Not sure why this was rejected for quality issues.

[Hmoran4]

This is a unique and rare image of a diamond ring solar ecplise.

Thoughts. If this is automatically done via machine, okay, I get it. But, c'mon.

[George_F]

I believe this is covered under the Image and Illustration Guidelines .

"Don’t: Add sunrays or flares."

I think an image like this is much more useful without the added flares.  These can be added by the customer if they wish to have them.  Without the flares, it can be used in any number of projects.

[Abambo]

"Don’t: Add sunrays or flares."

By @George_F

I think the flares are natural, not added.

[George_F]

@Abambo @Oh!  I see now.  Thanks for the clarification.  The quality has the appearance of AI, and that's what I thought the mention of machine was about.  I also now see there is a camera in the EXIF.

[Abambo]

Yes, with all those AI-generated images…

But this one has at least the merit of being a photographic creation, that, with some editing, could make a nice picture. I doubt that it will enter stock. But it's a pleasant picture. On social media, I would give it a like.

[George_F]

@Hmoran4 Forgive my first reply!  I assumed the mention of machine was referring to this being an AI generated image.  After @Abambo pointed this out and re-reading I see this isn't the case.

This is such a unique capture!  Personally, I'm still left wondering what it would look like without some of the sun flares, have you considered trying to remove some of them?  With the other quality issues the others have pointed out it's unlikely to be a candidate for Adobe (although not impossible), but that doesn't mean it isn't useful somewhere!

Good luck 🙂

[Hmoran4]

I appreciate the comment. Flares weren't added. This is an actual photo of
a total solar eclipse.

[Abambo]

Even if it is a rare and unique image, it needs to be technically correct. It's full of artefacts:

noise:

[Nancy OShea]

Astronomical images are really tough especially since JWT was deployed.  

Stock reviewers are human.  They must evaluate hundreds or thousands of images per week. Criteria for acceptance is the same regardless of equipment and atmospheric conditions.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe make no allowance for the difficulty, rarity or uniqueness of a shot. Only known shot of a tasmanian tiger? Sorry, it's underexposed. A hawk carrying off a golf ball just before the ball gets a hole in one? Sorry, the flag is out of focus. The asteroid, just before it lands on New York? Sorry, there's a sensor spot.

Why do they do this? Because their customers demand perfection. If they find "faults" they complain, get a refund, and Adobe's reputation suffers.

[Abambo]

Where did you see that asteroid picture over New York? 😄

[ricky336]

Kia ora,

I think for a solar eclipse, it would have been good if you could have reduced the amount of lens flare and just have the sun appearing, as well as showing the 'ring effect' around the moon. The lens flare as you have it now is somewhat distracting and takes away the diamond ring effect.

[Fabiobtex]

This bright dot alone is enough to reject your picture, they don't belong to the composition so they are artefacts. There are three of them.

This isn't the worse problem.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Hmoran4 ,

The file is noisy and has color fringing on the edges. I'm not sure if the highlighted area that cause the blown out details would make it, but if your correct the artifacts/noise  and probably reduce the highlight a bit, which means you might need to increase exposure a little more (not much), you could try again. Zoom in at 100% or more to identify faults.

Best wishes

Jacquelin