Skip to main content
Verbbaitum
Verbbaitum
Known Participant
June 16, 2023
Answered

Quality issues?

  • June 16, 2023
  • 4 replies
  • 935 views

The attached image was recently refused by the Adobe powers that be because of quality issues. I think it's a good image, in forcus, nice lighting, horizon is straight. The model's cap says "Trout" not "Trump." I also attached a copy of the image as it appeared on the cover of Great Lakes Angler recently. Just curious what the quality issues might be. I don't see it. Fortuntely, the $250 I got for the cover will more than cover what I'd get for it on Adobe.

 

[Moderator deleted private information. Please do not post private information like e-mails and phone numbers]

    This topic has been closed for replies.
    Correct answer Ricky336

    Hello,

    Stock photography is a different kettle of fish. Regarding your shots, there needs to be some editing done. When submitting to Adobe, the necessary corrections should already have been done, as well as being a lot more careful about IP. Adobe has different criteria!

    4 replies

    Ricky336
    Community Expert
    Ricky336Community ExpertCorrect answer
    Community Expert
    June 19, 2023

    Hello,

    Stock photography is a different kettle of fish. Regarding your shots, there needs to be some editing done. When submitting to Adobe, the necessary corrections should already have been done, as well as being a lot more careful about IP. Adobe has different criteria!

    Jill_C
    Community Expert
    Jill_CCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    June 16, 2023

    The trout is certainly a beauty, but there are multiple technical issues, as outlined by @Abambo  - noise, soft focus, logos, etc. Comparing the magazine cover to the asset you uploaded, I can see that the image was edited for the cover. Adobe Buyers expect the image to be free of technical issues so that they don't have to spend additional time editing the image before they can use it.

    Jill C., Forum Volunteer
    Verbbaitum
    VerbbaitumAuthor
    Known Participant
    June 17, 2023

    I had the cover on Great Lakes Angler in the issue prior to the one in quention, too. That one was accepted by Adobe if I rember correctly. 

    Nancy OShea
    Community Expert
    Nancy OSheaCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    June 17, 2023

    Stock photography is a different beast from magazines.

    • Magazines pay up front.  
    • Acceptance into Stock inventory doesn't guarantee you'll make a dime.

    Stock customers are very picky.  They expect perfection.  That's why they subscribe to Stock.  And with so much available inventory to choose from, they won't be happy with an image that needs corrections.  They'll skip past it or demand a refund later.  Neither one is good for the contributor. 

     

    Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert
      Nancy OShea
      Community Expert
      Nancy OSheaCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      June 16, 2023

      The magazine cover is Illustrative Editorial (story telling), not commercial use.  Different rules apply concerning what's "fair use."

       

      Apart from the image's quality issues, MAGA merch is protected by Trump's campaign.  Therefore this image is off-limits for commercial use.  Given the Mar-a-Lago loudmouth's lust for lawsuits, an infringement suit would squash you & Adobe like a bug.  Nuh, uh.  Don't go there.

       

      Nice catch, though. 🙂

       

       

       

      Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert
      Abambo
      Community Expert
      AbamboCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      June 16, 2023

      Fortunately, you got the $250 from the cover, as your asset has quality issues, that may not bother your editor because they corrected the flaws in the picture. I stay with my comment from several months ago: By now you should know the quality requirements.

       

      Your picture has a white balance issue, is missing contrasts and is oversaturated, has colour noise

       

      and is not sharp.

       

      .Those are quality issues.

       

      You also have a logo visible on the jacket , and you have logos here on this device . In addition, even that the trout hat is quite hilarious, it's nevertheless a violation of the property rights of Trump. Except for satirical reasons, you are not allowed to make such sidekicks.

       

      And again: the cover use of the picture does say nothing about the fitness of an image in a pure commercial environment.

      ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
        Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
        Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices