My all photos are not accepting by Adobe stock

[Rai alex]

When i uplaod photos since 28 july adobe stock not accepting it and declined all my photo to say that its some quality issues but my all AI based photos are upto 700KBs but still declined

 

 plz check these images and assist me!

 

[olivier31614861xbec]

We are not talking about the same thing.

On my side, the only question is : "Is that picture coming with an aesthetic interest ?" 

Putting the question that way to the technical support, I had this answer : " For example, if you create a photo of a great-looking family enjoying a barbecue but the grill is covered in rust, the photo just won’t have commercial value. "

Barbecue.. rust.. We are not talking about the same thing..

Let me put it another way: posting to Stock takes time. You review a large set of pictures to select the best ones (supposedely), you upload, you tag.. You know the drill.

If you receive in turn a 100% reject each time, at some point, you will give up; That is real life.

And if all contributors give up, the Stock business will vanish. 

I don't expect that 100% of my uploads to be accepted. But at least, I expect that rejects are clearly qualified. 

Blur? noise? exposure? why not.. but not a generic "quality issue" which includes both blur or noise or exposure - you choose..

I feel  that something changed in moderators policy now rejecting 100% of my uploads for an unclear reason.. Otherwise, I would not have already 2000+ pictures  in Stock.

[Jill_C]

Aesthetic interest is not what Adobe is selling; it's commercial appeal. Adobe Stock is not an art gallery. They supply images that designers want. To use your analogy, if a designer is making a magazine ad about a family enjoying a backyard cookout, they're not going to want to include the rust. They can either license the image and have the designer "clean it up", or they can keep looking until they find an image that doesn't need any further investment of their valuable time.

It is natural that, as technologies evolve, quality standards should increase as well. I don't even look into the folders of thousands of images from my first DSLR, the very popular Canon Digital Rebel, which I retired well over a decade ago. They're simply not good enough. 

Contributors are not giving up, and Adobe Stock will not vanish for lack of supply of assets. They've added AI images to the database at a pace of >100,000 per week for many months now; and the entire database has grown by 10s of millions in the last few months. There is no lack of Contributors. The ones who get discouraged because their images aren't getting accepted, or conclude that the effort isn't justified by the royalties, are replaced by other Contributors.

[Nancy OShea]

As "Fat Freddy's Cat" said about the army of cockroaches encamped within the "Fablulous Furry Freak Brothers" tiny apartment,  'there's plenty more where they came from.'

https://theslingsandarrows.com/fat-freddys-cat-war-of-the-cockroaches/

[olivier31614861xbec]

I see.. Crystal clear.

Don't know if this is an official message of Adobe (or at least approved), if so, it should be displayed as a banner to any newcomer who whishes to become a Stock contributor

[Jill_C]

Have you ever read the Contributor's Handbook? It's full of interesting and useful info, including the fact that Adobe Stock is focused on commercially viable assets.
contributor-handbook-2022.pdf (adobe.com)

[daniellei4510]

There is nothing wrong with aesthetic interest. But the best images, the images most likely to be accepted, will have commercial appeal as well. And that means technical accuracy, especially if you're interested in photorealistic AI. Even the original author of this thread appears to understand this and has agreed that those technical issues are real.

[Abambo]

And if all contributors give up, the Stock business will vanish. 

I don't expect that 100% of my uploads to be accepted. But at least, I expect that rejects are clearly qualified. 

Blur? noise? exposure? why not.. but not a generic "quality issue" which includes both blur or noise or exposure - you choose..

I feel  that something changed in moderators policy now rejecting 100% of my uploads for an unclear reason.. Otherwise, I would not have already 2000+ pictures  in Stock.

By @olivier31614861xbec

If all contributors would give up… Since I started contributing a few years ago, the size of the database has trippled.

And you have to live with those generic refusal reasons, as the moderation is trimmed for efficiency, to moderate as much assets as possible in an as short time as possible. And moderators refuse at the first issue they see. A specific refusal reason would only lead you in the wrong direction, not looking for other defects. 

Moderation is not done to tell you, what is wrong with your picture, but it is done to protect buyers from bad assets. There are enough bad assets in the database because moderators did not detect the flaws, especially with generative AI. As soon as a customer complains, it starts to get expensive. 

I'm surprised, however, that someone having 2000+ assets accepted by Adobe stock does not see the rejection reasons in above pictures. This is business and not a friendly social media photo site, where you compete for likes. The aesthetics of a picture is only part of the game. Looking at the pictures on my iPad at the smaller size, I would say nice. But when checking the details, you see that the pictures are full of issues. You need to address those issues, or the customer will complain. From the customer side, searching for the right asset is time consuming, and needing to flip through multiple pages of irrelevant or bad assets is not what they want. When, finally, they have the asset they want, and detect after licensing that the asset is not usable, they invested a lot of time for nothing. They will give up or change the provider. No customer, no sales.

As for your refusals, create your thread and post one or two pictures, and someone will have a look into that. We have rarely seen assets here that earned a refusal and where we did not find one or the other flaw in. 

[olivier31614861xbec]

Per your invitation I did create a post with two rejects..

see https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors-discussions/per-suggestion-of-other-contributors-t... 

[daniellei4510]

We can't really tell much from thumbnails. Can you upload a few full sized? But what I DID see immediately was the apple, chicken, and plate of spaghetti. Difficult to say what commercial value there would be in such an image.

[olivier31614861xbec]

Thanks every body for the time spent on my pictures, thanks for your advices.

I admit that I run too few my pictures thru a photo tool to fix some defects - my style -)

Any way, I may be wrong but I did not read a frank NOGO on your comments..

More a "should" than a "to reject for quality reason".

The question of daniellei4510 above is more chalenging. What commercial value? interresting indeed.

My pictures that sell at Adobe are mainly used by travel agencies and related (car rental, air flights, hotels) for their  web marketing material. As an example, I did attach two captures from a web travel agency selling a desert trip (https://www.le-voyage-autrement.com/tunisie/circuits/circuit-desert , see jour6 & jour7 - odjectif is my pseudo at Adobe).

That 's commercial - only commercial.

The pictures refused was intended in my mind to illustrate trips in the Alpes, a popular touristic destination in Europe (but could serve as well on any montains such as the rocky montains !)

That said, let me ask you in turn what your own pictures are intended for?  

[Jill_C]

Most of my images are captured during my travels, and some of them have been used on travel websites. I'm not sure travel websites will want to use AI assets to illustrate their itineraries and places to visit. Potential travelers expect to see actual images from actual places they may visit!