Photos rejected - quality issues

[elenag1968816]

I submitted a series of photos from the same shoot; some were accepted, while others were rejected for quality issues. All very similar settings and results - not seeing anything glaring (except maybe the sun glare?)

[Jill_C]

The blownout spots from the sun's reflection were probably the reason for rejection of the first 3.

[elenag1968816]

that's the onlt thing I can think of too, but I thought the sun reflecting in the buildings is what made the images interesting, and didn't think it would be seen as a quality issue. thank you.

[Jill_C]

The 4th image has a smudge along the top of the hills, probably something on the glass that you were shooting through...

[elenag1968816]

that's a helicopter. smudged due to long exposure. good catch, thanks!

[Nancy OShea]

I agree with @Jill_C about blown out reflections on buildings.

Did you compare your best work alongside available Stock inventory?  Sometimes it helps to see what gets accepted.

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=new+york+city+skyline+daytime 

[Ricky336]

Hello,

In addition to the sun reflection, which I also think can be a reason for rejection, is this:

This cuts the picture and is distracting.

Another consideration is that the moderators may also have taken into account your white balance.

[Abambo]

The reflection may be a reason to reject the asset. Yes, a reflection may pimp up a pictuire, but here it just blows out the detail. And I think that the exposure is off, contrasts are missing, for some of your pictures I would work the white balance, into warmer tones. And then, on a different tune, you will need to pay attention to logos, like the MetLife logo on the first picture. That would be an IP issue.

[elenag1968816]

this was one of the accepted files from that shoot. I'm not seeing much of a difference between the sun glare in this one and the ones that were rejected. thanks for pointing out the logo!

[daniellei4510]

I'm surprised it was accepted, considering the advertising for rental properties visible on the side of the building, along with the logo of the company.

[elenag1968816]

I was surprised too. Probably reviewed by different people. But it was helpful to hear what other contributors think the issues are.