Hi everyone, my image was rejected as the one not meeting the requirements. The other picture had been approved. What might be the reason of rejection here?
Hello nikolay erokhin, The rejection of "one not meeting the requirements" usually means the reviewer does not think there is a market for this and/or something about the quality is off. Since you did not show us the one that was accepted for us to compare the quality issues, I can only guess there is not a likely market for a nicely rendered one-eyed bagpipe-accordion with green skeleton tree limb hands playing it will have a high market demand. For fun, tell me would a client would buy this? For what purpose?
If you would like to read Adobe guidelines for submission to a stock portfolio, read the following offerings.
Best regards, JH
You can find information paste in browser:
Select an article:
SEE ON THIS PAGE
Thank you for the answer, although that does not explain much apart from that it is not a suitable image for the site.
Well, in this case, you have your answer. An image that is not likely to sell at all! Not really what Adobe is looking for.
first of all I respect your opinion, but I'm strongly disagree that the image has no market value. This is the artistic, creative and sorta unique image and some customers might have been looking for this on purpose. What's more at least this one is averagely well-made, while the actual stock has lot of works that were created with no effort at all, like grey rectangles with TV text on it, or hundreds of images with similar content that has very subtle distinctions from each other.
"For fun, tell me would a client would buy this? For what purpose?" - I'm not sure my examples are going to change the decision of the image not being allowed for sale, but just to tell you random and briefly thoughts about the usage possibilities: the illustration may be used as a design for some flyers, posters, affiches, it might be something for Halloween or some other spooky event. The fact that it has "one eye on it" can be easily removed by the client if he wants to, and if the image is in vector this can be done even easier, plus in this case this can be brought apart and used partially.
In my opinion, clients are creative and only they may find the proper usage for the work we produce (as long as it meets technical requirements for sure). Liking an image or not is very subjective, but as long as it meets the image quality standards the usage of the image is limited to the purposes and creativity of the actual buyer only.
And just to make it clear - I'm not an affiliate with the author of the image but I was just coming along and found this unfair treat to the author of the art.
Hello MikeMarris," Unfair treat to the author of the art" - is a difficult declaration to comprehend from my position as an ACP forum member. We are asked to respond to contributors questions and give replies and information that is useful. Useful in the sense that the customer contributor would like to know how to prepare their stock or fix it so that Adobe will accept into the international "online gallery" for sale. We give thousands of bits of Adobe information and suggest places to go to discover volumes of how to get artwork accepted. And we offer access to trending styles/examples. Fairly often we see the contributors' artwork resubmitted and accepted after they repair or adjust it.
True, it is the final "customer who purchases it "- that decides if the art meets a need of the actual buyer. Only Adobe knows the needs and wants of its customers. Their research and sales records define the guidelines for the staff reviewing the stock offerings.
Hopefully, you will see that it is not so much unfair treatment of the artist.. but this forum is an attempt to help the artist see that their art is good ...just not something Adobe thinks it can sell on the current market.
The artists must know their customer - Adobe is helping with this in every way that is possible given the millions of stock contributors offering their work. It is not like jurying and rejecting art by a general set of professional rules. The work offered on Adobe forum is reviewed with an eye toward a defined market.
Thank you for feeling for this artist. We on the forum do too and offer the assistance we can give. JH
...and to make it clear: none of the people responding here so far are employees of Adobe. They are giving their opinion based on exeperience with their own stock and examples encountered here.
Adobe has a stringent moderation team. However a lot of assets have been taken over from fotolia. Some of those images do not fulfill today’s rules and some of them are simply no more acceptable as of today’s standards.
It is, however, at Adobe’s sole discretion to accept or refuse images. Adobe has an interest for a lot of high quality submissions and tries to keep high quality standards.
This does not mean necessarily that refused images are low standard. I got pictures refused here that sell well elsewhere and vice versa.
Have to agree with Nikolay here, Adobe need to give more info on rejections. As someone has taken the time to view and make a decision on the image, and therefore has the info on why it has been rejected, it really isn't too much of an ask for them to just add a note to the rejection info saying 'too grainy' or 'too much noise' or 'wonky horizon' etc. Adobe are just wasting my time making me guess what is wrong with the image. I can post the same image on 5 other stock sites in the time it takes to play the Adobe guessing game. So if I get issues with Adobe rejections I just use their competitors' sites, which 99% of the time accept the image without issue. Adobes lose.
Actually '...The rejection of "one not meeting the requirements" usually means the reviewer does not think there is a market for this...' would come under 'aesthetic or commercial appeal of image' Was this the rejection reason given?
Can you give the actual reason for rejection?
This was the reason "The image does not meet the requirements" along with the links to the forum and guidelines. It is in Russian, but it is all.