OK, I'll put myself out there...

[daniellei4510]

I'm fairly eclectic when it comes to the images I submit to Adobe Stock. This includes a fair share of surrealistic AI images. The majority have been approved but this one didn't pass muster. While I spent a good hour photoshoping improved roman numerals on the clock, is it the other symbols and numbers depicted that might have resulted in its rejection? Or the hat covering a part of the clock? The strands of hair I left on the back of her neck?

Normally, when I get images rejected, I simply shrug my shoulders and move on. But this one kind of perplexes me. Thanks for your input!

[EzyRider_II]

Perplexed : ). I like your phrasing things. Must be the seconds hand : ).
Falls right onto the Roman I and seems it's an extension of the clock hand
: ). I dunno. I think get the concept of your composition, the "Dali-like"
(?) clock deforming theme, but who would be your buying (!) audience for
it? Other than visually it's intriguing. I personally would probably remove
the one curling strain of hair on her neck that is sticking out a bit too
much. Not sure if I helped or further increased your perplexity (is that
even a word?). Good luck with it though.

[josé30730956ginr]

Você olhou os motivos da devolução? Não me espataria se eles tivessem rejeitado por motivos de direitos autorais da modelo que compõe a imagem.

[daniellei4510]

It was "Quality Issues." But I'm at the point where I think quality issues is the go-to selection when nothing else works as their reason for a rejection. Kind of like me selecting "Graphic Resource" when none of the other categories fit the subject. I probably went with "People" in this case, but is it really about people? Not really. The category could be "Time," Clocks, "Surrealism," but of course we don't have the luxury of chooseing from a list of very specific categories. Which is probably good if the overall scheme of things.

[Jill_C]

The Category is meaningless, and appears to be a holdover from the Fotolia days; it would not have been a reason for rejection. The hat, particularly in the front, does look odd and could be a quality problem. The noisy background is also an issue. The nonsensical letters/figures around the edge are another issue. Of course, you would also have needed a model release for the woman.

[Abambo]

The category is the most superfluous indication on Adobe stock. They serve absolutly no use, except for our pleasure.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

It's a nice picture and surly merits some thoughts.

The “exposure” is not correct, whites are missing:

The first thing that I look at, with portraits, is if the eyes are sharp, in focus.

They aren't. What is in focus, however, are elements in front and behind, with out-of-focus elements in between.

You also have artefacts, looking like bad cutouts:

Incidentally, there are sharp and blurred areas everywhere in your picture.

These artefacts are also quality issues:

The blur in the pointer is not of natural (optical) origin. Artefacts on the pointer:

If you edited this, you did not blend the last number correctly with the background.

I'll stop now, the list is incomplete, but any of these errors would trigger a quality issue refusal.

(all screenshots are at 100%!)

[daniellei4510]

Thanks, ABAMBO...I think you're right. Maybe they would have a couple issues slide, but collectivly I can see all of your points. I think I was relying on the strength of the concept itself rather than focusing enough on the technical issues.

And yes, with regard to a comment from another contributor elsewhere, I did provide the proper release. 

[Abambo]

Well, from all the errors I showed, one error will be enough to trigger the refusal. If there is a tiny error, it may pass, but if there are a couple of them, one will catch the moderator's attention.

I would guess it was this one, as it is effortlessly to see:

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

I will only add that Adobe Stock frowns on duotone images.

Dos & Don'ts

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustrations.html

[daniellei4510]

I was aware of this, but the AI itself resulted in the sepia toning. I considered converting it to black and white, since I've had 4 or 5 B&W images accepted previously (which is not to say the image would otherwise have been accepted in light of the other issues pointed out). But then, weirdly enough, I was watching a recent Adobe Livestream about submitting AI images (what to do, what not to do, etc.). At one point, if I heard the presenter correctly, he suggested using Lightroom presets to give submissions a little boost to set them apart from other submissions. But this seemed entirely against Adobe Stock standards so I was a bit surprised. Ultimately, I think the subject will dictate what to do or what not to do with an image, particularly AI images, and I would rarely if ever take such advice. To me, the suffix "pre" means, "it's already been done--if not overdone--and should only be used for personal requirements and not stock photography.

[Jill_C]

Have you used any Lightroom presets? They are simply a memorized set of image adjustments. 

[Abambo]

At one point, if I heard the presenter correctly, he suggested using Lightroom presets to give submissions a little boost to set them apart from other submissions. But this seemed entirely against Adobe Stock standards so I was a bit surprised.

By @daniellei4510

No. Adobe standards ask that you submit technically correct assets. So, you should not add vignetting, but every so often a slight vignette will enhance the asset. It's a small line that you walk between acceptable editing and overdoing.

[Nancy OShea]

I was aware of this, but the AI itself resulted in the sepia toning.

By @daniellei4510

=========

Given Stock's criteria for acceptance, you probably should not submit any assets you're unsure about. That goes for Photos as well as Generative AI Illustrations.

[daniellei4510]

If I didn't submit images that I thought moderators might not acceept, I'd probably have 20-30 fewer images on Adobe Stock. I've only been a contributor for about 6 months, but one thing I've learned is that it's very difficult to second guess the moderators. I have a rejection rate of 0.066%, which I assume is relatively low and I do my best to maintain or improve upon it. But now and then, I think you just have to take a chance (within reason) and hope for the best. 

[Abambo]

Your rejection rate is good. 50% or more is considered bad.

The asset is not very colourful, but I do not think that the limited colour approach here did something bad. I even think that it gives the image some value. I'm persuaded that the image would have passed, wasn't it for the artefacts and maybe the blurred eyes.

On a personal note, I like the image, except for the ratio.