Rejected file, topic?

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Curious why this image was not accepted, property release was provided. Any comments to this are appreciated for constructive feedback. I usually send files at 72 ppi, this image is focus is good for the subject. The image is 55.556" x 31.278. I will attach a small low rez file for subject review.

Report · Nov 05, 2021

What reason was given for the rejection? Technical issue, copyright,... ?

It seems to have color noise/artefacts, so that might be the cause, if rejected for technical issues. But hard to say, as this is just a low res and not the one (maybe without that noise) that you submitted.

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

Photo-editing (Ps/Lr/LrC) and photography workshops & one-on-one training (off- and online)

Report · Nov 05, 2021

thanks Michael, there is no specific reason in the second submission. At first the file was returned due to no release, I then resubmitted with the release. This is of course my photography and also my property which I released for use in stock. I will try to attach a segment of the original high rez file.

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Hi Alecia,

Seeing this segment at 100%, it seems that the center is a little blurry, and additionally the highlight looks blown out.

Not sure this is the reason, though... just my opinion 😉

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

Photo-editing (Ps/Lr/LrC) and photography workshops & one-on-one training (off- and online)

Report · Nov 05, 2021

thanks for your opinion, 🙂 the photo is soft but not blurry and the subject works with more contrast. At regular size viewing that really shouldn't be an issue. Can you tell I'm a pro Art Director, Senior Designer? 🙂

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Hi @Alecia Jensen ,

If you really want help then we need to see the high resolution of the entire file, not segment.

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Hi JG, I am asking for constructive feedback. The segment will have to do. I won't upload the original ( even with a placed watermark ) because the forum is open to download and therefore distribute without license.

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Hi @Alecia Jensen,

Feedback cannot be completely constructive if part of your file is cut off or we do not have full resolution. If you cut off sections with flaws that is not elsewhere it will not help you. If reducing the resolution introduces artifacts that's not in the original that will not help you except you wish to know if that's a possibility. If you are afraid of your files getting download and used, then probably you should go through all the rejection reasons on the website including Tips for getting your photos accepted, Do's and Don'ts and Common reasons for rejection, do some research and try to do your own analysis. I did that. This forum helps a lot if you research within it or participate. To make sure you leave nothing out, here is also a list of general requirements. All you need to do is zoom in at between 100 and 200% and inspect your files carefully. From my experience with that method sometimes you overlook minute issues that experienced eyes can see.

I don't know about anyone else. I avoid downloading other peoples files to my computer. I believe Adobe apps have tracking files to track things contrary to their policy. I learn to use the web browser and with the introduction of the web image viewer as in your case I'm happy to use to analyse images. But know this, we cannot critique what we cannot see. We have to be able to see what is on all your image.

For the most part I learn on my own. I upload a set of images to this forum once, to individual staff members (before they stopped participating on the forum) a few times. All carry the same risk. I needed help, I took limited risk and learn fast.

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

Report · Nov 05, 2021

thanks Michael, there is no specific reason in the second submission. At first the file was returned due to no release, I then resubmitted with the release. This is of course my photography and also my property which I released for use in stock. I will try to attach a segment of the original high rez file.

By @Alecia Jensen

Hi @Alecia Jensen,

There is always a reason. In addition, as you want to avoid posting a reasonable sized picture, there is nothing, we can do. I agree, however, with @MNiessenPhoto : the centre is out of focus.

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

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Report · Nov 05, 2021

The photo is not sharp and there is a halo.,

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Hi Ralph, thanks for the zoom. Again, at regular scale the focus shouldn't be an issue. There is a gradation without banding. I don't see the halo, could you expound upon what you see? A variance of color?

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Alecia,

As I've mentioned earlier, it does look out of focus at 100% (at least the center). We never know for what purpose clients buy our images, but it should be assumed that "regular scale" is 100%, and that it should look sharp then, not only when used, say, on a website at a smaller size. Adobe's curators make decisions based on that because customers expect images that look good when they get the full-res file, not only the small version they see before they make the purchase.

That in itself would be reason enough to reject it, I think, but there are also the issues of the blown out highlights and, as Ralph mentioned, the halo, which I hadn't specifically noticed at first but which is clearly there (even at 100%, no need to zoom more to see it).

Maybe you should retake that photo if you can, trying to avoid those issues, and then resubmit.

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

Photo-editing (Ps/Lr/LrC) and photography workshops & one-on-one training (off- and online)

Report · Nov 10, 2021

Ralph, thanks for you time, to my knowledge these were somewhat non issues. It's easy enough to sharpen soft areas, the color variance also and sometimes contrast is appropriate for the given image. I did apply a few modifications to the original and one completly altered with merging another image. I think for now the issue will be with proper key words and may still be a trade dress issue.

Report · Nov 10, 2021

Michael too. 🙂

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Hi @Alecia Jensen ,

This looks like a logo and seem not to be the original that you upload to stock. We have to see what you submitted to stock so that we can be of productive assistance to you.

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

Report · Nov 05, 2021

Hi JG, I am asking for constructive feedback. The segment will have to do. I won't upload the original in it's entirety ( even with a placed watermark ) because the forum is open to download and therefore distribute without license.

Report · Nov 05, 2021

We can't possibly provide constructive feedback without seeing the full size image, sorry.

Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in commercial projects.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User, Community Expert & Moderator

Report · Nov 08, 2021

Hello,

A different take. 1st what reason were you given the 2nd time - technical issues?

In my view, I think you could add more contrast - just a bit, alter the white balance - just a bit - make the white background more white! Another thing, there does appear to be a slight shadow from the 'wings' on the paper. This could be an issue. And what about the text - thank you. Perhaps that is also an issue. Perhaps it is better to leave it out, and the buyer can add their own text. Food for thought!



Report · Nov 10, 2021

Thanks Ricky, I did apply a few modifications to the original and one completly altered with merging another image. I think for now the issue will be with proper key words and may still be a trade dress issue.

Report · Nov 10, 2021

I want to thank everyone for your participation. I have now uploaded several different adaptations of the file and had different responses for either technical or intellectual rights. Like JG, I had to determine the specific issues by changing key words, titles and property release forms.

I also want to say as a new poster in the forum, asking for constructive feedback on the image, what I found moreso was personal questioning. As an Art Director and Designer, we are your customers, now along with direct business buyers. I happen to have an interest in photography and segwayed into the sector over 10 years ago as well as social and media management. I also have over 30 years experience as an AD / Designer.

In the 80s we mostly hired Photographers and Illustrators. With budget concerns in the 90s buying stock was only available from the major outlets before Abobe got into the market AND I am glad they did! If you want to know more of my experience you can see my portfolio at aleciajensen.com

Cheers!

Report · Nov 10, 2021

also an adaptation of a graphic approach of the original image is currently seen in the retouching section - slide 7 at my photography site neovibe.us/editorial