My experience with Adobe Stock Photo facility

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

I tried to start to submit photos to Adobe Stock. I started with two excellent and special photos from my motorbike (one made with a drone from top) with some light corrections in Adobe. It´s a Honda and I mentioned the type in the keywords, which is, from my point of view, the right approach since user wants to find their desired content as quickly as possible. The photos were rejected because of copyright issues. I searched in Adobe, and found douzens of photos, showing motorbikes, the name and the logo in the photos and keywords.. so what is this??  I submitted  these photos again without mentioning "Honda", now they claim quality issues...I submitted other photos, one made from a model train facility (size 0) with photo stacking, excellent quality, as experts in this area confirmed to me, and no comparable photos yet in Adobe Photo Stock (and photo stacking NEEDS per se editing in a photo editor). Rejected with quality issues which is ridiculous from my point of view. Submitted another two pictures, close-up from a flying Albatros, also excellent quality, and a photo from a project where I arranged subjects, in this case couloured crayons in sparkling water, quite interesting picture in best quality and rated from viewers as quite nice and very original (was used in a calendar). All photos rejected because of "quality issues" or "artefacts". This is definitely not my place for offering photos...I am done with Adobe and look for other facilities which acknowledge the kind of photo and not at first almost non-existing "quality issues". Cheers, Bernd  

[Abambo]

My experience with Adobe stock is, that the moderators are very good at detecting all kinds of errors in the pictures.

The Honda refusal is absolutly normal, as you do not have the authorization to use the Honda trade name. If there are other assets, the may have gotten the authorization or they are editorial use only. 

You may continue to rant or upload one of your art works here, as submitted to Adobe stock, and we will tell you what we think, the errors were. You need to give us also Adobe's refusal (heading).

[Ricky336]

... I started with two excellent and special photos..., excellent quality, as experts in this area confirmed to me, ... Submitted another two pictures, close-up from a flying Albatros, also excellent quality, ... best quality .... Cheers, Bernd  

By @Bernd29030466s8ao

Hello,

Excellent quality is a matter of opinion. To show what you mean by excellent quality, are you able to post an example of excellent quality, which Adobe rejected? 

Are the experts in their field experts in photography?

Judging quality needs to be objective and not subjective! Otherwise, it's just an opinion!

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

Hello,

thanks for your opinion. I did some searches in Adobe Stock Photos and I do not think that I have a weird opinion about my photos concerning the quality compared to what they offer to the customer. And moreover, it was not about content, but about quality (rejecting content, may be because they are already flooded by the same topic is more acceptable).  And sure, I can attach some of those rejected pictures. May be you are able to find a reason for rejection (the Albatros is somewhat reduced in size for sending). Cheers, Bernd 

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

As for your other pictures, I'm afraid they are also not 'excellent quality'!

The motorcycle looks like an HDR picture, which was not done very well, as well as the train picture.

And you will have IP issues in both of them!

Sorry, but these examples do have quality issues! 😒

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

The Bike, its not a HDR picture, and the train photo is of course done with photo stacking, otherwise you never get this kind of depth in focus (I mentioed it in my first posting). And of course, there is another background inside which must be replaced e.g. by a sky, which can leave some blurring rims. If this is supposed not good enough for Adobe, o.k., I accept it; a journal in Germany about model train loves these photos. They are good enough to be printed in the journal. IP issues, I wrote already a comment, the Adobe rules are not what I excpected. If someone needs a photo from this bike, want to show it in a report about the bike, he/she will surely need it with all logos...strange that this is not allowed. Anyway, it is at it is...

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

Bleistift: Faber Castell is a trademark, that is an absolute no-go. Erfrischende Farben is probably their trademark slogan. Best is not to have any writings. As for the rest, I'm wondering about this:

For your Projekt HF, you have Artefacts like these:

And your motorcycle still has the Honda logo (absolute no go) and the model number. The brakes also have a logo, the tires too. Even though the picture is quite good, you have a lot of noise, due to the HDR processing.

You also have this change in the lightens at the borders of a new element, that is typical for HDR pictures:

I also see light chromatic aberration:

But your pictures are impressive, nice, but you have got rightful refusals.

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

Its not an HDR picture, just a bit contrast enhancing. If this photo has issues, just please compare for example with this one...https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/cb750/412375691

[Ricky336]

Then you have done too much with this photo! (The motorcycle picture)

[Abambo]

 just please compare for example with this one...https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/cb750/412375691

By @Bernd29030466s8ao

That picture has also issues and should have been refused.

But it's up for sale, I do not know if anyone will buy it, I wouldn't. It's a Premium image, and of bad quality. There is no “but his picture passed, so you should accept mine too”. We are all aware that some pictures are in the database, that shouldn't be there. But that does not help your picture to pass.

