Picture rejected due to Technical Issues

[johnsean]

Hi,

I've just had aan image rejected due to technical issues but it doesnt say what technical reasons.

I've checked all the usual criteria especially sharpeness and noise and its very clean.

Having read other rejects in forums theres not many clues to help me.  

It can be due to negative space as I was encouraged to leave space in case picture editors wanted that space for their own narrative.

Would it be possible for Adobe to provide a better reason or more accurate technical issue.

Thanks

John

[George_F]

If you post the photo, we can examine it.  This is a community driven forum and we aren't able to access it otherwise.

[Test Screen Name]

To answer your final question: no, Adobe cannot and will not provide better reasons or more accurate technical issues. The job of reviewers is to review everything as fast as possible, as there may be tens of thousands of new files to review every day, and experienced commercial photographers should be producing work meeting the criteria already.  (I am not speaking for Adobe of course, but as an observer).

[johnsean]

Hi Yes, I can apprecaite that and that Adobe cant spend a lot of time on each photograph.     However, I am trying to aspire to the levels of the established commercial photogrpahers but if I dont know whats wrong I cant learn and improve.  I do have a lot of photos already on Adobe Stock some of which are selling (but very slowly), but want to keep contributing.     

So hopefully, Community memebrs like yourself may be able to point me in the right direction.  

John

[johnsean]

Sorry, my fault, I forgot to atach it.

Look forward to your suggestions and thoughts.

[LEILA5E9F]

Ey tu foto está muy buena! Que te parece tal vez tenga un poco de ruido en los colores, y un poco más de exposición para despegar el objeto del fondo. Es una foto exelente! Prueba corregir eso tal vez te la acepten. Saludos 

[johnsean]

Thanks for your comment.  The photo has had post processing noise removed from it although if I blow it up to 400% you can see a little noise still but surely at 400% ??????

[Nancy OShea]

Unfortunately the quality isn't good enough for Stock.  Take a look at what other contributors are doing in your keyword category.  It might help to see what you're competing with.

Adobe Stock Owl Images

[johnsean]

Hi Nancy,

Thank you for the update.  

This is much better feedback than your previous response intimating I needed photography lessons and to join a camera club!!

So I appreciate this feedback this morning and what you are saying is it is not a Technical Issue but one of perceived quality images.

So thank you for clarifying this.

I can see where this particular image of mine is lacking compared to the examples you provided (which I think a couple of are mine from last year !!), so I now know where I should improve.

Thanks.

John

[Nancy OShea]

Adobe reviewers don't have time to provide detailed feedback to every contributor.  They must look at thousands of images each week.  Their job is to review, not teach. 

• Read your contributor user guide. 
• Take some photography classes. 
• Join a photography club.
  
  

Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in their own projects.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html

If you care to post a rejected image here and the reason Adobe gave for rejecting it, we'd be happy to provide you with more feedback.

[Test Screen Name]

Thank you for sharing your picture. Focus may be the issue. It is said that for wildlife you need to start with the eye in focus. Overall, the owl seems to lack sharpness. This is difficult work.

[Abambo]

Looking at the picture you provided, it lacks focus. Portrait shoots absolutely need to have crisp sharp eyes, also with animals.

Here nothing is in focus.

You have a high noise level, that you see at 100%. No need to go to 400% for this image.

Your white balance is off. The picture is too greenish.

Your picture is also underexposed. Whites and highlights are missing:

I agree with @Nancy OShea : If you can't see the problems in this picture, you absolutely need to educate yourself. Best is effectively joining a club, as they are great critics of the work you present there. Photography courses (and club expeditions) will help you to improve and to get the camera settings right. What Nancy was pointing out that for certain categories, it's not enough to present somehow acceptable pictures, but vetting will be more stringent if you are in a highly competitive field of participation. What she also pointed out, was that you should take inspiration from accepted similar subjects, to see what a good stock image is.

[johnsean]

Thank you Abamo and @Nancy OShea  

I have really appreciated the feedback (most of it anyway). 

