Photos rejected without any obvious flaws

[mlw_nz]

After having a very high acceptance rate at Adobe, I suddenly had a whole bunch of photos rejected for "Quality Issues". They're not over- or under-exposed, the subject appears to be in sharp focus (without being OVERsharpened), and I can't see any artifacts or sensor spots. The photos have all been accepted on other sites I submit to to. I haven't changed my camera or the way in which I process photos. I've attached some of them for comment. 

This isn't a problem unique to me; I've read a lot of complaints on microstock forums that since about July Adobe has started rejecting photos in an almost arbitrary fashion. I suspect an AI is being used for "pre-reviewing" and it just doesn't work, like every other AI used by stock photo sites. 

[Jill_C]

It's hard to find any obvious technical issues with these beautiful images; however I think the first one might be a bit softly focused, particularly in those foreground rocks, and the WB appears a bit too yellow. I can't find any issues with the second, except perhaps a bit underexposed in the shadows. The third one appears to have a bit of magenta in the sky. Interested in hearing the opinions of the other regular contributors here.

[Marianne-Deiters]

I also see no obvious technical reasons for rejection, but would reduce a little magenta from image two and three.

[RALPH_L]

photo 2 & 3 the shadows are under exposed.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

5779 has a saturation or a white balance problem. There is a sharpening artefact at that dark cloth and on other parts:

5597: the shadows are underexposed, the palms show artefacts, probably from "sky enhancement". I would pull the sky saturation down.

5127: artefacts in the plants:

I think that also here the saturation is too high.

This isn't a problem unique to me; I've read a lot of complaints on microstock forums that since about July Adobe has started rejecting photos in an almost arbitrary fashion. I suspect an AI is being used for "pre-reviewing" and it just doesn't work, like every other AI used by stock photo sites. 

By @mlw_nz

I can't confirm this. The decision is still taken by humans, which sometimes makes the decision seam erratic, as one tends to refuse what a different one accepts. But for 99% of the posts here, I can agree, that there are major issues with the file.

I think that you have a tendency to oversaturate your images and at least partially oversharpen. Even that at a first look (on my iPad), the images seemed to be OK, on my PC I'm seeing some defects. Nothing horrible, but enough to justify the refusal.

[George_F]

I wonder if the composition and lighting on these is perhaps what led to the refusal?

As I look through similar photos on Adobe Stock, the trees in those photos don't have shadows the same way as the trees in your photos do.  I think the trees would benefit from some lightening in these photos.

With the compositions, there isn't anything that really leads my eyes to the ocean or sand as with other top results with similar photos.

Don't misunderstand me, these certainly aren't bad photos and I found them interesting.  This is my personal opinion, but Adobe isn't trying to collect a large number of photos but rather the best photos. 

With competition both getting more plentiful and better, I think the bar is continuing to get higher all the time for submissions.

[ricky336]

Hello,

The light is very strong in your photos. Strong light with dark shadows creates high contrast.

From a composition side, what makes this desirable and appealing for a holiday? You have sun lounges under a coconut tree, but you can hardly see the sun lounges as they are under the tree's shadow.

Your first photo basically shows a pile of rocks. I guess there is some significance with this, but looking at it without background knowledge, I can only guess.

The kayaks don't really invite me to go kayaking.

... I've read a lot of complaints on microstock forums that since about July Adobe has started rejecting photos in an almost arbitrary fashion... 

  
By @mlw_nz

In my view, Adobe should be a lot more picky in what they choose. I wouldn't say it's arbitrary - although it could look that way.

From a quality point of view, I would say you have sharpened them a bit too much. Did you sharpen them? Sharpening too much introduces artifacts that @Abambo has pointed out. 

I think the white balance is actually ok.

The photos are fine for a record of a holiday - you could print them out, and put them on a wall, but, for commercial use, I'm not so sure.

[mlw_nz]

Thanks (to most of the commentors) for their insights and suggestions. The technical advice was very helpful, particularly that of Abambo. Sharpening for Adobe is particularly difficult in that they often reject for softness in the corners but that means that on most photos the center can become slightly over-sharpened. Reducing the magenta in the white balance is a good idea. I'll adjust accordingly. Thanks for your kind words, Jill_C. 🙂