reason for rejection

[sibymanuel]

Will you please help me to understand reasons for rejeicting this image

[RALPH_L]

The shadow area of the tree and grass is underexposed. You should also consider using the Rule of Thirds and reduce the area of sky without details. Format 3:1 works well.

[sibymanuel]

thank you

[ZALEZPHOTO]

The image is beautifu, no doubt about that.

After taking a closer look I see several reasnos why it was rejected.

You enlarged the photo almost 76x43 at 72dpi, that's like putting a 60psi to a car tire. When you enlarge the photo to actual size in photoshop, you can see it inmediately. You have no metadata in the image, which to adobe is a red flag, not only bc of origin but bc it's a sign you went the wrong way editing the photo.

The photo is fine for web use, but you have to remember Adobe is selling for any usage, and unfortunately I am sure they wish the image did not have this issues.

As a rule of thumb, always shoot in raw, and if your going to enlarge the photo avoid going past 2x

Don't get discourage, the photo tells me you have a great eye!

Let me know if you need more tips.

Francisco 

[Abambo]

You enlarged the photo almost 76x43 at 72dpi, that's like putting a 60psi to a car tire. When you enlarge the photo to actual size in photoshop, you can see it inmediately.

By @ZALEZPHOTO

This is nonsense. The DPI (indeed, it is PPI: pixels per inch, there are no dots in a pixel image) value has absolutely no effect on a picture. You can set it to any value from 1 to 100,000 without changing a bit of the image. The only value that is important in pixel images is the resolution in pixels. That resolution is OK here.

You have no metadata in the image, which to adobe is a red flag, not only bc of origin but bc it's a sign you went the wrong way editing the photo.

By @ZALEZPHOTO

That too is nonsense. Adobe does not require you to include camera data, even though I find that camera data provides valuable information on the camera, lens, and settings when taking the picture. I will be able to counsel on that more easily with this additional information.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

You have your opinions and I have mine.

The bottom line is that the picture has been stretched too much, that is more than clear. The attached photos are screen shots at Photoshop "Actual Size"  the tree photo gets all pixelated from the over enlargement. 

Regarding image metadata, the point I made is about the worng manner the image was enlarged, and it's a  red flag in my book, and "probably also for any stock agency.  

All it's good Bambo, just keep the emotions at a minimum, you can try something without calling other opinions "nonesense", I'm sure we can agree we are here to help anyone asking for help, not to display our egos.

Have a great day!

[daniellei4510]

It's not Abambo's opinion, it's fact. I upscale from as little 1024ppi but still manage to obtain sharp assets at 7200ppi. If the image was ENLARGED, rather than upscaled using an AI app, then degradation is possible and may be the cause of the haloing.

[Abambo]

You have your opinions and I have mine.

By @ZALEZPHOTO

Sorry, but facts are not opinions. I worked for around 30 years in the graphics industry and did professional photography and I designed print media. I know about the value of the PPI parameter, and I can confirm that it is the most useless parameter in a digital picture (from a photographer's perspective). It only gives an indication of how a desktop publishing program should treat the picture when imported into the desktop publishing program (like InDesign):

Actual PPI is what is written as a parameter in this picture.

Effective PPI is what InDesign calculates for the current size of this picture in inches/cm.

Dimension is the size of the picture in pixels.

In print, only the effective PPI will be relevant, and only if it goes under a certain limit (for standard print anything above 240 is OK).

The same asset can be used in any size that does not go under this limit for this specific use. If I print gigantic posters, I can easily go under 70 PPI.

As for the missing metadata, as it is not required by Adobe, it is a non-issue.

[Abambo]

You know the refusal reason. Adobe did tell you. You should give us that reason (header only!). My guess is: Quality issues.

I wonder why you have this outline around the tree:

That is a quality issue.

You could (or should) indeed lift the shadows so that you get more structure