Rejected 60% photo

[dimag79683688]

Rejected 50 photos out of 90. I shoot with flashes at ISO 100. No overexposure, focus is accurate. I am not a beginner at all and have a clear understanding of the nuances of photography. But to me, this is an unreasoned rejection of most of the photos. Can you explain to me what is wrong with them?

[ElkinsEye]

In the first one perhaps the texture on the brown wall was mistaken for noise. Perhaps if you smoothed that out it would be accepted. For the other 2 they look fine and I have no idea. It is almost like once a reviewer rejects an image it contaminates the whole lot. I just had 20 rejected that were of many different subjects taken with different cameras years apart. All are tack sharp and properly exposed. Frustrating!

[dimag79683688]

It's sad if the paper background is mistaken for noise. I guess the contributor needs to open his eyes and look more closely. In fact, it causes nothing but anger. Either this is amateurism or it is done on purpose, there is no other explanation.

[ElkinsEye]

Indeed, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to Adobe's rejections. Especially when the same images are accepted no problem on other stock platforms.

[dimag79683688]

This is what photos look like that were not accepted.

Adobe, do you think these are bad photos? And these are only a fraction of the unaccepted photos.

[Jill_C]

You are not addressing Adobe directly in this forum, and Adobe employees rarely visit this forum. There is no avenue for you to dispute the findings of the Moderators; however you can re-edit and resubmit any image if you believe that it meets Adobe's quality criteria. We cannot assess the quality of your images from this screen print.

[dimag79683688]

Can you please tell me how I can correct the photos if I don't know what the reason for the rejection is? Reduce the size of the photo?

I have attached some original photos to this post.

[Abambo]

Indeed, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to Adobe's rejections. Especially when the same images are accepted no problem on other stock platforms.

By @ElkinsEye

Maybe other platforms should have rejected your pictures too?

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

If you are a generative AI contributor, please look into these instructions and follow them by the letter: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors-discussions/generative-ai-submission-guidelines/td...

[Ricky336]

There are reasons for Adobes's rejections. It's just that people don't like their photos being rejected!

[Abambo]

 Either this is amateurism or it is done on purpose, there is no other explanation.

By @dimag79683688

All rejections are correct. The background is not mistaken for noise. You will need to check your exposure.

[Nancy OShea]

Don't blame reviewers.  Customers are numero uno (#1).

Accepted images mean nothing if nobody buys them.

[Ricky336]

The background isn't mistaken for noise.

[Abambo]

In the first one perhaps the texture on the brown wall was mistaken for noise. Perhaps if you smoothed that out it would be accepted. For the other 2 they look fine and I have no idea. It is almost like once a reviewer rejects an image it contaminates the whole lot. I just had 20 rejected that were of many different subjects taken with different cameras years apart. All are tack sharp and properly exposed. Frustrating!

By @ElkinsEye

Conspiracy theories… Sorry, but rejections are for cause.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

The cause is improper lighting (exposure).  Flash is very harsh and unflattering. 

Diffused light alone or with strategically placed spotlights offer more options & better control.

[Jill_C]

I like your images which are crisp, simple and nicely composed. I've been searching for flaws, and they're not very obvious. In the first image, I agree with @ElkinsEye that the mottled texture of the background could be confused for noise. I also don't think that the color of the background complements the subject, but that's an asthetic opinion that wouldn't necessarily be reason for a technical rejection. Applying just a bit of noise reduction in LRC reduces the effect. There's also a small spot on debris on the left side on the white tabletop. I suggested re-editing and resubmitting, and that's a very simple edit you could do to justify re-uploading the image. Note that if you resubmit the exact same image after it has already been rejected, Adobe can conclude that you're spamming the database and lock your account. 

The second image is a bit overexposed, by about 1/2 stop.

The third image is also a bit overexposed, by about 1/3rd stop. It's unfortunate that you cut off the wooden man's arm.

All of these could re-edited and re-submitted and would most likely be accepted in my opinion.

I would suggest uploading only a few at a time, wait for feedback, re-edit and re-submit if possible, then move on to the next small batch. A slow and steady approach has worked well for me and helped me to learn from my mistakes. Quite a few of my re-edited and resubmitted images have been accepted.

[dimag79683688]

Thank you for the parsing of the photo. Can you please tell me how to know if the photo is exposed?

[Jill_C]

As @Abambo has illustrated, the histogram is the most essential tool to evaluate exposure. If you're not familiar with how to read it, I'm sure you can find many tutorials online.

