rejected for "we found that it contains one or more technical issues"

[Chris22947351m009]

If they have the time to reject an image why can't they add 3 or 4 words to explain what it was rejected for?

I mean if they are that strict and selective the time it takes to provide "some" sort of explanation should not be that big a deal?? I can understand the rocket ones. very niche target audience but what in the world is wrong with the cat ones? especially the peeking one. tak sharp excellent composition with room to play (adding copy etc..) and great balance of color etc..

It says "technical" issue ?? what does that even mean? yes I read the link. its useless sadly.

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

I'm sorry but all of the photos are not sharply focused. Some are noisy and some have exposure problems.

[Chris22947351m009]

The rockets? yep. that is close to the limit of what normal tech can capture (plus not the greatest light that day) and yeah not adobe's problem. like I said VERY nich target audience. those were shot with a 70-200mkII with a mkIII Doubler. not ideal. but rockets are hard. 🙂

The sleepy cat is soft but that is what makes it good. again I get it. not what they want.

but the cat in the tree? its about as perfect as a picture gets. exposure focus color balance all spot on. no lost shadows no blown out highlights. it does not get much better than that. I mean sh]t you can see reflection in his eye! and count the hairs in his ear.

They accept 4mp images so I don't want to hear complaints about that aspect. hehe. that was shot with a 7D and 70-200 2.8 mkii

I suspect in general my kind of photography is just not compatible with this service. not a cut not a praise it just is what it is. I get that. but that cat eye one. is pretty damned close to perfect.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

I don't think you understand what Stock Photography means.  If you did, you wouldn't ask these questions. Compare your work with other Stock inventory.  Is yours better than what's already represented?

Adobe Stock Rocket Launches

Adobe Stock Cat Photos

Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in commercial projects.  The keyword being commercial  as in print & digital ads, brochures, posters, billboards, videos, movies, product packaging and merchandise.

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html

Adobe Stock receives thousands of submissions per week.  Reviewers don't have time to give personal feedback to every contributor.  That's not their job.  Their job is to evaluate assets quickly so you don't have to wait 4-6 weeks for a decision. 

Keep working at it.  Better luck with your next submission.

[PepeCastro]

We agree that the rockets are out of focus, we are not going to assess them technically, Let's go for the cats, if you look at the first one you have focus on the eye and the area around it, but it lacks focus on the back and the front leg , something that can be solved by taking several photos by changing different diaphragms depending on what lens you use and what lighting you put on it, you can have a longer or shorter depth of field and choose the best of the group, I think you have taken the close-up shot with a lens with a focal length between 28 and 50 and surely a diaphragm of 8 to 11, with which you got very close to the model and shortened the depth of field, the same thing happens with the other cat. It is true that this out of focus aspect around it gives the sensation of soft sweetness that you like in the photo, but you must bear in mind that a stock photo has to be sold to a wide audience and whoever buys the image will manipulate it to their liking.

[Nancy OShea]

As much as I like cats personally,  Stock already contains over 2 million perfect cat photos.  The pet category is fiercely competitive and less likely to generate many sales.  

I'd rather see @Chris22947351m009 focus on other subjects and experiment with various camera angles and settings to get the best pictures possible.  Being successful at Stock Photography takes lots of practice, patience & commitment.

[PepeCastro]

That is absolutely true, perhaps it is easier to sell a photo of this type in any art page than in Adobe. but if they lowered the bar a little they would not do anything wrong there would be less frustrated people in this world 😉

[Nancy OShea]

if they lowered the bar a little they would not do anything wrong there would be less frustrated people in this world 😉

By @PepeCastro

============

Lowering the bar is no solution for Stock customers.

If Photography was easy, nobody would need photographers or Stock images. 

[Chris22947351m009]

we do not agree the rockets are out of focus (they are not) they are soft though nature of shooting through a doubler through that much atmo. the only way to get sharper is to get closer and that's not allowed when near things that can go boom 🙂 hehe but hey I tossed them up there just for shiggles. they don't want them that's fine no big deal they are no where near my best just the last launch I went to and readily available on my card.

