While in some cases I accept the rejection of photos, but sometimes I find the moderators acting too ... rashly. For example, here are photos of silvery clouds. They are inherently quite ethereal and sometimes not very defined objects. The photos I posted are sharp. The resolution is very high. Limited noise. The colors are not exaggerated. I don't understand why these types of photos are rejected for quality reasons. They look practically perfect on my 4k monitor and you have to zoom in a lot to get to anything.
It is a pretty sky, but the foreground is blurry, underexposed and quite noisy when you attempt to lighten it. Also, when I zoom in to inspect the images closely I see a lot of pixelation, so perhaps you've reduced the size to upload here. There are couple of lens spots on the far left edge of the first image.
I was wondering if I did myself a "favor" by uploading these full-resolution pics. I should limit the resolution.
As for the trees, it is quite dark in this place and no light falls on them. They are just in the dark. I don't see any reason why someone would want to get them out of the shadows ... so in practice it doesn't serve any purpose. In this case, making one frame is impossible. In order for the trees to be visible, I would have to make a composite of at least two frames. But what for ??
Hi @ŁukaszTeodoruk ,
Full resolution is required for submission to Adobe. If rejected and you wish for us to highlight the errors, full resolution is necessary.
We can appreciate including the shadows in a low light frame. However, if you underexpose you will not get good focus since the camera takes light, hence will not be able to see what to focus on when underexposed. Dense black do not do well on print and so do not do well for stock. Details must be visible to get good print.
Customers license different sizes of your file for print and otherwise. Noise do show in prints.
I suggest you take a look at some details at this page that will help you to understand why you need to do some of what you are asked.
This is a kind of cloud I don't see very often if at all, so that aspect was neat. But the technical issues are noticeable. The histogram reflects underexposure and the whites are mostly missing. I also see noise and pixelation at 100% view as well, which may be present because of the underexposure.
Like @Jill_C mentioned, having a photo that introduces noise when lightening is problematic. It's not uncommon for me to use a just a sky from a photo for a sky replacement, and if I can't alter the exposure to match the rest of my photo it's not usable for me.
From my perspective, these appears in-between a cloudy sunset photo and a starry sky photo. I'm not sure how the two make sense together. What commercial project would they work well in?
Like I said, neat photos for sure. But that's not what makes a commercial asset viable.
But we all have rejections and I tend not to sweat them too much. I consider rejections great learning opportunities and a bit better of insight into what a particular stock company is looking for. Good luck with your future submissions 🙂