Participating Frequently

Question

Quality issues

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
July 8, 2023
6 replies
2269 views

I'm beyond frustrated...now just disgusted at whatever Adobe's "approval team" is doing. But, clearly, they don't have a clue what they are doing.

They have said to "come here" for your opinions, rather than just tell me OFFICIALLY...seems pretty stupid, right? Why answer the question when you can have someone else offer subjective reasons.

At any rate, wondering how many others have seen the same thing I have; with hundreds of images with the EXACT QUALITY and even lesser, suddenly my images are being REJECTED for the blanket reason of "Quality Issues"!!!

Just for kicks...I'll post a few of the ones recently rejected. These are downsied to 2400px, so don't think the submissions were low-res.

[moderator replaced the subject]

Contributor critique

This topic has been closed for replies.

RALPH_L

Community Expert

IMG_2180-220907.jpg is not in focus. The horizon is not level. The highlights in the clouds are overexposed. There are artifacts between the land objects and the sky.

The "approval team" does not have time to teach us to identify our mistakes. That is why this forum is provided.

I hope this information helps.

EzyRider_II

Inspiring

Sorry Ralph, but it's pretty unfair to pick on things like the horizon in
that image you quote. It seems to be a river (not a huge body of lake or
sea!) that has two river edged and no matter what you do or manipulate in
post-production, those edges will always taper. The trick is to find the
right balance that is acceptable to the eye! The horizon is the last thing
in my view that anybody should criticise in that photo. Just my 2 cents
worth. And funny how everybody here are of the opinion that reviewers are
not there to "teach us". Sure. But the "quality issues" stamp is so
annoying (!) that it's beyond words. I can slap a Quality Issues on
anybody's any photo!! And you go and figure it out why. There may or may
not be a real reason for it, other than the person got out of bed on the
wrong foot that morning.

George_F

Community Expert

@EzyRider_II When I saw the comments from @RALPH_L, I already knew which photo he was talking about because I remembered considering seeing this also and being on the fence about the horizon when I reviewed it. Ralph is right, the horizon is off by a bit. I agree with his entire assessment.

The reviewer just has to notice one of these errors for a rejection, and they tend to reject on the first error that they see.

I understand you are unhappy about Adobe's review process, but with us debating this here the OP might miss comments directed at them. Feel free to start a new thread.

George F, Photographer & Forum Volunteer

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

840K results for "Hamburger." Which would you buy for a magazine or billboard ad?

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=hamburger

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

Jill_C

Community Expert

IMG_2541-230325.jpg - poorly lit and seems to have the "fake blur" caused by the iPhone portrait mode

IMG_2180-220907.jpg - soft focus, crunchy details, odd colors. - also a mobile phone image?
IMG_6766.jpg- artifacts, noise, white balance

IMG_8262-191022.jpg- artifacts, blurry, blownout spots

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

George_F

Community Expert

I agree with @Abambo , rejections are part of submitting to stock and come with the territory. They can be a hard pill to swallow sometimes, but I prefer to see them as an opportunity to better understand what Adobe is looking for.

With a quick glance through, I can confirm these photos are correctly rejected.

8262: the sun has odd colors and artefacts and is also misshapen, and the dogs details are lost in shadows
6766: Banding in the sky, and the left side of the mountains have a blue colorcast and are a bit too dark to me.
2180: sharpness issues particularly in the corners and trees, and the mountains and trees have halos where they meet the sky. I also find the bright cloud in the center distracting.
2541: DoF is too shallow and the main subject is partly out of focus. The out of focus area appears hazy and noisy.

Sincerely, I wish you good luck with your future submissions.

George F, Photographer & Forum Volunteer

J

Jaume28175635bywv

Inspiring

El 80% o más de los archivos que intento publicar en Adobe son rechazados, pero yo insisto y sigo enviando material. No me desanimo. Entiendo que estés frustado, pero te aconsejo que hagas lo mismo que yo y veràs que con el tiempo se te irán aceptando las imágenes. En Adobe el nivel de exigencia es mayor que en otras plataformas, pero los beneficios de las ventas son mayores, al menos eso es lo que yo he podido comprobar con mi experiencia. ¡Ánimo!

Abambo

Community Expert

Your higher sales are problably a consequence of the more stringent vetting.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Abambo

Community Expert

Please stay calm. Rejections are part of contributing. And when you do not post the pictures as submitted, we cannot check the asset and show you the errors.

I just looked at the first, and I saw, even at the small size, some artefacts and noise. Are those photos or generative AI?

I can't say more, there is also some colour clipping in the background and probably also some noise.

I should add, that image moderators can't provide you more information, they don't have the time. It is also so, that if your asset has more than one error, they refuse on the first issue they see. You are supposed to submit only perfect assets. But we all get from time to time a refusal. That's part of the contributor's life.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

C

CaptGizmoAuthor

Participating Frequently

Thanks for your time, I didn't upload the full images since I wasn't sure if they'd exceed the size limits.

None of my images are AI, or will they ever been; for that matter.

I understand the "art" of perfection, but just as many others say and know, if I had wanted the background to be in focus, I would have made it that way.

Kinda funny, huh? When a photographer uses focus/blur as part of the salable interpretation, the image is rejected.

Reality is, I get it and really don't care...for the .25 or even a buck...I've wasted more of my time and your's to "learn" how to "submit"...pun intended. LOL

Thank you again.

EzyRider_II

Inspiring

in the last 2-3 weeks I have seen many similar posts to yours here. apparently you are not alone in that boat. my gut feeling is (and I emphesize it's just a gut feeling) that reviews must be done by AI. Adobe naturally (?) would not say it out loud. and try to make the pretens that it's business as usual. but based on the many aggrevated posts I have my doubts. I saw a very similar "uprising" by contributors at another microstock site when they started using AI for reviews. machines won't give you any brake in my opinion. they can't comprehend selective focus or bokeh and similar such things (yet). the other thing I venture to guess is that Adobe is moving away from real photos to the AI generated ones. they must have done a financial calculation that the income from the software subscriptions will outweigh the loss on selling traditional photos. users (the buying community) will decide that supposition at the end. interesting to watch it though. just don't let your weekend get ruined by the rejection(s). cheers!

P.s.: I have done it lately that I would put in a minimum amount of description and keywords at submittal. that way if they reject it, fine. I can still use the photo at other sites. but what absolutely yanks my chains is when I spend serious time and effort for keywording and it is rejected. I know! I should save the keywords in some Excel file. well. I don't (I have so many pics that I could never find what text file belongs to what photo).

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded