"Technical problems" ?

[default0p3l14n2gsjd]

Hello, I am currently getting more and more photos rejected because of alleged technical problems. After contacting support, they wrote me that the Adobe employee can't identify any technical problems with my images and therefore wants to consult with the selection team. The result is that today again more images were rejected because of alleged technical problems (images with a 47 M Pix professional camera).
I lack any understanding for this approach by Adobe.

[Stas5E2B]

Upload some photos. There is no subject of conversation.

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe's task is to choose world class commercial photographs and reject everything else as quickly as possible. Time is money. The reviewer can only tick one box. There is no chance of discussion or appeal. You are not a customer, you are (in this mode) a SUPPLIER and the treatment of suppliers in many industries is tough. 

But if you share 1-2 ORIGINAL images the experienced members here can offer their opinion and advice. 

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @default0p3l14n2gsjd ,

We are volunteers assisting on the forums. We do not have access to your account to view your files. Please upload to this thread copies of three of your rejected files so that we can take a look at them. 

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

[default0p3l14n2gsjd]

Hello,

i think it is not necessary to show images here and have them judged by users of the forum, because the answer from Adobe support to my request was: "...I did not notice any technical deficiencies in the images in question. "
This is exactly the problem I want to point out. It is rejected, even though support does not notice any technical problem.
I am not looking for advice here on what I can do better, but for an explanation as to why alleged technical problems are seen by the selectors that other Adobe employees cannot recognise when examining the images.

Best Regards

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[default0p3l14n2gsjd]

I think it is not necessary to show images here and have them judged by users of the forum, because the answer from Adobe support to my request was: "...I did not notice any technical deficiencies in the images in question. "

This is exactly the problem I want to point out. It is rejected, even though support does not notice any technical problem.

I am not looking for advice here on what I can do better, but for an explanation as to why alleged technical problems are seen by the selectors that other Adobe employees cannot recognise when examining the images.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[Test Screen Name]

It's surprising that Adobe support devoted time to your question at all, I never heard of them doing this before.

I suggest you DO share some pictures, if you would like views on this. Or do we just have to take your word that your pictures are flawless, and speculate why Adobe reject them in a way that soothes you?

[default0p3l14n2gsjd]

I would like to add that I currently offer 15,000 photos in Adobe and have had an extremely low rejection rate for years. Suddenly, however, it goes up significantly and this despite the consistent quality of the photos with professional equipment (47 M-Pix cameras) and editing in Photoshop. I am a professional photographer and think I know what I am doing, but I cannot explain the sudden increase in the rejection rate by referring to alleged technical deficiencies. If Adobe were to tell me that my motifs were not needed, would not sell (they sell well in other agencies), I could understand that, but the exclusive reference to alleged technical problems makes no sense to me.
Ich möchte Adobe empfehlen, die Ablehnungsgründe deutlich mehr zu spezifizieren statt die derzeit gebräuchlichen pauschalen und nicht zutreffenden Gründe anzugeben. Dies ist keine grundsätzliche Kritik an Adobe, ich schätze Adobe sehr, sehe Adobe als einen der wirklich seriösen Anbieter und habe ansonsten keinerlei Probleme, in der Kommunikation mit den Contributoren aber hakt es.
I would like to recommend Adobe to specify the reasons for rejection much more instead of giving the currently common blanket and inapplicable reasons. This is not a fundamental criticism of Adobe, I appreciate Adobe very much, see Adobe as one of the really serious providers and otherwise have no problems, but in the communication with the contributors there is a hitch.

[default0p3l14n2gsjd]

With my post I wanted to draw attention to a perhaps fundamental problem, but was not really hoping for a solution in this particular case.
I would therefore like to thank all those who have taken note of my problem - which is perhaps also a problem of many other Adobe contributors - and have replied.
Thank you very much and have a good time and hopefully continued success with Adobe!

[jacquelingphoto2017]

I also have very high regards for Adobe, but I am afraid I have to agree. There was once the rejection reasons were more specific. Now it's one rejection covers all except for releases and perhaps not wanting the image at all. With regards the rejections, I'll just say I get the feeling that reviews have become more stringent. You're not the only one with increased rejections and unable to identify the reason for it despite having experience in identifying photographic flaws. 

I'll assume you have learnt to identify all the flaws on you images. These you have been doing over the years and on multiple images. The sad thing as I was told once when they could not find a valid reason for the rejection of a photo I uploaded "Their Is No Appeal System In Place At Adobe", and if you re-upload a rejected image you run the risk of getting your account suspended. 

Regards

JG

[Abambo]

the photos with professional equipment (47 M-Pix cameras) and editing in Photoshop. I am a professional photographer and think I know what I am doing, but I cannot explain the sudden increase in the rejection rate by referring to alleged technical deficiencies. If Adobe were to tell me that my motifs were not needed, would not sell (they sell well in other agencies), I could understand that, but the exclusive reference to alleged technical problems makes no sense to me.

By @default0p3l14n2gsjd

A professional camera is not a guaranty for having pictures accepted, neither is Photoshop. There is no fundamental problem in Adobe's communication with contributors. We contributors are a side factor for stock. The main focus is on the paying customers.

As you know that your pictures have no technical issues, and as you do not want advice, why the pictures are or may be rejected, there is no point to continue this discussion.

[RALPH_L]

Several of us here in this board have been designated as Adobe Professionals. If you would upload one or two photos we can determine if the rejected was warranted. In most cases, there are flaws in the image which result in rejection. 

[default0p3l14n2gsjd]

Hello Ralph,
thank you very much for the offer of help! As I already said, I received a personal message from a named support employee in response to my enquiry at Adobe, who confirmed that he had not seen any indication of technical defects when reviewing the images I had complained about (yes, an intensively detailed reply with reference to individual images, not standard phrases).
It was precisely this personal answer that prompted me to ask here whether these inaccurate reasons for rejection are an isolated case or have recently become the rule. That's all I wanted, an assessment of my pictures by forum members is not necessary (thank you for the offer!), if a support staff member involved already does not recognise any defects in the pictures and informs me of this in a nice binding e-mail.