Quality Issues

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

Hello everyone!
I tried to publish 3 photos with you for the first time.
Sony a1 camera.. and the photo quality corresponding to the flagship of the line...
Why does the review on your site about the reasons for refusing to accept the photo not contain any information about the reasons themselves, is not supported by anything? Why don't you specify what exactly the problems with the quality of a particular photo are?
What exactly is the site's interest in this situation?.. ..etc...

[daniellei4510]

First of all, you are not addressing Adobe here but contributors like yourself. It is also not Adobe's job to teach contributors how to take photographs by giving detailed feedback as to the reason an image or images are rejected. The moderators do not have time for that.

If you want to know why your images were rejected, post them here at the full size as submitted and other contributors will try to be of help. That is what this forum is for.

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

Thank you for your answer and your time!!! Perhaps this is the most important thing I wanted to tell you.
Like the moderators, I do not have time for this.
But, I believe I have already revealed the problem of moderation.
All the best!

[Jill_C]

Having a current high-end camera doesn't guarantee that your assets meet Adobe's quality guidelines. Noise, soft focus, composition, Exposure, artifacts, etc. can still be issues from any camera. You will not receive specific feedback on every quality issue in your images from Adobe Moderators because they don't have the time to do that, and it's not their job to make you a better photographer. The quality of your assets cannot be determined from the small thumbnails that you uploaded.

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

One of these photographs 

[Jill_C]

Acceptance by another stock agency is no assurance of acceptance by Adobe Stock. It is widely assumed that Adobe has higher quality standards that other agencies. Did you alter the background color in this image? It appears that the foreground is in color and the background is black and white. That sort of photo manipulation is not accepted by Adobe.

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

No, I didn't change the background color. Of course, I processed the photo, it was in .RAW
But how could it be otherwise?

[daniellei4510]

Point is, we can't tell much from this example. We prefer full-sized images as submitted so that we can view them at 100-200%, run them through the Camera Raw Filter, evaluate exposure, the fine details, etc. Even then, our opinions may or may not be the reason an asset was rejected. 

[daniellei4510]

It appears to me that the candle's "flame" is not an actual flame. 

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

There is no flame. The candle does not burn. That is how it should be, as intended by the author.

[daniellei4510]

But there's no way of explaining that to the moderator. I'm not saying it is the reason for being rejected, or the reason at all, but it might have played a part. 

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

I have already mentioned the moderation problem above. It may well be that your assumption complements the content of the moderation problem.

[daniellei4510]

I guess I'm confused about the so-called "moderation problem." You mean that the moderators don't provide specifics as to why an image was rejected? Again, that is not their job. Moderators review ten of thousands of images per week. They probably have only seconds to make a decision before moving on to the next asset. People are already waiting 8 weeks or longer to finally have their images reviewed. If the moderators were to give details on every photo they reject, reviews would slow to an even more substantial crawl. 

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

danielei4510, you are great! You took and laid out the problem of moderation. I quote: "Moderators look at tens of thousands of images a week. They probably only have a few seconds to make a decision before moving on to the next resource."
I admit that many must have gotten used to this state of affairs. But, I am a newbie and for me this is not normal!
Thank you for your attention to the topic!

[Jill_C]

Speaking from the perspective as having been involved in this forum for many years, I can confidently say that it is very rare for a Contributor to upload a rejected image here for which we are unable to find the quality issue. Moderators need only a few moments to review an image because they are trained to quickly spot errors; and they only need to spot one before they press the "reject" button. Since you haven't uploaded any of your rejected images here in full size, we can't help you. Often, the image can be re-edited and resubmitted, and we've had many reports of here of Contributors who have had those re-edited images accepted.

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

Jill_C, you are probably absolutely right. But!
If you listen to Daniel's opinion...
Just imagine, picture it:
A lot of users send their photos in the best quality in their opinion to a resource that, from the point of view of the author of the photo, does not pay enough attention to these photos.
But the resource, mind you, has already received the photo... in better quality..!
All the best to you, Jill, good luck! Thank you for your attention!

[Jill_C]

As I said earlier, if you disagree that the Moderator has not fairly assessed your image, you can upload it here and get second opinions. 

I don't understand your comment that "the resource... has already received the photo in better quality". Are you saying that you submitted the image more than once?

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

Don't make things up, read it as it is. What's not clear there? Reread it! Everything as it is. Photos are sent and in good quality, but it takes up to 2 months to check them, and it's hard to say whether they were checked at all, because there are no comments on the quality of the photos! Thus, from all of the above, we can come to the conclusion that the resource is definitely interested in the photos themselves, but the resource may not be interested in the author's income at all. This state of affairs explains either too high or no quality of moderation of the resource. Yes, but how can a resource be interested in the author's photos without the author's income? ....

Etc. I've finished the discussion.

Of course, there are reasons to fantasize. 😄

[daniellei4510]

"I've finished the discussion."

And we appreciate it, since you have not said anything that we have not heard over a dozen times before from contributors (usually newbies) who don't understand why their "perfect" images taken with their "expensive cameras" were rejected, even after we've pointed out the errors. 

[Valery_Zmachynski1737]

Oh, you're still here? Great!
I think I explained the same thing point by point, so to speak, to everyone in the discussion.
You're great! Thanks for your attention!
And, I won't post photos on stocks anymore, it's better to print them myself.
Really, thank you very much for the conversation!

[daniellei4510]

You're welcome. And good luck!

[Jill_C]

I didn't make anything up. It's difficult to understand what your point is. If your images were rejected, they WERE checked by a Moderator. You will never receive any specific comments as to why your images were rejected; but that doesn't mean they weren't checked. Adobe refers you to this forum for additional feedback as to why your images were rejected, but you seems you've decided to reject our feedback. Good luck on your Adobe Stock journey should you decide to continue...

 

[daniellei4510]

It's perfectly normal. Welcome to Adobe Stock.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Valery_Zmachynski1737 ,

Adobe does have different groups delegated to do different things. The review moderators are responsible for accepting and refusing files. We assist you to identify the exact refusal reason when you post the file here in its originality as you did to Adobe and state what refusal reason you got from the reviewers in the caption. If you want to self-check, you need to zoom in on your file at 100% to check for all that is listed in this link.

There are other help that you can glean from on the Adobe platform such as the reasons contents are refused.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Nancy OShea]

To put this in context, you're competing with over 1 million high quality candle images in Adobe Stock's current inventory. 

Personally, I would look for something that has less representation.  But this is the commercial quality that Stock expects from contributors.

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

Also read your Stock Contributor User Guide for more tips.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html

Hope that helps.