Reasons for quality issues photos

[Maks2Art]

Greetings! Dear experts, please, can you understand why 1 photo of these 2 was accepted and the second was not accepted. I really can not understand how it works on Adobe Stock. Thank you. What photo was declined can you guess?

[Abambo]

Artefacts as seen at 100%:

Also artefacts: 

None of them should have been accepted and if one is part of the database then the moderator did an error.

(BTW: This is not a guessing game. There are no points to be earned. If you want to get an analyzis, you will get one, but my time is precious.)

[Maks2Art]

You know, sir expert, show me your class quality of this sort of photography, you write every time the same about artefacts. Are you sure I won't find artefacts about your photos? Show your quality. I will increase scale like you and I find your artefacts. The true thing that Adobe Stock is in disfunction proccess now. And this is the mess is going now. You should not write your answers any more here due to your precious. And your answers are not useful as previous were the same.

[Abambo]

You are wrong. I'm looking at 100% at those pictures, and as I have explained multiple times, 100% is what counts. When I go to 200% or 300%, it may well be, that my screen is at a too high resolution and I would need to get my nose touching the screen. 

What you don't understand is, that a buyer may well do a wall print of your asset. that will be multiple times 100%. They will complain, because all they will see are artefacts. 

My pictures do not expose artefacts, and when they do, they are not that flagrant, because I check my assets the same, I check yours. And yes, I get "quality issue" refusals, when I oversee artefacts. That's more than OK.

[Maks2Art]

about wall print. I worked with wall papers printing, and many images were from stocks. Do you understand that that wall paper printing is a wide format printing and if you come close to the printed image for example 3,5 m x 1,5 m you can't see anything clear.  All that is important for wall print this is resolution, normal color correction, bit information of the file. That's why we can not print images from internet. What you are speaking about this is not about wide printing. Customers can complain of everything I know that. 98% of that were about I see one colors on my smartphone you printed me another colors. That's all.

[Maks2Art]

not correct example, usual format was about  7, 8 m x 4,5 m

[Abambo]

I understand wall printing and I know the relation of distance and print size. I designed many wall prints for my company. And I had often enough to cure bad pictures, because that was the only picture they had. I invested a lot of time in this. Buying from stock, I would return the asset. If pictures show artefacts, they will show in the print, except if the print is small. 

Your water picture would be awful for a wall print.

[Maks2Art]

you're just pressing with your authority only. as an expert. Would be awful you say. I told you about  my experience with customers for wall printing. And what people usually complain. You have negative line in your expert opinion. And here no solution for conrributors from you as an expert. Absulutely unuseful. You say I am an expert, I see artefacts, I would return. If you will be once about to search in Adobe Stock such kind of photos You discover how many items with artefacts. And I don't see your company, your production. Wishing well.

[Maks2Art]

Even cant understand why not to stroke the whole photo area and call that atrefact. Absolutely unuseful information, looks like trolling. In this way I am not going to ask here experts anymore.  That's it all. 

[Jill_C]

Adobe has provided this forum for you to obtain detailed feedback regarding your rejected images; you can argue with or disregard the input you receive here, but the fact remains that your images were appropriately rejected for quality issues. There is no avenue for you to dispute the findings of the Moderators. The first image has a lens spot in the sky; the second image lacks sharp focus on the tree which should have been the focal point and in sharp focus.

[Abambo]

Even cant understand why not to stroke the whole photo area and call that atrefact. Absolutely unuseful information, looks like trolling. In this way I am not going to ask here experts anymore.  That's it all. 

By @Maks2Art

If my analysys is not detailed enough, you are free to wait for a different opinion. And if you do not want advice, you can simply stop asking for advice. And if Adobe stock is too picky for you, you should change to something different. I wish you a nice day.

[Maks2Art]

and one more detail I forgot to say about wall printing, the company where I worked as a designer had two paid subscriptions for stocks, Adobe and one another , I don't call that here. So, all images were taken from that stock, as Adobe Stock gave much less iltems for wall printing. It was 2 years ago. And what people customers worried about , it was not artefacts. They watched patterns on thier smartphone, and colors were different. For home walls. They need colors, highlights, tones, they do not understand artefacts what is that. Where to look them.

