My photo is rejected - quality problem

[evgenyd14458540]

Hello.

My photo is rejected - quality problem

Anybody see the quality problem ?

Thank you.

@Abambo 

@George_F 

P.S. Please download it and open in PS or Viewer (because forum build-in viewer is poor)

[Jill_C]

It's underexposed and not sharply focused. There are already >400,000 images of ferns in the Adobe Stock database, and yours would have to be technically perfect to be accepted, and still might never sell; so I wouldn't put much more effort into this image.

[evgenyd14458540]

This is 100 % crop from 1:1

Extreamly sharp 

(dark tones - this is an trend idea (dark green tones in twilight ), not a technical error)

Please check attach (download this 100 % crop screenshot and open in PS)

[George_F · Accepted solution]

I agree with @Jill_C about the underexposure, just looking at the Histogram alone would be enough to reject this photo.

 

I think this has a chance of getting accepted with some exposure correction to lighten the photo and perhaps a slight bump in vibrance/saturation.

Like @Jill_C pointed out, with so many fern photos already this may not be a big seller even if accepted.

Cheers!

[daniellei4510]

And I agree with @George_F, as this could possibly be accepted for potential use as a graphic asset or desktop/laptop wallpaper. But yes, you'd have a lot of competition.

[evgenyd14458540]

George, thank you for your reply !

But dark tones (histogram moved to the left side) - this is an trend idea (dark green tones in twilight ), not a technical error). And you can see all detail in shadows and low lights. (If your monitor/display properly calibrated)

(P.s. I have "sunset clouds background" photoes whats have over 1000 downloads. Despite the fact that there are A LOT of such photos )

[Abambo]

Sorry, but the underexposure is a technical issue. You need to post well exposed pictures to the database. This allows a maximum of editing for the buyer. We are only interpreting your picture, not judging your intend nor the artistic value. 

The asset is indeed crisp sharp.

What is disturbing, is the pole in the middle of the image. 

(Congratulations to your sunset clouds image(s). That may be an exception, but for sure is not the rule.)

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

And this is one of the many reasons why contributors are not allowed to ask moderators for their specific reasons for rejecting an image. The back and forth would put a full stop to moderating an already inundated database. No where does is specify that a person asking for feedback is required to accept that feedback. We can only provide our own opinions or what we think might have been the opinion of the moderator. What is done with the after that is entirely up to the contributor.

[Jill_C]

Indeed, providing an avenue for Contributors to dispute their rejections would bring the entire Moderation system to its knees, and nothing would ever get approved again !  

[George_F]

I wonder where this trend idea came from?  Is it something Adobe has been encouraging?  In the Photo and Illustration Requirements page, it talks specifically about exposure and photo brightness in several places.  It also mentions to avoid over/underexposure specifically in this Tips For Getting Your Stock Photos Accepted article by Adobe.  The consensus has always been that an evenly exposed image without blown highlights or clipped shadows is desirable.  There is some wiggle room for creativity, but in general I would expect noticeably underexposed and overexposed images to be rejected.

It's not just dark tones in this photo, but the shadows are clipped in several places.  If your monitor is showing detail in these areas and showing this as a well exposed image then I would recheck your calibration.  Some of your previous posts have mentioned contrast issues that have appeared ok to you.  I would expect a monitor to roughly reflect what is on a histogram.

I also agree with @Abambo that submitting photos in saturated subjects and having them sell well is the exception and not the rule.  I wouldn't say don't submit them, but only to be prepared for them to not be a big seller.  Congrats you were able to get one that sells!

Cheers!

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

"(dark tones - this is an trend idea (dark green tones in twilight ), not a technical error)"

Actually, I disagree. It actually is a technical error — at least for Adobe. If it is a trend idea, then it is a bad one!

It is too underexposed. The picture is flat!

No range of tones and take note of the histogram;

With some corrections to exposure and tone:

You need more of a tonal range!

 

 

 

[evgenyd14458540]

For me your variant have ugly (washed out) shadows and flat image without volume. 
u can see/check it on not calibrated iPhone and iPad displays and of cause on calibratad iMac display too. Dynamic range is so flat. Without deep dark tones in depth of greenery. 
(please compare our 2 versions on iPhone Pro Display. What photo is more cutest?)