[Abambo]

The first one is missing blacks:

The second is also overexposed and is missing contrast.

And the last one too.

The two last pictures have also framing errors.

[dimag79683688]

Could you show me one of these pictures with the right exposure? When I put the same histogram, in my opinion such a photo becomes very dark

[dimag79683688]

My opinion, if one could so easily rely on a histogram, then there would be a "Make Right Exposure" button.

But there is no such button and the human eye is much more accurate. Also, if I make a histogram like yours, the photos become quite dark. It doesn't seem quite right to me to rely entirely on digital readings. Rather, it's not even professional.

Objectively, if I do the "right "histogram", the white will be gray, not white, and the photo will just be dim.

[Jill_C]

Here's what I do. I do all my editing in Lightroom Classic. I start by selecting Auto in the Basic Editing panel. Then I often reduce the highlights, lift the shadows and adjust the blacks and whites, while observing the histogram. Then I zoom way in to look for sensor spots and lens spots, stray bits of debris, etc. as well as noise while inspecting every part of the image. I apply noise reduction if necessary and perhaps sharpen a bit. 

Have you calibrated your displays? I use a Data Spyder Pro calibration device. The histogram doesn't lie. If you're relying entirely on what you see on your display you may not be seeing what other people see when they look at your images on their displays. The human eye is accurate to a certain extent, but monitors are not necessarily accurate unless they're professionally calibrated regularly.

[dimag79683688]

I work in Capture one. My monitor is not calibrated, but the manufacturer is Apple, which I trust. And I also sometimes check photos on my ipad.The point is that I don't work almost with color, so it's only about brightness. I increase both brightness and contrast to the point where there is no overblooming. Then I make the brightness a little lower.

I rely on two factors, no highlighting that Capture one shows, and my personal sense of the photo.

In fact, I'm kind of confused, because what I've been asked to do, bring the histogram to the average denominator, means making a gray and bland photo. And as I said before, white would not be white, but gray.

I might agree that in my two photos, the white objects are a little brighter than they need to be. But in fact, the areas without information are not there.

And if the contributor, when he checks the photo, looks like a robot only at the histogram, says that it is not professional and objective. Because you have to take into account both the subject and the background.

Suppose I shot a perfectly white wall. By contributer logic, the histogram should be exactly in the middle? I think not, it would be a dirty gray color, and that wall would not be white. So I'm going to make it really white, around 240-245 in brightness. And that wall will have texture, it won't be overexposed, and it will really be white, not gray.

[Jill_C]

I didn't say that I use the Histogram exclusively to edit my images. I also judge what they look like on a professionally calibrated high quality monitor to make the whites still look white and colors look realistic and that there is no clipping. The fact that you are adjusting the brightness on your monitor to make the images look good to you also indicates that you might be operating with non-standard settings. The ambient light in your office / work space is also important. You are making the image look perfect to you, and there is no assurance that is what the Adobe Moderators see when they look at your images. 

It is a frequent misconception that Apple monitors don't require calibration. Calibration features are actually built-in. Read more about it here, but do some research for your specific device:

https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/color-calibrating-your-macs-display/#:~:text=However%2C%20i....

[dimag79683688]

Thanks for the link.

I only take pictures with flashes.

I've been thinking a lot about this waiver on Adobe these days, and I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm not going to change my processing significantly. It's almost as if Adobe is trying to change my perception of the photo. So there will be a lot of rejections)

But if you look at the top photographers on instagram or on behans, almost all will have this histogram and the pictures are quite bright.

By the way, here are some of my photos

https://www.behance.net/gallery/142301417/Spring-advertising

[Abambo]

My monitor is not calibrated, but the manufacturer is Apple, which I trust. And I also sometimes check photos on my ipad.The point is that I don't work almost with color, so it's only about brightness. I increase both brightness and contrast to the point where there is no overblooming. Then I make the brightness a little lower.

By @dimag79683688

Calibration is needed to get a consistant workflow. And even if you have a calibrated monitor, colours may drift and it will need to be calibrated from time to time. What you are doing is in no way professional and will not fit into a consistant workflow. As long as you work in your corner for your own pleasure, it may get satisfactory results. But the result won't be consistent and on the buyer's monitor, the colours and the light scales won't be the same. 

Consumer displays are normally configured to produce a pleasant image on the screen for the viewer. Images are mostly oversaturated and very brilliant. They are rarely accurate.