[Jill_C]

Perhaps your points are valid regarding wall printing, about which I know nothing. However, I suppose that the number of sales Adobe earns from Buyers using the assets only for wall printing is a very small percentage of total sales. Thus, they must provide their buyers with images of suitable quality for ANY potential use. There is no filter for Buyers to select images only suitable for such an application.

[Maks2Art]

Production of photo wallpapers this is very fast growing area, giant interest of  images at homes. Abstract fluids, tropics etc... people desire. This is much another than usual seemless patterns for wallpapers.

[Roshnyc]

Tienes un problema con la nitidez de la fotos no tiene buena calidad procura tomar las fotos de paisajes a F/11

[Maks2Art]

gracias. This is some kind of advice, I ll try to find out If my camera has ability for that

[Jill_C]

F stops are a function of the lens, not the camera. If you're shooting with a DSLR you most certainly have a lens that can be stopped down to f11.

[Maks2Art]

Dear experts, on hearing your points of view, nobody asked what lens I use. How it can be? Lens! To camera is not cruical thing? I use usual kit lens for this camera. What kind of demanded quality maybe we talk witout this detail. I have no long distance expensive lens, what do you use for high quality production? Can you show me the real quality? In Adobe stock I can't find quality photo of this kind. Except Ai generated 

[Jill_C]

No one cares about the equipment you use; what's more important is how you use it. It's possible  to take bad pictures with a $10,000 camera, and it's possible to take  good pictures with an iPhone.

[Maks2Art]

Dear Jill, it's clear to everyone in this world about how we use it. Not sure about Iphone, as Iphone has a proccessor inside, we are not about skills to do photos on Iphone I think. I try to find out how! I don't look for moral speech. For example,  davidanlinares gave me some info, I am very grateful. This is what I look for. Dut you are the experts of this community giving answers here mostly speak morality without any information. This is emotional and not not nice to read. Thank you. Consider your expert work, please. 

[Maks2Art]

At last, I don't need to spend my time on this ecpert community forum if Adobe Stock would give clear answers about  decline reasons. Could you pass the tip, that it's useful to explore and obtain other Stocks experience. Adobe Stock main competitor experience like there. There is no need to spend time to any experts communities. This is really strange here, You don't know me, I don't know you all. I have my own issues about my work questions, why you experts with your quite another creative goals have to give assessments to me and some other guys like. I have no time and no reasons for that. Really strange and inappropriate for the certain things I do on Adobe Stock platform. Incorrect Adobe Stock policy that will lead to nowhere. Wishin well!

[Abambo]

At last, I don't need to spend my time on this ecpert community forum if Adobe Stock would give clear answers about  decline reasons. Could you pass the tip, that it's useful to explore and obtain other Stocks experience. Adobe Stock main competitor experience like there.

By @Maks2Art

My experience is that Adobe stock is the most profitable for me as a contributor: More sales in number and more royalty per sale. I have assets on Shutterstock that Adobe rightfully refused. However, Shutterstock refused to accept an asset of mine on IP violations that was completely nuts. And to the contrary of you, my arguments were correct.

This is really strange here, You don't know me, I don't know you all. I have my own issues about my work questions, why you experts with your quite another creative goals have to give assessments to me and some other guys like.

By @Maks2Art

Makes no sense. But that may be your problem. We do not have “creative goals” here in the fora. We look at pictures and give advice. You take it or you leave it. We are not Adobe, we are fellow creative contributors. We submit our own work, get our own refusals, and every so often we even ask the community for advice. It's so much enriching to get advice from others what is wrong with our asset, and what could be done better. But what you need to accept is that Adobe chooses the assets that it adds to its database, or removes from the database if needed.

Incorrect Adobe Stock policy that will lead to nowhere.

By @Maks2Art

I suppose that the highly successive Adobe marketing engine is not exactly lining up with your qualified advice.

[Nancy OShea]

Both images have uneven exposure. Neither one should be accepted.

That said, Tree in Water is a more visually interesting photo. Of the two, I think it has the most commercial value.  Correct the issues if you can and resubmit.  Or not, it's your choice.

[Maks2Art]

No, I think, thank you. I found some photos adobe recommends as a quality standart, they are fully corrected in LR or Ph, and first there is really powerful camera there used. I have no such an equipment. Gonna not to ask here questions more. As many other expert answers are mostly emotional and out of business. Thak you for your  exploring.