Hello, I submitted this photos of poinsettias a few months ago and it was rejected because it claimed I had similar images already submitted. I submitted the poinsettias with some other flower photos, but none of them were poinsettias. I retitled the file and made sure the keywords were appropriate for the type of flower and resubmitted it. It has again been rejected, but this time as a "non-compliant" image. I've read the description of what that should mean, but my image doesn't fall into any of the described reasons for non-compliance. I don't have similar images submitted, it has appropriate keywords, a model release is not required... Any ideas?
Non-compliant usually means it doesn't meet the submission requirements.
Well, this image meets all those requirements...
I may be wrong, but it also "non compliant" if the same image is resubmitted unmodified without resolving a problem?
Adobe's reviewers are not botanists, and one red plant may look much like another to them.
The image was resubmitted with a clarified title and improved keywords. The keywords and description make clear what it is. I don't expect the photo reviewers to be botanists or architects or doctors or to have any particular subject matter expertise. That's what the file info data is for, right? I do expect that if a buyer wants a photo of a poinsettia for a Christmas card, they can find one without having to wade through photos of tulips.
Adobe Stock contains 100 pages of poinsettia images.
That said, I suspect the reviewer may have simply checked the wrong box. It looks like this should have been rejected for Technical reasons do to focus issues rather than non-compliance.
Fair enough, regarding the number of poinsettia images. If that is the issue, shouldn't it have been rejected for "aesthetic or commercial appeal"?
Regarding the focus issues, yes, there is a selective depth of field at play here. You have purposely seleted the non-focussed corner for your illustration.
I'm just trying to find answers and understand what works and what doesn't, but I'm starting to get the feeling that there really aren't any answers as no one can read the mind of the particular reviewer who decided this was "non-compliant". It's been judged and that's that.