Quality issues

[CaptGizmo]

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]

[Abambo]

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.

[CaptGizmo]

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]

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).    

[George_F]

@EzyRider_II I haven't seen any change in the frequency of posting in this community between now and when I first started contributing a few years ago.  In fact, I think there were more posts with rejections at the height of the pandemic.  I haven't seen any evidence of less or more rejections, this is just business as usual from my perspective.

Even without AI, it makes sense that bar for quality would be pushed progressively higher as camera technology gets better and processing software gets easier to use and more efficient.  There are accepted photos in my own portfolio that I don't think would be accepted currently.

I think it's important for every contributor to weigh the pros and cons of submitting to stock.  I think some people will decide that submitting to stock isn't for them, but for many of us the pros greatly outweigh the cons.

It's hard sometimes, but I always try to view my rejections with a curious mindset.  With a second look, I can usually find the errors and learn something from them.  I hope you are able to do the same.

I do all of my keywording in Lightroom before exporting, and all of the stock sites I submit to recognize them and automatically import them.  Same thing with titles and descriptions, although at times the boxes don't line up so I usually end copying and pasting the descriptions.  Hope that helps!

[EzyRider_II]

Thank you George for your response and positive feedback. However I will
counter it on a few points when I have a bit more time. And I assume both
of us have some truth in our approaches. But in brief I am not against
rejections. And I can take quite an amount without a problem while it's
"healthy". Only when it's extremely unreasonable...
To be cont'd.

[George_F]

@EzyRider_II We should leave this thread for the O.P.  Feel free to start a new thread and tag me, or send me a pm.

[EzyRider_II]

Sure. You are right George.

[Abambo]

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.

By EzyRider_II

There are similar posts for the last 10 years, well since Adobe installed this community. Until now, everyone who said that they were experienced contributors, and then they published their pictures, we saw multiple issues with those pictures. Adobe says that reviews are done by humans. Why would an AI just refuse your good pictures. I've never understood the logic behind having an AI for your specific refusals. Either there is AI behind all refusals, measuring noise and artifacts, and exposure and out of focus etc, and refusals are consistant and correct, or they are done by humans and humans err. 

Your arguments are illogical.

[Nancy OShea]

As a Stock customer myself, I won't buy blurry images.  I can add blur filters myself if the project requires it. I won't buy anything that needs corrections. That's not my job; that's the contributors job.   When I see two similar assets that fit my needs for a print project but one has noticeable issues, I'll always opt for the competing asset instead. 

Remember, Stock is a business and it's fiercely competitive.  With over 300 million assets in inventory, Stock isn't exactly begging for submissions. They receive thousands of them each week.  They can well-afford to be choosy about what they accept.  Customers are #1.  Contributors are #2.

Best advise to new Stock Contributors, compare your work with available inventory before you submit.  It's essential to ascertain if the subject is over-represented in which case, don't submit.  If your work isn't as good or better than what Stock has, don't submit.  That will cut down on your rejection rate. 

Hope that helps. Good luck with your next submission.  🙂

[Abambo]

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

By CaptGizmo

What size limits?

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

By CaptGizmo

You did not include the EXIF data, so it was not clear. 

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.

By CaptGizmo

Well, did you also wanted those artefacts that you see, and where the arrows point. You should read what I wrote, not what you think that I wrote. I have no problem with correctly blurred backgrounds. 

And no, if you use the DOF correctly, it won't be rejected. It has nothing to do with "funny"! And whatever you do, because you want expressively to do that, if the asset does not follow the required quality standards, it will be refused. 

Reality is, that Adobe stock gives more revenue than other stock providers. You do as you want. 

[Jaume28175635bywv]

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]

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

[George_F]

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.

[Jill_C]

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 

[Nancy OShea]

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

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

[RALPH_L]

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]

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]

@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.

[EzyRider_II]

OK, on a second look on a big screen I admit that the river photo is
leaning to the right. Partly due to the wide angle used and distortion. The
pine trees are tilting quite a bit on the right side.
Sure. I will start a new thread and return this one to the OP. And sorry
about the "hijack".
I will message you with the new subject and link. Today though I got 3
accepted out of 4. So I am a bit more "understanding" now.