I think what you work on not calibrated display from iMac or MacBook 

P. S. I calibrate my iMac 27" (2013) by

x-rite i1Display Pro with Gamma 2.2 and Native contrast, 120 candles, D65

All iMac 27" displays need to be calibrated because they do not have the correct contrast (overcontrast) and a strong blue tint.
this can be checked with any colorimeter and start "check of quality of display" .

[Abambo]

Edit yours by incorporating some of the advice and resubmit. Whatever you resubmit and gets accepted is good enough for Adobe stock.

[Ricky336]

Indeed at the end of the day, it is a matter of opinion, but yours did get rejected, and reasons were given as to why.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree about your calibration.

[evgenyd14458540]

I think that the reason for the different visual perception of gamma between us is due to the different calibration of the displays. my image you see is darker and more contrast, because your display is not calibrated. I can guess so. if it has only a factory calibration setting and this is a Mac, then it most likely is.

[Ricky336]

Then your display is giving a wrong impression. Bear in mind that not everybody who downloads and uses this image will have the same display and calibration as you have. Perceptions of colour may vary! 

The printing aspect is very important to consider. How will the 'black'  and tones print out? Can you print out exactly what you see on your calibrated display without the tones becoming muddied? 

[evgenyd14458540]

In this case, you can evaluate your version of the edited image on a more popular iPhone display. (after all, even in this case, it became visually flatter in scale in low and medium tones)

[Ricky336]

Therefore, look at your histogram. Do you know how to read it?

Histogram in photography | Adobe

It's really important!!

[evgenyd14458540]

Yes. I'm 8 years on Stocks. 
(I can read histogram, vectroscop and RGB parade too). 
And slightly crushed blacks (blue) in deep black zone - is normally and permissible . Because in this case this is deep space of greenery. 
And if you look on this scene in real life - you wan't see any details in this deep of leaves. 

Histogram can be not only in center. In twilight , night or low key shoots it's can be in the left side. 

[Abambo]

Histogram can be not only in center. In twilight , night or low key shoots it's can be in the left side. 

By @evgenyd14458540

when I look at @Ricky336's edit (histogram), I do not see the dominant in the middle.

I suppose you shoot raw. You upload JPEG. If you upload a file with missing information to the left or the right of the histogram, you do not compress 14bits to 8bits, but to much less. That does not allow the buyer to use the asset to it's full potential. 

But the whole discussion is mood. Adobe stock did reject your file, and @Ricky336 proposed an alternat edit. It's up to you to take it or to try something else. We won't moderate your assets. 

Good luck.

[Ricky336]

Yes. I'm 8 years on Stocks. 
(I can read histogram, vectroscop and RGB parade too). 
And slightly crushed blacks (blue) in deep black zone - is normally and permissible . Because in this case this is deep space of greenery. 

And if you look on this scene in real life - you wan't see any details in this deep of leaves. 

Histogram can be not only in center. In twilight , night or low key shoots it's can be in the left side. 

By @evgenyd14458540

Yes, it doesn't have to be all in the middle; it depends on how many dark tones there are. However, there also should be light tones as well, and not heaped on either side. That's why histograms are really, really, really, useful!

I don't think the blacks should be crushed. If they are, then there is no detail and it won't print well. The blacks will be a black blob! Even with a deep green, there should be some structure. This can be achieved with film and correct printing!

And in real life, you will see detail — unless one is visually impaired — because the eye is far superior to any film/sensor!! 

[evgenyd14458540]

The eye is more perfect than any sensor - I agree. But you try to go into the forest and look from a distance deep into any lush dense bush or dense vegetation. you won't see endless detail in the shadows in the depths of the branches.

[Abambo]

I think that the reason for the different visual perception of gamma between us is due to the different calibration of the displays. my image you see is darker and more contrast, because your display is not calibrated. I can guess so. if it has only a factory calibration setting and this is a Mac, then it most likely is.

By @evgenyd14458540

On well calibrated screens and optimal ambient light, the image should look the same. That's the reason for calibration. It's not my calibration or your calibration. It's simply calibration. 

(and yes, you can also do a bad calibration, and yes, it still depends on the quality of the screen, and yes, it depends also on the ambient light.)

[evgenyd14458540]

after display calibration, its quality is always evaluated in deltaE.