Need your feedback for my rejected photos for technical issues.

[Gentle.Cam]

I know you pros are busy and tired of repeating similar feedback to thousands of people. I appreciate it if you could randomly pick up any of the attached rejected images and give your opinion about them so I learn from my mistakes and your pro feedback. I put numbers there for your convenience. Also, I wrote my assumption as well. 

1. I don't know why rejected. I called it "Mallard Breeding Male Duck". Could it be the title?

2. I don't know why rejected. I thought it is a very unique picture. Am I violating the actual artist's rights? It is in a public place like graffiti!

3. Could it be mistakenly labeled as private property by moderators? It is not! It was literally in the middle of nowhere. A completely abandoned area. 

4. Not good for printing but the whole point of the picture is the fog! Should I get permission for such a photo because some of those buildings are private hotels or maybe some brand names visible?

5. The subject is the light, not the out-of-focus background. If I wanted to crop the rest the size would be dropped to the point that Adobe wouldn't let me upload it. Should I have the background blurry next time? 

6. The underexposed background? Is this really more important than the unique subject? If it was 1995 would you still reject this picture? I know there are so many similar pictures of birds eating worms but it is still challenging to get that moment perfect with a 15-year-old camera. I was hoping to see more mercy. 

7. Aerial photo of a mine. I know it has some haze and is out of focus. Probably Google has better images of that with satellite photos but is there anything else wrong with this?

8. Brands and private property? or the underexposed/dark areas?

Thank you all 

[Test Screen Name · Accepted solution]

1. -
2. Yes, you need a property release for all work, including graffiti. HOWEVER, IP violation is not reported as technical issues. (If you fix the technical issues the rejection may change).
3. -
4. -
5. Grainy, main subject not level.
6. There is no mercy. Adobe's customers demand world class photography, and demand refunds if it is anything less. There is no "please make allowance for-" section in this shopfront. This is especially hard for wildlife shots.
7. It is out of focus. No need to look further.
8. -

[Gentle.Cam]

Thank you for all the feedback. 

For graffiti for example in the street or in the middle of the woods, how could I get a release form when I don't even know the painters. The painters might have even done it illegally and disappeared. Could you provide more insight or share some more experience with me?

[Abambo]

Thank you for all the feedback. 

For graffiti for example in the street or in the middle of the woods, how could I get a release form when I don't even know the painters. The painters might have even done it illegally and disappeared. Could you provide more insight or share some more experience with me?

By @Gentle.Cam

There is no answer to this question. If you do not know the author, you can't submit. Even if it has been done illegally, the author retains the copyright. The owner of the object that was sprayed can sue the sprayer, he can remove the “artwork”, but the sprayer will keep the copyright. You will be out of luck here.

[Nancy OShea]

In California, defacement of living trees is vandalism  -- a crime punishable by hefty fines, possible jail time and several hours of community service (cleaning up trash from public roads & highways). 

Only an idiot would admit to painting trees.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

1 - focus is on the chest rather than the eye

7 - way too blurry

2 - not completely in focus, but would have been an IP rejection anyway 

8 - blurry, IP issues

5 - zoom in a bit and the extreme noise issues become obvious

6 - noise and blur

3 - noise and blur 

4 - noise, blur, chromatic aberration, leaning horizon and IP issues

[Gentle.Cam]

Thank you, Jill. You are the hero of this community. I have enjoyed your previous feedback on my previous post last week and I keep reading your feedback on the other posts. 

Would you mind if I ask for more clarification on IP issues with number 4? Is it because of the private buildings/hotels or because of the written names/brands on the boats floating in the river? If so and I use photoshop to hide them would that still be acceptable to upload? My understanding is that photo manipulation should be minimal to none. 

[Jill_C]

Thanks for your kind comments. The IP issues would be the names and other identifying marks on the boats. Harbors are always problematic for that reason. I didn't see any signs or logos on the buildings, but if there are any, you would need to remove those also. It is absolutely okay to carefully edit out those marks; however, if the work is sloppy, you will get a technical issue rejection. My criteria is if there are only a few marks and they're easy to remove, I'll do it; otherwise, move on. Spending an extraordinary amount of time editing an image must be balanced against the small amount of royalties that you make selling it. 

Photo editing IS expected, since it is rare for a photo to be of acceptable quality straight out of camera (particularly if you shoot in RAW which is highly recommended). However, that editing must be subtle and appropriate. This page identifies the dos and don'ts of editing:

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/editing-dos-and-dont.html

Regarding getting a property release for artwork that you encounter in public, just because you don't know who the artist is and how to contact them doesn't give you license to utilize their artwork commercially. The legal guidelines are here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

And here's a list of known image restrictions, some of which are quite surprising:

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html

[Nancy OShea]

Regarding IP and street art:  If the art represents the main subject of your image, then you must have a signed release from the legal owner/artist to sell it commercially. This goes for murals or sculptures displayed on buildings, public roads or parks.  If you don't own it, you can't sell it.

If artwork is an incidental backdrop to other objects or people who are the main subject of your photo, you don't necessarily need a signed IP release.  But it would be good if you had one to ensure that what you sell is legally cleared for commercial use.  This is to protect you and Adobe's customers from possible lawsuits later.

When in doubt, get a signed release or don't submit it to Stock.

[Gentle.Cam]

Thank you for your clarification. 

Is there a standard non-electronic template form that Adobe prefers and I can scan and upload?

[Nancy OShea]

Release forms can be found in your Stock Contributor User Guide as well as other Stock sites like Getty Images.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

[ricky336]

Hello,

A few other points to think about. Adobe Stock is a microstock agency. The amount of cash/sales you can make depends on what the subject is. The shots that you would like to include in your profile won't sell very well. If accepted you might make a few sales, but the key thing with microstock is A LOT of sales, 1000's of downloads - then you could make some money - even earn a living. You have to ask yourself how much time and effort is required to get a salable picture.

2nd thing is - Will these photos sell? What could they be used for? Who will use them? Why would someone choose this photo against all the other ones on offer? What makes my one stand out?

Post-processing (photo editing/enhancing) is almost always necessary. Therefore some editing programme is needed e.g. Lightroom (Classic or Lightroom - there are two versions) or Photoshop or a similar application. There are always small changes that can be made - exposure, increase/decrease shadows/highlights, white balance, cloning out unwanted elements, etc. This all takes time, so again is it worth the time and energy for a few cents? (Especially if you get only a few sales.)

Most of the photos that sell are staged with models, correct lighting, and/or that have a concept that has an enormously wide range of uses.

Getting a release for graffiti is probably impossible if you don't know the artist, so don't bother with such shots!

You need a reasonably decent camera as well. Smartphone cameras generally don't do so well, unless you know how to use it well, and conditions are good! (E.g. a smartphone camera should be able to take DNG rather than JPEG.)

There is no mercy - it's all about making a sale!

[Abambo]

1. I don't know why rejected. I called it "Mallard Breeding Male Duck". Could it be the title?

2. I don't know why rejected. I thought it is a very unique picture. Am I violating the actual artist's rights? It is in a public place like graffiti!

By @Gentle.Cam

Adobe gives you a generic refusal, that helps you to understand the refusal. Mostly it's “Technical issues”, but it can also be “IP violation” or one of the other refusals. You should always tell us the refusal reason. See my links below for more information on the refusals.

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