Photo rejected due to technical issues

[Flaiban]

Guys, what do you think about this?

I've looked up the technical issues that may be the reason. Got VERY frustrated.

1 - my photo is in very good quality.

and most important

2 - This is MY ART, it is being depicted EXACTLY the way I want it. It is not up to adobe or anyone to decide what photos are good or not!

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

I'm sorry @Flaiban , but I agree with the reviewer. Fotos and Art should follow the composition rules of the masters. First you have way to much empty space and your subject line is not level.

Photo wise, your highlights are overexposed and your shadows are under exposed.It is also quite noisy. If you return the photo to its original exposure you can see how your highlights flooded the area around them. Also there are several overexposed sensor pixels that are vissible. Also there is a IP violation because the name of the modem is vissible.

   

So yes Adobe was correct in refusing this photo. If this is EXACTLY the way you wanted it to look, then I suggest you try to sell it on your own platform.

Adobe is not in the business of teaching us photography but they and this forum, can help us learn our mistakes. I hope my comments and observations can help you becoming a better stock photographer.

[Flaiban]

First, thanks for the reply Ralph

I've just oppened the site to see if there were any answers, when i saw my picture totally destroyed. shocked!

For some reason, my photo got really wrecked, it isn't like that at all.

So now, the issue is, why did that happen to my photo?

Take a look at the file "teste.bmp", it is a side by side comparison, between the photo you saw first with the same photo in bmp format, i hope it works

I'm uploading a second file "teste2.jpg" it is a screenshot, much lower resolution, but just to know if the same will happen.

[Jill_C]

Just to clarify that the version of the image that Ralph included in his reply is a copy that he has edited to illustrate his points about underexposure, overexposure and IP violation (the product name). It's NOT your version of the image, but meant to point out to you the possible flaws for which the Moderator rejected the image.

[Flaiban]

Omg... I didn't realize that, i'm shocked again

Thanks for explaining

This photo is of a router i had.

The product name is actually just a watermark i wanted to try, it doesn't exist on the original rejected photo.

I like to try all my phone's camera capabilities, i like to discover, so when I found out that I could take 32seconds exposure photos, i took a lot of them. Maybe that is why it is so exagerated on the brights and darks.

Well, thanks again man

[Jill_C]

It should be noted that it is very unlikely that you will be able to produce images of acceptable quality under such lighting conditions from your mobile phone. While it's fun to try out all the capabilities of the phones in our cameras, they're just not (yet) able to compete with the capabilities of a good DSLR in which you can control exposure, ISO, and shutter speed independently. 

[Flaiban]

Oh, I forgot to talk about the first part of your answer.

Yeah, i agree with everything you said, based on the destroyed photo.

Let's hope that the new files I upload don't get destroyed too

Thanks for the kind reply and teachings

Best regards, Vinícius Flaiban

[Abambo]

Your picture is inapt for Adobe stock and probably also for the majority of other stock sites. If I would buy this picture to use it in my annual report, I would get a picture that in print would look very bad. To get some use out of it, I would need to do some editing and I would end with something like Ralph's result. I would be unhappy and I would ask Adobe for a replacement. Stock images need to be clean and perfect, there is no art in. Only clean, technically correct pictures with a commercial potential.

BTW: forget about bmp file format. It's one of the most useless formats in the world. There are only 3 formats you will need in real life (for file exchange...): JPEG, TIFF and PNG. All other formats are either intermediate formats, like raw file formats or proprietary like Photoshop or obsolete formats like PCX... (yes, GIF still has some relevance for short animations...).

[Abambo]

Adobe does not decide if the photo is good or not, but as this is Adobe's turf, Adobe may well decide to accept the asset or not. When you created your account and submitted your picture, you agreed to have Adobe moderate your content. And yes, it's frustrating to get pictures refused but that is the way it is.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[Flaiban]

Hi Abambo,

Thanks for the reply man, I'll be looking carefully into the links you provided

[Jill_C]

Adobe Stock is not a platform for you to display a gallery of your "art". Adobe is in the business of providing assets to commercial designers who will incorporate it into their work. The technical and IP flaws in your image make it unsuitable for commercial use. If your photographic goal is to create and display art, you can find other venues to promote your work. Selling stock also means that you have to learn not to take rejections personally. If one image is rejected, just move on and try again. As you learn what constitutes a good commercially viable image, your acceptance rate will improve.

[Flaiban]

Hello Jill

Thanks for the reply too

I didn't thought that people would really answer me at all, got only good answers!

I tottaly agree with you, and even thought of what you are saying, while I wrote the first post, this is not an art gallery, still, i was shocked to see such a beautiful photo being rejected.

For some reason my photo got destroyed in the uploading process, it is nothing like that.

If you want, please, take a look at my reply to Ralph, I've tried to upload the same photo but in different files format and quality, just to see if it would look as it really is.

[Test Screen Name]

"It is not up to adobe or anyone to decide what photos are good or not!"

It, however, entirely up to Adobe to decide what photos they will license. You seem to believe you should decide what Adobe will buy. But it's not your right to do business with them as a supplier. The job of a supplier is a tough one, and you have to adapt to what the buyer wants if you want to sell. This is business, not a system of supporting art or encouraging artists. 

[Flaiban]

Test Screen Name? (kinda funny)

Thanks for the replay man

As I said to Jill, yeah, I thought of that too. And you're right, i agree.

The problem is that my photo was destroyed in the uploading process.

If you want, please, take a look at my reply to Ralph

I tried to re-upload the photo, in different file formats, let's see what will happen with these files.

[Abambo]

We all saw your picture as you designed it to be seen. Unfortuneately for you, we (probably) all agree with Adobe that this picture has been rightfully rejected for multiple reasons.