I've been testing Adobe stock with 4K footage trying to understand the rejection process and I can tell it's by complete descression of the team in India. I've been uploading for over a year and the files only get looked at once a week around 4am CST.
to further, I've specifically been using shots that need no tweaking... in multiple instances, I would do some re-framing in post (zooming in my 4K) and shockingly if I zoom (lowering the resolution) the footage was approved, but the origional wider angle at true resolution was rejected.
this has happened multiple times, things like masking out the old sky for one with a orange sunset, yup... pure origional rejected, edited version with fake sky accepted.
it's purely of the descression of the non artist reviewing the work. They are not checking quality of the file, if they were... all the "post production zoomed" shots should be rejected for not being true resolution but they pass inspection.
since Adobe refuses to hire actual artists and techs to review footage, I'm going to move onto a few other stock sites. The a mount of work (over a year) submitting to only wind up with some 30 stock video shots approved is an absolute joke.
Just do what I'm doing and move on to a stock site that actually checks your work with and artist and technician eye. Adobe just isn't doing this well at all.
1. You're making wild assumption that aren't true. Some friendly advice, you should never leap to conclusions in a public web forum without verifiable facts to support them.
2. I see from your profile that you have NEVER asked for any feedback from this Stock Contributor community with the screen name @geekrawker. But now without benefit of any community feedback, you're damning the entire review process.
3. Stock image houses are NOT equal. 😉 Some have next to zero standards and will accept almost anything that's put before them -- quantity over quality -- while others have much higher standards and also higher rejection rates. Experienced stock contributors know that what works for one house won't always be a good fit for all. It comes with the territory.
4. Adobe Stock reviewers are as diverse as the contributors who submit artwork, from all different regions, time zones, cultures and disciplines. Just because the criteria for acceptance doesn't align with your personal views is no reason to bash the reviewers. My god, they're just doing their job. You can't fault them for that.
5. Is it disappointing to have work rejected? Sure it is. But that doesn't mean the reviewers are less knowledgeable or less experienced about art than you are. In fact, I'm certain they know a good deal more about what Adobe Stock customers want than you do because that's their business.
6. As to your other claims, nobody here can comment because you haven't shown us any examples of what you're talking about.
Goodbye and best of luck in your future endeavors.
You could simply check my profile for the stock link, but hey you know best! Nice job running people off Nancy.
You could simply check my profile for the stock link... Nice job running people off Nancy.
Nobody here has access to your contributor portal to see what was rejected. Only you have access to that information. Unless you see a red STAFF BADGE beside the user's screen name, nobody here works for Adobe.
Nice try but you had already committed to leaving Stock BEFORE you arrived here today. It would be futile to waste time & energy on someone who doesn't wish to be helped, right?
[Branched & merged with other topic by moderator.]
Highest professional standard makes no sense. They accept shots where I've zoomed in and lowered the 4K res in post for reframing, but reject the original full frame version. The review team is not artists nor professional technicians. The are simply picking what they like and don't like.
ive been uploading over a year and multiple times Adobe will accept the lower quality version cause I inserted a fake sunset sky, or zoomed and rotated the image by 1 degree... but posting the origional will get rejected. Adobe needs to hire some real technicians from our industry.
they are using subjective descression, not technical descression.