Quality Issue with Stock Uploads

[suzannebowers]

Hi all! I'm new to the Adobe Stock community and am working to build my collection. I have submitted two batches for consideration. In the first batch, all but 2 were approved. The 2 not approved was due to "Similar Content...". The second batch of 22, only 1 was selected and 2 are still in review. All 19 not selected were for "Quality Issues". 

I can understand the similar content rejection, but I cannot accept the quality issue rejection. My image quality cannot be the issue. First, every image was between the required size, more than 5 and less than 45MB. You can see in every photo the focus band (on the subject) if the aperture was low, so I'm positive my subject was in focus. According to the histogram and my eyes, the images are properly exposed. Zero of my images are heavily edited (containing no filters or oversaturation), and I have the RAW files to prove that.  And I use a Nikon D850 and D4 so my use of higher ISO would not be an issue with noise, especially since most images are at ISO 100 and only a few at 3200. Even then, the noise is not "excessive" as they are saying. 

Is it possible to get the reviewers to reconsider images? Does that ever happen? Honestly, if they said the second batch was "Similar Content" I would have accepted that answer and moved on, but to say that it was a quality issue, I just can't accept that.

I tried to attach some examples here, but they aren't uploading.

[RALPH_L]

If you would load the original here we can judge your image. The community experts here have quite a bit of expierence.

[Imago Media]

Too Many answer with this yours template comment. 

[suzannebowers]

I tried in my first post but they wouldn't load. Looks like it's working now!

The bubble iridescence are the only high ISO images with a little noise. I'm wondering if the collection was too mixed with the types. My first submission was all green plants and almost all were accepted. This batch was flowers, macro bubbles, a table setting and an intentional camera movement. The reviewer might have hated them being together and did a blanket reject?? 

I also included the photo of Mother and Baby BIson from my first submission that wasn't accepted. I'd like to see what you all think about why it wasn't accepted. I looked at other bison photos in the Stock catalog and can't say that I see this as being too redundant. But like I said, that was an easier pill to swallow then 'not quality' like the others.

[Jill_C]

SMB_4197.jpg - the bison are underexposed and the sky is overexposed, perhaps blownout in some areas

SMB_2564.jpg - not sure what we're looking at there, but the upper part of the frame seems overexposed 

SMB_5145.jpg - some chroma noise in the table top

SMB_5125.jpg - digital noise 

[daniellei4510]

SMF2287: Depth of field isn't deep enough. More should be in focus. Flowers are also tough to get accepted. There are millions of them in the database already. 

Rejections for "similar" images is a common reason for rejection and has been for the last few weeks and has confused a number of contributors.

"Quality" is not about file size. Issues to consider are focusing, noise, color balance, composition, etc.

[suzannebowers]

Thank you Daniel for your feedback. I agree with you on focal depth, as stock images might want more detail in their photos. It's also good to learn that other members in the community are experiencing similar issues. 

[suzannebowers]

Just a little background, image 4197 was a figure-ground composition where the subject is silhouetted intentionally as well as the high-key sky. It's a style, but it's not always appreciated.

I agree there is noise in the bubble photos, that was my highest ISO, but I didn't think it was egregious.

Photo 2564 is Intentional Camera Movement (ICM) so it's suppose to be abstract. I had that as the title and in the keywords as well. I thought maybe they don't like ICM, but I searched the catalog and found tons. So, IDK.

[yamato7]

The area in focus is likely to be the subject, but since it is dark, I will correct it to make it brighter.

SMB_1825、SMB_4501

The focus area may be too narrow.

SMB_1951、SMB_5145

Noise is noticeable.
It would also be better if the color temperature on the left and right sides of the image could be consistent.

[RALPH_L]

SMB_1825.jpg is according to histogram underexpossed.

[suzannebowers]

Ralph, thanks so much for your input, I completely agree that photography is so much more than just pushing a button. It's a craft that takes time, thought, and practice. That said, I’d kindly ask that we try not to assume someone’s approach is unskilled just because their style looks different than your own. My work can lean darker or moodier at times, but those choices are always intentional.

 Just to share a little background, I studied photography for two years completing my program in 2012, and am fortunate to do this full time. I shoot entirely on manual and am proficient in both LR and PS. I'm not saying I don't have room for growth, which is why I'm asking for community thoughts, but to imply someone is simply pushing a button is unfair. 

[suzannebowers]

UPDATE! I resubmitted my Intentional Camera Movement (ICM) photos, and all four were accepted!  I’m starting to think the secret sauce with Adobe Stock is to keep each submission grouped by theme or style. When your collection feels cohesive, it seems to help the reviewers better understand the creative intent behind the work.

[daniellei4510]

Just when I think I found the secret formula, the similar rejections start up again. 🙂