If you do less processing, correct chromatic aberration, take away the logos, you may try resubmitting. I agree that your picture is more dynamic. Nevertheless, after editing out the logos, I would also edit out the grass on the right side.

[Jill_C]

Bleistift_1.jpg - IP issue since the brand name is clearly visible 

motorcycle_2.jpg - IP issues with brand name and logo; noise in the sky 

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

Forgot the Albatros....;-) 

[RALPH_L]

All of your photos have quality issues. Mostly focus. The bird has also overexposed highlights. The motorcycle has a white halo above the seat. All except the bird have property right issues! It should not be hard to understand that you cannot show names, trademarks, symbols, car license plates and so forth that are recognizable. You also cannot show an object, that is the main subject, which is recognizable because of the design. That rules your bike out. You cannot make money on something that honda owns. That would be like me using your Albatros in my photos. I dont think you would approve.

[Abambo]

You also cannot show an object, that is the main subject, which is recognizable because of the design. That rules your bike out.

By @RALPH_L

The bike without the logos would depend on how iconic this design is. But there may be a chance that it passes. However, there are so many logos all around on this bike, it will be difficult to edit them out.

And you are right! The logos on the train picture also need to go. The plate, I'm not convinced, it's a fake one. But by principle, I would edit it out.

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

O.k., see the point. If these are the rules, then Adobe Stock is not my place. If I, as a customer, would look for a certain motorbike needed e.g to rint it on a shirt,, e.g. the one I took the pictures from (it is acutally a remake of the legendary 750 four, a celebration from Honda since the first 750 four was  introduced, so, it is the last air-cooled four cylinder bike in the world, a bit iconic 😉 I want to see the name on the tank and the model type. Adobe would then not be the right place if it is forbidden to show any brand name. Thanks for your annotations...  

[Abambo]

You can't use any stock image bank. Commercial use disallows the use of logos. The link you posted showed a bike with no logos. There is only one exception: editorial use. You could submit the asset for illustrative editorial use, then you can keep all the logos on the picture, but its potential use will be limited.

Check the requirements.

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

If you are a generative AI contributor, please look into these instructions and follow them by the letter: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors-discussions/generative-ai-submission-guidelines/td...

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Albatross Gannet:

Focus, you have motion blur and noise

The albatross gannet should be sharper, so that's a reason for rejection. It's not 'excellent quality', I'm afraid!

[Test Screen Name]

That's not an albatross, it's a gannet. These things are important. If Adobe's customers find they have licensed an image with a false description, they complain. Bitterly. (In the worst case it could cost the customer millions of dollars). Adobe will remove the picture, and may remove your entire account, in case there is anything else that is wrong.

[Ricky336]

True!!!!!!!

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

Its correct, it is a "Basstölpel" in German (I am German) or Northern gannet, and I mixed it up with my "Albatros" photos. My fault... 

[Abambo]

Your albatross, where our "birds expert" 🙂  says it isn't one, is indeed not sharp (even in the size reduced version) and has multiple artefacts:

Sorry, but all rejections here are really getting refused for cause, and none of it is ridiculous.

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

Motion blur was by purpose, otherwise it looks sterile, and customers are king and have to decide what they want, they cchoos it or not. If I zoom in extremely, each photo will show artefacts. I downloaded photos from Adobe and its the same with extreme zooming (not th previews, the "real once).  

[Ricky336]

The wings could show motion blur, but the head should be sharp! And it isn't

[Abambo]

If I zoom in extremely, each photo will show artefacts.

By @Bernd29030466s8ao

Your size reduced Albatross shows at 100% excessive noise and optical artefacts:

What you need to understand is, that you see the defects at 100%, but to check what's really ongoing, you zoom into the asset. At 200% you can see better and show better what is wrong. Your albatross is showing excessive artefacts, even at a reduced size, those artefacts are not acceptable for Adobe stock…

[Bernd29030466s8ao]

Thanks to all for your time and the comments and criticism. I learnt a lot and will see how to deal with it. Not necessary to post further in response to my initial posting, I think all was said....

What makes me a bit worry is that technical issues are apparently in the center of the decision if a photo is accepted or not (lets forget for a moment about IP) but I would rather consider the originality (hope that is the right term, since I am German, not sure how to say this, may be unique hits better what I mean.?) as a criterion. If both meets, quality and originality, the better. of course. Just an example, the photo attached has won the first prize in an international photo competition (got 1000 Austrialian $), topic Aquaculture (I am basically a marine biologist). The photo is far from being perfect, but it was the moment I was able to capture and this was so unique. That is rather my understanding about interesting photos.

Cheers to all.