Quality issues? Or is it actually "we don't need any more pictures on this subject"?

[Darius Mihai]

Hello everyone. It's the first time I'm posting here. I wasn't going to, but this specific "quality issues" rejection has me wondering about what's the deal. Is it fair and true or is it just a catch-all pretext?

I'm attaching here the image, hopefully someone can point out which exactly are the quality issues with this image.

When doing that please consider the other images that are on the platform on the same subject for comparison: https://stock.adobe.com/ro/search?k=jam+bread&search_type=usertyped

I see a lot of images with shallower depth of field, a lot of images with more noise, a lot of images with much less clarity, ghosting etc. So I'm wondering, how is it that this specific image does not fulfill the quality standards compared to everything else that is on the platform?

Even out of my own images, some are worse that this but got accepted without issues - however they were on a different topic, not food.

So should I not even try uploading food images to Adobe?

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this and look at the image.

[John PDX]

Well, it's anyone's guess what they consider as the problem.  I would say it's a little dark and maybe the shadows level should be brought up a little.  Also, there are some places where the focus is soft.  Lastly, I see a faint halo around the dishes.  Perhaps that's from the lighting or a little too much sharpening.  Best regards, John

[Darius Mihai]

Thank you for having a look and for the critique, it's very helpful. Yes, I noticed the softness near the bowl, it's due to the focus stacking.

I'll try to adjust it better. The halo I have no idea where it is from, it's not in the original photos. Perhaps an artifact of the focus stacking?

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to do this, I'll definitely consider these areas for the next images that I'll submit.

[John PDX]

Ah yes,  I've had similar issues with my focus stacking results (i.e. softness around the edges).  Are we allowed to talk about non-Adobe products in the forum?  I started using a different solution than PS.  It produces better results IMO.  

[George_F]

Neat photo!  I absolutely feel with you that rejections are hard.  I think it's important to understand that the game has changed from even a few years ago with camera hardware and software becoming so good, and the influx of photographers entering the professional market.  This may well have passed a few years ago.  I know that I have things in my portfolio that would not get through today.

There are a few things there to warrant a technical rejection.  There appears to be a yellow hue to the image, and there is some slight lens distortion to the bowl on the right which I consider to be part of the main subject.  I think having the front of the cutting board visible in the frame and the rope in the frame would benefit the composition.  I think in this case it's the totality of the little things that led to the rejection.

I like to treat rejections as an opportunity to learn rather than a kick in the teeth.  I wouldn't let this stop you from submitting in the future 🙂

[Darius Mihai]

Thanks.

There's no lens distortion in the bowl. that is the actual shape of the bowl.

I'm not saying that this is the best photo in the world and there's nothing I'd do a bit different. Of course there are things that can improve it, including removing a bit more of the dust that is visible at 200% magnification on the dark surface.

However: https://stock.adobe.com/ro/search?k=jam+bread&search_type=usertyped&asset_id=42610758

I can barely find the 3% of the image that is actually in focus, and this image is accepted on the platform.

I'm just saying that it would be much much better if Adobe would at least announce what topics they don't want anymore, or a list of accepted topics. At least we wouldn't waste time creating images that will never be accepted and instead we would put our energy in the topics that they are willing to accept.

Thank you for the advice and criticism, it's very helpful.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

A lot of Stock inventory was grandfathered in from Fotolia before Adobe Stock took over. 

Every picture should tell a story.  What does this one say?

Composition wise, the background is dark, the board is dark, the toast is dark, the jam is dark.  Eating toast & jam is usually an enjoyable daytime activity, yet there's not much here that evokes joy or daytime.  Something's missing.

IMO, your staging might work better with a lighter background, brighter colors, fresh fruit, flowers, textured napkins or human hand activity.  Something to bring it to life.

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/photo-composition.html

Food photography is anything but easy.  It takes a lot of patience & practice to get it right.  Don't give up.  Just keep working at it.

[Darius Mihai]

Thank you for the feedback and detailed response.

I completely agree with the fact that human activity or brighter colors can bring it to life, yes. I will do that next and see if the approval rate increases. Thank you very much for this eye opener. For stock, bright, colorful and joyful sells. It's like a "duuuh" moment for me. Thanks.

However I'm a bit confused by the statement that every picture should tell a story when discussing stock. I value this advice a lot for artistic photography, and I would like to agree with it for stock, but a lot of the content that is being accepted on adobe stock does not tell a story.

For example: https://stock.adobe.com/ro/images/bread-with-jam/65609410

No story here, just a correctly exposed photo of a slice of bread with jam on it, that's it. Stock photography.

I'm not looking to display the photo in an art gallery and I'm not saying it's worthy of that. Of course it's not.

Another example: https://stock.adobe.com/ro/search?k=jam+bread&search_type=usertyped&asset_id=58537139

And some more:

https://stock.adobe.com/ro/images/bread-slice-isolated/71954811

https://stock.adobe.com/ro/images/pommes-frites-mit-ketchup-und-mayonnaise-french-fries/42167016

There are hundreds if not thousands of such examples. No story, just "here's this item". Well perhaps as you say, a lot came from Fotolia.

I'll consider everything that you and others have said and see what the next hurdle will be.

Thank you!

[Nancy OShea]

Don't overthink this.  The Stock example says "Eat me."  That's the story. 

6 Best Camera Angles for Food Photography

https://expertphotography.com/best-camera-angles-food-photography/

Sometimes simple things like camera angle tell the whole story.

[Jill_C]

The file size is quite small, therefore when I drop it into Lightroom and zoom in to inspect the edges I see a lot of pixelation. However, what is easy to detect is the fact that it's rather underexposed.

I don't believe that Adobe Moderators reject images because they believe there are already too many of a particular subject in the database. I doubt that they are given the time or the opportunity to compare your image to the thousands of existing images of "toast+jam". Searching on those keywords turns up more than 48K images! They are simply evaluating it on the technical details that they see on the screen. 

[Darius Mihai]

I've uploaded the image as 6973 x 4651 px. Perhaps it was resized by the upload process?

I agree that they most probably don't manually search for the keywords on the website, but it is quite possible that one of the technical details that they have available on the screen is "similar images", just like we see when we browse the adobe stock website.

I also agree that it is rather dark. Even if the histogram shows data all across the range without clipping except for the actually black parts... my choice of background was not so great and it did contribute towards me interpreting the histogram wrongly.

Also I see now that the composition doesn't make a lot of sense for this subject.

Now I don't like it that much either.

I will do a remake though and post it here.