Quality issues?

[Verbbaitum]

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]

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

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.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

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. 🙂

[Jill_C]

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.

[Verbbaitum]

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. 

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

That's great, but this image also has numerous technical issues which should have precluded Adobe from accepting it. You could have definitely improved it with some careful editing. It's a calculated decision on the part of the magazine to utilize the image anyway, because of the compelling editorial value, and they recognize that they'll have to do some edits before using it. Adobe doesn't have that luxury since their Buyers expect to be able to license edited, useable images.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

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. 

[Abambo]

(...) That one was accepted by Adobe if I rember correctly. 
By @Verbbaitum

You were lucky that the reviewer was not as stringent as they should have been. That picture is missing blacks and contrast, at least. Your magazine is free to accept whatever image you send in. And they are free to do the editing that is required. Adobe is free to accept the assets they accept.

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

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!