7
Replies
This might just be me, but I don't like harsh shadows when I don't know what's causing them. I used Content Aware Fill (the interface itself) to remove them.
With your first, I have issues with the framing. It's not optimal. A panoramic view would have been better with more material left and right. But I doubt that this would have been the rejection. I see washed out details typical for a small sensor camera. And there is this strange something in the water (at 100%!):
You see a seam around that object from sharpening, besides that, it is a mysterious object… One of those errors led the moderator to refuse the image. My guess: the washed out details, as they are easy and fast to spot.
Your second would need effectively some dehaze/added contrast. But you have also here artefacts typical of small sensors like these eaten up details as part of an aggressive noise reduction:
(you see it at 100%, but the screenshot here is at 200%, just to make it more obvious to you)
This “optimization” is seen a little bit all around in the image, where you should have fine detail. In addition, I see compression artefacts (also visible at 100%, but the screenshot here is at 200% to make it more obvious):
Rejections are clearly not by error, given the multiple issues in the pictures. And they are not due to any increased quality requirements. And they are also not due to having the moderation team anywhere in the world. These pictures are clear rejections and should also have been rejections five years ago.
I will need to be clear here: someone who has 2000 assets in the database should be able to analyse these pictures, even before submitting.
Well.. I am doubtfull.. Rejection due to this "strange thing" that nobody saw before?
What is this "strange thing"? A piece of wood? the ground emerging at the top of the water ? Something legitimate in that landscape, not a doggy bag, for sure!!
I won't remove such "thing" in anyway, and as a matter of fact, per gentle suggestion of the Adobe artists relation, I did resend the pictures and, guess what? they have been accepted, this time.. All.
By @olivier31614861xbec
Good for you, but there are still issues in the pictures that should earn a refusal. If you had read my post correctly, you would have read that I think it got refused for the washed out details. But by now, they have been accepted, and that's good for you.
The result of the noise I made around? I don't know..
By @olivier31614861xbec
I doubt that you are that important. 😉
My question on the kind of pictures that you use to submit has not been addressed.
I rephrase: If Adobe does not anymore desires to receive landscape pictures, contry side, nature, that is a marketing choice that I can understand. But, it should be stated loud and clear. Some of us will just go elsewhere - full stop.
But relying on discouragement of the undesired contributors is a frustrating way to make them loosing their time.
By @olivier31614861xbec
Your assets were rightfully rejected because of the low quality of your pictures. Getting them through on a second try does just reject your claim. You may be happy, that they are through now and open for sales. They may even sell. Personally, I would ask for a refund if I bought them. But I won't buy them, so that is irrelevant.
Congratulations on getting them through.
AdChoices
P.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}