"Technical Issues" - Need fresh eyes...

[Michael J McDonald]

Attached are a couple of my most recent "technical issues" rejections. (There were many in this batch.) I'm at a loss as to what the problem is. Some accepted look almost exactly the same. Maybe a fresh set of eyes can spot something. Does anyone have a checklist they use before you submit? Any suggestions are appreciated.

[@MNiessenPhoto]

It seems you've uploaded a low-res of the images, so difficult to check them out in detail...

That said, I think they both lack contrast and the lighting (half in the sun, half in the shadow) might be an issue as well. It definitely doesn't do it for me personally, but not sure if that could be considered a "technical issue" from a reviewer's perspective.

Highlights also look blown out. If you have shot RAW, you might be able to get some details back in those areas, but it really depends on how you exposed the shot.

Composition-wise, there should be some space around the saddle. You should avoid cropping too close to your main subject.

"Does anyone have a checklist they use before you submit?"

Following these recommendations should be a good starting point:

Tips for getting your stock photos accepted | Adobe Learn & Support tutorials

Hope that helps,

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

[Michael J McDonald]

Thanks for your quick reply. I do shoot in RAW, but submitted my samples in jpeg to make sure they weren't too big for posting. Thanks, again, for your input.

[Test Screen Name]

You do need to share the exact unmodified files you sent to Adobe, to get the best advice. We can't do even half the job with what you shared. ... As you may know, moderators will examine at 100% - 200% to ensure it is technically perfect. If you reduce the image, edit it, watermark it or even resave without editing, you may introduce or mask some faults.

[@MNiessenPhoto]

You're welcome!

You cannot inlcude RAWs in a post anyway, but if you post the full-res JPG, it would certainly be easier to give our opinion regarding smaller details such as noise and other artifacts, or focus/blurriness.

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

[Michael J McDonald]

I drop them straight from LrC to Adobe Stock as RAW. Adobe Stock converts them to jpeg at whatever resolution they determine. I believe that's 300 dpi. And, I've reposted the photo below at a resolution of 500. Hope that gives you a better look.

[Abambo]

I drop them straight from LrC to Adobe Stock as RAW. Adobe Stock converts them to jpeg at whatever resolution they determine. I believe that's 300 dpi. And, I've reposted the photo below at a resolution of 500. Hope that gives you a better look.

By @Michael J McDonald

Those with LrC probably drop them via LrC to stock, except if you do submissions to multiple stock providers. Forget about the dpi value. It's irrelevant for our needs and can mostly be ignored, except if you want to see if an image can be printed at a given size in inches/cm at a required quality. Photographers need pixel resolution.

1200x800 is by far not enough to see the image defects! 🙂

Your 90D has a max resolution of 6960 x 4640, so the picture you post here should have that resolution minus the eventually applied crop.

[Michael J McDonald]

When I try to resize this image I get an error message that it exceeds the max of 10024K. What dimensions should it be set at in order to be under the max? It has not been cropped so it far exceeds this limit.

[@MNiessenPhoto]

You can export them directly from LrC, leaving Resize ot fit unchecked and the default 72 ppi is fine. As @Abambo hinted, the ppi/dpi is irrelevant except for printing. What matters for stock (and here to see it in detail) is the total size in pixels.

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

[Michael J McDonald]

[Michael J McDonald]

I think I figured it out. The latest photo posted is according to those specs you gave me. I appreciate all your help with this. 

[@MNiessenPhoto · Accepted solution]

Yes, the picture is now visible in high res.

Besides what I had mentioned previously, the picture is not sharp. There is motion blur, particularly noticeable here:

Hope that helps,

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

[Michael J McDonald]

Thanks. That does help. Next week, I'll be switching to mirrorless with the R6. Another learning curve.

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

If you ask me, I would check the white balance! The car shot is just a little too yellow. The white paint on the car isn't white, but has a slight yellow cast. Perhaps this is an issue. 

Yellow cast:

Corrected:

Your shutter speed is rather slow as well - 1/40 sec. Did you hand hold these?

[Michael J McDonald]

I need to do better with white balance.  And, I should have adjusted the shutter speed. (I was in AV.) It was hand held. Didn't realize it was that low. No excuse, but I was shooting street photography by myself and not in a nice part of town. Wanted to get the shot and keep moving before I attracted attention so I didn't check my settings. I need to back there with a friend.