Quality issues

[BKM26]

I'm confused about what the quality issues are for this pic. I don't see any focus, over processing, or artifact issues.

[daniellei4510]

Again, a little on the soft side.

[ricky336]

Hello,

I'm afraid your focus isn't sharp on the deer. ideally, it should be sharp and the deer is a little fuzzy.

The composition could also be better. it comes across as a snapshot, and not sure how worthy it could be commercially. There are tons on Adobe Stock, and yours falls a bit short.

Read these guides:

User guide:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
Exposure:
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/exposure-in-photography.html
Composition:
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/photo-composition.html
Learn and support:
https://helpx.adobe.com/support/stock-contributor.html

[BKM26]

Whether one thinks it is soft or isn't composed to one's liking is irrelevant. I think too many photos are over sharpened or the contrast is too strong. It all depends on the buyer. There are many reasons for purchasing a photo (projects, websites, vacation memories, ads, etc.). I've had over 3600 photos accepted by Adobe, and I've sold 620. Some were initially rejected, but I resubmitted them after a few tweaks or doing nothing at all and they were accepted. It seems quite arbitrary. Of course, some were seriously flawed after more careful inspection. That's reasonable. Some I never would have predicted were sold multiple times. The only good reasons for rejections are blatant problems.

[Jill_C]

Of course, focus and composition ARE relevant to Adobe Stock and to their Buyers! 

If you persist in resubmitting previously rejected images without having repaired the issues, you can be accused of spamming the database which is reason for account suspension.

[BKM26]

Composition is a completely subjective matter. Who has the mystical power to determine what everybody likes and dislikes?

Spamming? Seriously? That sounds like a threat for disagreeing with the reviewer.

[Jill_C]

Composition is not entirely subjective. There are obvious compositional issues that can ruin a photo, such as a leaning horizon, leaning verticals, body parts cut off, distracting elements, etc. 

[BKM26]

That's true, but none of those issues apply to the photo in question.

[Jill_C]

I didn't say that your image had composition issues; someone else mentioned that. I just listed the various compositional issues that "could" lead to rejection since you seem to reject the idea that composition is a reason for rejection.

[daniellei4510]

We can't speak to your entire portfolio, as we haven't seen it. But the image you submitted for us to review does have issues with focusing and was most likely the reason it was rejected. The moderators are human and there is certainly some wiggle room between one moderator and the next with respect to formerly rejected images ultimately being accepted, even without further editing. (However, potentially, this might be construed as spamming, so take care when doing so). *

"The only good reasons for rejections are blatant problems."

And poor focusing is one of those blatant problems. Even then, another image with poor focusing that gets accepted is not an excuse to accept another image that has focusing issues as well.

* Personally, on those rare occasions when I can't figure out for myself why an image was rejected, I go so far as to re-edit it extensively, such as using generative expand to experiment with different compositions. But I stop short of re-submitting without SOME degree of editing.

[BKM26]

Here it is again after some more post processing to deal with sharpness. It was summarily rejected, so what is really the issue here?

[BKM26]

I just looked at the attachment after resizing it to 10mb and I see it is not nearly as sharp as the submission, which was 43mb.

[daniellei4510]

Well at this point, it could be argued that between the two of us, this image has been resized and over-processed to death, but here's a side-by-side after I ran it through Topaz Photo for sharpening 

[BKM26]

Yes, I did the same and it now looks just like your version, but it was still rejected. Why?

[daniellei4510]

And bear in mind, we're still second guessing why the moderator rejected this image (or moderators, since it didn't necessarily get reviewed by the same individual).

[BKM26]

And that brings up another issue I have with this review process. How difficult would it be for reviewers to have a menu of specific reasons for not accepting a photo? Simply click on the reason(s) and help contributors to correct problems and avoid repeating them. This is a business, so anything that helps contributors would help Adobe sell more photos and eliminate unnecessary confusion and clutter.

