Please help, this is wow

[Bahrija28541491uftn]

Just for curiosity sake, if anyone can tell  me what is the problem with this image.

Every other agency acepted this image but here.

Thanks!

[Bahrija28541491uftn]

It's used depth of field woith aperture of 2.8 F-Stop

[Abambo]

Every other agency? That's not a reason here. Why did it get refused?

I would say the DOF is not large enough. There is nearly nothing in focus. The picture could also have more contrast and vibrancy. It was probably a narrow decision.

[George_F]

At first glance this is a nice photo, but when you zoom in on the details there are a few different technical errors.

For a commercial asset, I think the depth of field is too shallow for the shot.  Neither end of the counter was in focus.

There is an odd blue mark at the bottom of the glass door.

There are also some shadows that should be removed in my opinion 

I also think the view in the window isn't captured very well.

I hope that helps

[George_F]

I agree with @Abambo though, I also think they were on the fence about this one.

[Ricky336]

Kia ora,

Out of curiosity, did you use a camera, if so, what type of camera/lens did you use?

If you used f 2.8, it is too narrow for such a shot. Too much is out of focus (due to a shallow depth of field).

Eg. the tap should be sharper than it is.

The photo lacks depth. 

However, at first glance, it looks fine, but when looking closer, the perspective doesn't look quite right.

Did you use architectural software rather than an actual camera?

There is no Exif data.

[Abambo]

At a first sight, I also thought that it was a nice render. But I think it is a real picture, taken with a wide angle lens and the camera was positioned very low, somewhere at a height below the working plate. The image resolution points to a modern camera with around 40-50Mp.

[George_F]

It's also worth noting this is in 16:9 aspect ratio, which isn't too common for dslr's.  I wondered if it was cropped or if it was a smartphone.

[Henrik Heigl]

Hi,

I think there are just too many minor technical errors in the picture that make it difficult to use the photo. For one, there are too many shadows here. At first glance, these seem to look quite nice, but are rather unsuitable for a commercial photo. Likewise, the reflections and DOF have already been addressed. The surfaces look too reflective and therefore rather unsuitable. Hope it helps.

[Nancy OShea]

I could not use this in a professional print project such as a magazine which requires highest technical & visual quality.

• Lighting is unbalanced.
• Edges are too soft and not sharply defined.
• Not enough contrast.

To understand what Adobe Stock looks for, read your Stock Contributor User Guide. 

• 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

Better luck with your next submission. 🙂

[Jill_C]

As others have said, DOF is too shallow, rendering much if the image out of focus. The grayish blob in the window is distracting; wash something edited out there? And the shadows don't make sense. The tool and faucet shadows seem to have been caused by the window light. Yet the shadows from the knife block are coming from the ither direction.