Photos rejected

[robert5FBB]

Every photo I have ever tried to post to Adobe stock gets rejected excessive pressing now a new one technical issues I have no problem with the same photos on shutterstock might as well cancel my subscription to your rubbish  programs as they do not meet your standards so will be seeking refund for all subscriptions 

[Pal Illes]

Same thing. You never know what will be accepted and what will be not. Some of my photos with the same quality were accepted, some were rejected. Suppose it's the matter of actual mood of those who are engaged... Silly thing.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @robert5FBB ,

Please post 3 of your rejected images here for us to look at and help you identify the issue

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

[robert5FBB]

Three of the photos that were accepted elsewhere, I welcome your feedback!

[jacquelingphoto2017 · Accepted solution]

Hi @robert5FBB ,

This photo is over processed. It is too saturated, There is also color fringing on the rocks, and details are lost in the shadow areas. You could have added more exposure.

The subject is not completely in focus. Also there are excess grain noise.

This is a beautiful sunset, however you've had it under exposed.Details are lost in the forefront and in the shadows.

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

[robert5FBB]

Three of the rejected but accepted elsewhere 

[jacquelingphoto2017 · Accepted solution]

Hi @robert5FBB ,

Too much of the bird is out of focus.  The other images seem to be the same I checked above.

To check your files for faults, you need to zoom at between 100 and 200%. It is important that your images are completely sharp to make it easy for cropping.

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author 

[robert5FBB]

Thanks for your reply and feedback still can't get my head around why other platforms accept the same image? It should in my opinion be up to the buyer's to decide what they wish to purchase and not some moderators opinion, it costs nothing to host an image.

[robert5FBB]

I agree about the colour fringes and will certainly double check the images before posting!

[Test Screen Name · Accepted solution]

> still can't get my head around why other platforms accept the same image?

Perhaps when Adobe entered the market they decided to do things differently (for their commercial benefit), providing a higher baseline standard. 

> It should in my opinion be up to the buyer's to decide what they wish to purchase

Many faults are not visible in proof images. I see first hand what happens if a poor image makes it into Adobe's library; the customer buys it, they complain and ADOBE'S REPUTATION SUFFERS. This matters to Adobe's business model. 

In any case, Adobe are under no obligation to be fair to contributors. Your relationship with Stock is not as a customer it is as a supplier. The life of a supplier of any product to any business is hard and competitive, and the behaviour of companies to suppliers is often capricious and challenging. Suppliers have the choice of competing and adapting, or not being a supplier. If of course Adobe annoy their suppliers too much and the supply suffers, then they will need to change, but right now the tens millions of photos seem to show otherwise. And the people they annoy the least in this way are established commercial photographers who have the same view of quality that they do.

[Abambo]

In any case, Adobe are under no obligation to be fair to contributors.

By @Test Screen Name

To be fair, Adobe stock is fair to contributors. Adobe stock is just not a photography school and their reason to be is to sell subscriptions to users not to accept contributors pictures.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @robert5FBB ,

"It should in my opinion be up to the buyer's to decide what they wish to purchase and not some moderators opinion,"

There are in fact platforms that allow you to publish just about anything you have despite the quality. Sure enough the customer do choose. They choose to move on. Poor quality images most likely will not sell.

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

[robert5FBB]

Once again thanks for your input and suggestions, I am now zooming in above 200%  in light room and you are correct they are not so good! 

[jacquelingphoto2017]

You are welcome @robert5FBB 

[Abambo]

 it costs nothing to host an image.

By @robert5FBB

One crap image, no, millions yes! And then there are those thousands of unhappy customers who after the third crap image cancel their subscription.

You really need to accept the contributor is the last in the food chain. The customer is the important one.

[Jill_C]

They were accepted, but have they ever sold? They simply do not meet the quality standards of Adobe Stock. Adobe "could" accept lower quality images, but then their databases would be clogged with unprofessional, poorly focused and composed, over-saturated snapshots - for which there is no demand.

[Abambo]

---

@Jill_C wrote:

They were accepted, but have they ever sold? They simply do not meet the quality standards of Adobe Stock. Adobe "could" accept lower quality images, but then their databases would be clogged with unprofessional, poorly focused and composed, over-saturated snapshots - for which there is no demand.

---

Customers would complain with reason. Searching for the good picture takes time and getting scrap images will turn away customers. No customers -- no sales -- no sales -- Adobe will close stock and you can do with your images what you want, but surely not making money. It is in the contributor's best interest that only high qualitypictures get accepted.

[SRS photography]

I think the sky is saturated and the picture of the rock  saturated as well.

[SRS photography]

We sometimes (me always) guide ourselves by what the photograph make yous feel but in places like this it's a requirement  to be as technical as possible. Practice makes the master. Key is to not give up.