[daniellei4510]

We suspect (and it's only speculation as far as I know) that moderators have a quota to meet during their shifts. Which is why the reasons for rejection (especially where quality issues are concerned) are generalized. Choosing one or more specific reasons for rejection would slow down moderation even more so than it already is. And based on a few previous posts that I've seen throughout my year and a half as a contributor, there are those who would still disagree with the moderator's reasoning, regardless of how specific or detailed.

[BKM26]

It would take just as long to click on Focus Issues or Artifact Issues as it would to click on Quality Issues. They really need to improve the process.

[Jill_C]

Nope. Some images have multiple issues that it would take them far too long to enumerate all of them. There is an expectation that we are professionals in our craft and able to detect the issues ourselves.

[ricky336]

... This is a business,...

By @BKM26

Precisely - it's a business, not a Photography school. Stock photography has been around for donkey's years, and the stock business didn't teach people how to take a photo. That's what photography schools /camera clubs were for.  

The solution to know why your photo was rejected is to come here to get opinions. And while opinions may vary, you will get some insight into why!

Which you have got.

So, regarding the 'softness' of the photo - this most likely is connected to the lens. Some lenses on some cameras are 'soft' and the result is as you see.

Another point - pointed out by @Nancy OShea is your white balance. It is a bit green/blue. Why? Well, you have a green background, so this has influenced the colour temperature. You ought to reduce the 'green' a bit.

And 'Whether one thinks it is soft or isn't composed to one's liking is irrelevant'

Well, it kind of is relevant. Even in the days of film, it made a difference; in terms of photography, a 'soft' photo isn't good! Stock companies wouldn't have accepted it in the film days!

[BKM26]

The fundamental question is whether a photo should be rejected. This is not a beauty contest. The only issue is whether someone might want to purchase a photo. If a photo shows artifacts or fringing when one zooms in, but not otherwise, that  could be a reason for rejection because the buyer couldn't blow it up for a wall hanging or whatever. But even then I could argue that for many other potential buyers that is a moot issue, because they might only want it for a school project, website, or small ad. Pricing and disclaimers could compensate for minor problems. Things like hues, color balance, framing, and softness could be relegated to the category of opinion, which is irrelevant for business purposes. I have literally sold hundreds of photos that I wouldn't think were particularly good in terms of photographic artistry or professional quality, but my opinion doesn't matter.

[Jill_C]

Adobe Stock tries to set themselves apart from the other low cost/lower quality stock providers - FreePik, Pixabay, Unsplash, etc.  If you have what you consider slightly flawed images or rejected images that are not good enough for Adobe, try posting them there.

[BKM26]

Wow, you really need to read my response more closely and accurately. In a nutshell: opinion is not a valid criteria for rejection. There are plenty of objective reasons. Apparently, a lot of people can't distinguish between the two.

[Jill_C]

The "opinions" of the Moderators are based upon their training and their viewing of many thousands of images. It is actually rare for us to see a rejected image here that doesn't have rejectable flaws. So apparently their "opinions" are generally correct.

[ricky336]

Hello,

...opinion is not a valid criteria for rejection. ...

By @BKM26

'The difference between opinion and fact is as follows

• Fact: Proven truth based on evidence or data.
• Opinion: Personal belief or view that may not be based on evidence.'

But fact is!

Fact - the photo of the deer is 'soft' (probably due to the lens), and there's a white balance issue.

This equates to a valid reason for rejection.

However, perhaps it can also be argued that the two points I mentioned are also an opinion. People see colour differently, and not all two monitors are the same, some eyes are better than others, therefore we all see differently. And that's why we can have a lot of different opinions. We see the world through our own eyes and interpret the world accordingly!

Regarding composition, yes, this can be an opinion, but then, you can have good composition and bad composition, which makes a good or bad photo. But yes, that can be an opinion!

But again, people are people and we all have our own facts and opinions, which may vary in today's world. 😁