Incidentally, I have been told the more you edit with Adobe the more noise/artefacts are introduced (correct me if this is wrong) so I dont tend to do that much editing and try and get it right in camera first. 

I did not have much choice during the day as the weather was very dull and subjects were not close.

I am not sure if Camera clubs in the US are different from here in the UK, but the two I did join a while ago never provided that level of expertise.  Since October 2019 meetings at camera clubs are almost non existent due to covid

So, to close this off, I  again appreciate your feedback and comments and 1 rejection out of 24 cant be that bad for me.  

John

[Abambo]

Incidentally, I have been told the more you edit with Adobe the more noise/artefacts are introduced (correct me if this is wrong) so I dont tend to do that much editing and try and get it right in camera first. 

By @johnsean

Incorrect. Edits need, however, to be done in a fashion that the buyer has the impression to get an out-of-the-camera image. That probably never the case, and especially not for the good pictures.

I did not have much choice during the day as the weather was very dull and subjects were not close.

By @johnsean

Shoot raw and use the auto-setting for the white balance. Canon is quite good to get it correct in-camera. I rarely adjust a lot. But yours is quite off.

I am not sure if Camera clubs in the US are different from here in the UK, but the two I did join a while ago never provided that level of expertise.  Since October 2019 meetings at camera clubs are almost non existent due to covid

By @johnsean

I'm located in Europe… 😉 Just to say. And yes, COVID-19 slows down our activity quite a lot…

1 rejection out of 24 cant be that bad for me.  

By @johnsean

Adobe considers a rejection rate of more than 50% as bad. You are superb, it seems to me. Every one has rejections, that's normal. If you look at your rejections and can't figure it out, you can ask the forum. It's not guaranteed that we will find the troublemakers, but in your case here it's obvious.

[ricky336]

Hi John,

Firstly, regarding technical issues, one of them is the white balance - it is too green, so you have to add some magenta in the white balance tool. The green cast would be mainly due to the background which is green so this has thrown the metering off a bit.

Secondly, I see from the metadata, that you used ISO 2000, which of course is high, so therefore there are signs of noise.  Even though you mentioned you used some noise reduction it is still noticeable. Of course, you wouldn't want to use too much noise reduction, because the photo begins to look like a painting!

I also see that you used 200mm focal length with 1/160 sec, so this would also introduce some camera shake, hence lacking sharpness. (Though did you use IS on the lens?)

The eyes of the owl are rather dark, so this is a bit of a bummer.

I'm not a fan of photography clubs. I think reading more about digital photography is better - authors like Michael Freeman , a well know British photographer. He's worth checking out.

As for Adobe giving more info about rejections, they won't. This is why this forum exists!

Lucky us!!

[johnsean]

Hi Ricky,

Thanks for taking the time to post - I really appreciate your comments which seem to be very helpful. 

WB was set to cloudy in camera, and yes these pictures were in woodland and this time of year, very, very green. 

Noted about the WB editing in post.

ISO 2000 - I had no choice to to try and get a reasonable s/speed, but may not have been enough.  

Yes, it was a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS MKII and IS was on.  

I was using a Canon 7D MK I for this shoot, but I have now upgraded to a mirrorless, so I am sure my level will now increase.  

I'm not a fan of camera clubs either anymore, and never experienced any tuition in the weekly meetings.  Club trips were enjoyable and very sociable though.  

I have a couple of books by Michael Freeman, and I will revisit them to reinforce my learning as wells as keep working on my technique. 

This "post" has actually been quite informative and apart from some negative comments previously I have bounced back and taken them on board.    As I said in my last post, 1 rejection out of the 24 I recently submiited cant be that bad !!

Thanks again, and appreciate your help.

John

[Abambo]

Yes, it was a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS MKII and IS was on.  

I was using a Canon 7D MK I for this shoot, but I have now upgraded to a mirrorless, so I am sure my level will now increase.  

By @johnsean

The 7D is an excellent camera, but ISO 2000 is a challenge to all cameras. Wildlife is, however, a lot of low light shots. You can't change that parameter.