Nature photo rejected due to Technical Issues

[Maciej MaciekPaK]

Hi,

I've just had an image rejected due to technical issues but it doesn't say what technical reasons.

It is first time when I try to share my interest with the community.

Would it be possible for Adobe to provide a better reason or more accurate technical issue.

Thanks,

Maciej

[RALPH_L]

Both are not well focused. If you look at the second photo, you can see white halos around the tree.

[Abambo]

Would it be possible for Adobe to provide a better reason or more accurate technical issue.

Thanks,

Maciej

By @Maciej MaciekPaK

Why should they? Adobe does not provide a photography course here. You submit pictures according to the requirements, and they get refused for one or more reasons (only one reason is given, however). Moderators look at the pictures and when they see a defect, they refuse with a generic reason. Fast and accurate. It's your task to provide correct pictures.

If you can't figure out the refusal reason, you can always ask the forum.

Your picture one:

Over exposed, over processed. There is no detail left in the trees, the wall is overexposed. Examine your pictures at 100% and 200% to see the errors.

Picture 2:

Over exposed, over processed. There is no detail left in the waterfall, but it is also not blurred like in those iconic long exposures.

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

[defaultj7k645e3m00k]

thank you for detailed explination. If adobe can provide 20% of your massage it will be perfect. They can look on shuttetstock, shutterstock provide more details about reject. 

[Maciej MaciekPaK]

Can it be due to quality set as 80% for jpeg? It is default setting from Adobe Lightroom when I export photos to jpeg.

[Abambo]

Can it be due to quality set as 80% for jpeg? It is default setting from Adobe Lightroom when I export photos to jpeg.

By @Maciej MaciekPaK

No, that would introduce compression artefacts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact). Your troubles are either with the in-camera processing or with your setting before the export, or both. Look at your pictures at 100% before the export in Lightroom. You will see the artefacts.

80% quality setting is quite high. I use, however, the Adobe stock plug-in in Lightroom Classic. There are no settings specifically for exporting. I suppose Lightroom Classic handles all for the user. However, when I export to an outside file, I use the size limit, not the quality limit. And here, a file with more than 2Mb is adequate for most applications (I use mostly 5Mb nowadays.)

[ricky336]

Hi, were these taken with a smartphone?

If so, it can also explain about the image quality. (The in camera processing compresses the photo.) And did you import to Lightroom as a JPEG? You mentioned you exported as a JPEG. This can introduce more compression artifacts. (Depends on how many times you save the file.) Each time you save a JPEG file, it gets compressed again. So you end up with a compressed file upon a compressed file. It's a bit like doing a photocopy of a photocopy! The result gets worse each time. When zoomed in the quality isn't good. You can see compression.

The waterfall is overexposed. it looks like you tried to recover some detail, but this has resulted in a muddy look of the whites.