And another Community Professional has said that it's been rejected because it's not commercially viable (which I sort of understand).

[Nancy OShea]

Fog & mist contains water droplets that causes light photons to scatter in unpredictable ways.  The result is uneven exposure with loss of colors, shadows and details.  If printed commercially, this photo would be mostly white.

More often than not, fog is created in post-editing where it can be controlled.  There are hundreds of fog & smoke brushes available for Photoshop just for this purpose.

https://www.photoshopsupply.com/brushes/fog-photoshop-brushes

[outonalymm]

Thanks Nancy.  Just to be clear, no fog brushed used on this image.  It was all there in reality.

[Nancy OShea]

My point exactly.  You can't control fog in the wild. 

It's best to shoot image on a well-lit sunny day.  And then apply fog selectively in post, if that's the desired effect.

[ricky336]

Hello,

Another problem with this photo, apart from being overexposed, is that it is washed out; there is no contrast and no blacks. It wouldn't print out very well at all. (For commercial use.) To me, it looks like you have used the 'Dehaze' filter in Lightroom and added too much 'hazing' to give the soft feel you wanted. The result is as you see - a rather flat washed-out image.

[outonalymm]

No Dehaze used at all.  The scene itself was 'washed out' because of the mist which is what I was trying to capture.  I do get that because of that it might not be commercially viable.  And it is most definitely not overexposed - there is no clipping whatsoever on the original but I would agree that the histogram is well to the right which is what is to be expected in heavy mist.

[ricky336]

And the histogram shouldn't be heavily  on the right. The result is as you have got. Even in colour printing from a negative the exposure would be corrected. This idea being straight from the camera is a misguided approach. All photos need some post processing. If a photo is saved as a JPEG, the camera itself does the necessary post processing.

As a photograph this is washed out, therefore it won't make a good print and rather not a desirable photo.

However my view point is from a photographic point of view!

[outonalymm]

If there's no burn out then why shouldn't the histogram be so far on the right if that's the actual conditions of the day?  If you photograph something that's predominantly white then that's what you get.  And just to be clear there has been sympathetic post processing of the raw image it's not straight from the camera.  I have long understood the difference difference between jpegs and and raw.

I have this image printed and on my wall as it makes a great print - and yes I am biased. 

However, I now get that it might not be a commercial image but who made you the arbiter of taste?  My views might not be your own but then my views are entirely from a photographic point of view.

[Nancy OShea]

@outonalymm 

It's time to move on.  Stock is a business, not a talent contest.  Atmospheric conditions are no excuse for a bad photo.  It is what it is.

Rule #1 in Stock Photography, don't fall in love with your product.  You can't be objective with blinders on.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/be-wearing-blinders

[outonalymm]

Yes time to move on but in which case I don't know why you bothered replying.

Just let me leave you with this.

I do not for one moment believe that a photographer, certainly not a landscape photographer, would ever say: "It's best to shoot image on a well-lit sunny day. And then apply fog selectively in post, if that's the desired effect." 

As for whether it's a good or bad photo we can both have our opinion but, when asked why a photo has been rejected for technical issues, I don't think it's the place of Adobe to criticise the artistic intent or artistic merit of a photo - especially not in such a mean spirited way.

[Nancy OShea]

First, Nothing mean spirited here.  As unpaid forum volunteers and fellow artists,  we don't work for Adobe.

Second, the Histogram doesn't lie. It works like a thermometer.  You know how to use a thermometer, right?  

Third, you asked us for feedback and received it.  If you can't accept an honest technical assessment, please don't ask for feedback here.  Join a photography club instead. 

Goodbye & best of luck on your future submissions.

[outonalymm]

I thought you said it was time to move on, but it's you who can't let it drop and accept that another opinion might just possibly be valid. 

I won't reitereate my comments about the histogram and in that regard we'll have to just differ but I do think your comments above quite adequately underline what I said about being mean spirited, if not a little sarcastic.

[ricky336]

You still need to set your black points. There has to be a tonal range. The photo should not be all one sided. This is what the histogram shows, a tonal range of pixels. Even on a misty day, there is a tonal range from black to white. 

[ricky336]

And the histogram shouldn't be heavily  on the right. The result is as you have got. Even in colour printing from a negative the exposure would be corrected. This idea being straight from the camera is a misguided approach. All photos need some post processing. If a photo is saved as a JPEG, the camera itself does the necessary post processing.m

As a photograph this is washed out, therefore it won't make a good print and rather not a desirable photo.

However my view point is from a photographic point of view!