I understand what you are saying regarding the DOF in the cat photo. I don't shoot fake shots. dof is not infinite. you don't get infinite dof. you use dof to point out the "focus" of the shot (his face) the rest is irrelevant so long as it does not harm or distract. the front leg is also in focus you can even see the point of the claw.

if that is not what they want they SAY IT. don't say "technical issues"

if all the photos on the sight had unlimited dof I would agree with you. they do not. many have much shallower dof than my shot. and that is not the reason they gave for rejection. they said technical issues.

I agree on the softness of the other photo I actuall have a sharper version of that. I don't like it. does nothing. the softness is what "makes" that shot. again I don't mind them saying nope we want sharp. they did not say that. they said "technical issues"

My issue is NOT the lack of acceptance of the pictures. if its not what they want FINE its not what they want. but I AM NOT CAPABLE OF GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANT IF EVERY REJECTION IS GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY USELESS "technical reasons"

I mean come on that worse than useless. its meaningless in the extreme.

[Nancy OShea]

If you don't know what "technical issues" means, we can't force feed it to you except to say it requires a good undestanding of basic photographic technique. 

[Chris22947351m009]

well so you went from pretending to be helpful [profanity removed by moderator]. nice. and clearly never READ the "technical issues" link either. (pro tip its largely useless)

[Abambo]

I understand what you are saying regarding the DOF in the cat photo. I don't shoot fake shots. dof is not infinite. you don't get infinite dof. you use dof to point out the "focus" of the shot (his face) the rest is irrelevant so long as it does not harm or distract. the front leg is also in focus you can even see the point of the claw.

if that is not what they want they SAY IT. don't say "technical issues"

By @Chris22947351m009

DOF or focussing in general is part of the technical issues. This is precisely what Adobe says under “Quality and technical issues”:

I suggest you read the links that you got presented multiple times here.

My issue is NOT the lack of acceptance of the pictures. if its not what they want FINE its not what they want. but I AM NOT CAPABLE OF GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANT IF EVERY REJECTION IS GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY USELESS "technical reasons"

I mean come on that worse than useless. its meaningless in the extreme.

By @Chris22947351m009

If it's not what Adobe wants, the refusal reason is “Lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal”.

We are giving advice according to our experience with our own refusals. Yes, sometimes it's difficult to see where the error is, in your case, it just takes objective examination of the assets. If you would accept the collective consensus here and read about what Adobe understands as “technical issues” you could enhance your photographic skills by trying to meet the quality targets.

As a side note: If it's technically impossible to get better pictures (quote “they are soft though nature of shooting through a doubler through that much atmo”), don't submit them. The buyer wouldn't understand, why the picture is unusable, he or she would blame Adobe for selling low-quality assets.

[PepeCastro]

Nancy partly Chris is right, even in the images that you suggest she see as an example there are out of focus photos, for example this one also has the focus on the eye area and leaves the rest of the animal out of focus, it is a very similar artistic resource

[Chris22947351m009]

EXACTLY don't lower the bar. I get it they want high q stuff. but I need to know WHERE those borders are.

I don't even consider that cat photo to be very good. Focus is good DOF is good. nice and tight on the face and paws the rest creams out a little as it should

Dynamic range suffers a lot the brights are blown no recovering anything and the darks are a wee too dark while not a big deal they are dark in a critical part. his eyes. those are critical and the basckgroud is cluttered the table/sofa is very distracting and takes away from the image but at least its outside the dof so its creamed away decently enough but its still harsh.

its a nice shot. I would be quite happy to have taken it but I would not consider it "high bar" yet there it is approved.

I am not sulky. I want to know "WHY" I can not adjust my shooting if I don't know why.

[Chris22947351m009]

sadly I don't think you read what I said. I did not ask questions I made statements. Expressed undestanding over certain things.

I don't want them to lower any bar just tell me where the stinking bar "IS"

if the reason for rejection is "too many cats already" then TELL ME too many cats already.

how can I improve anything with "sorry technical reasons" is the answer I get??? how do I even know where the bar "IS" ? without some metric of explanation.

I goto the section regarding technical issues. noise? almost none. focus? tack sharp. Color? Gorgeous Dynamic Range? almost perfect good darks good highlights. I did not even have to ENHANCE that photo at all. that is right from the camera (half of photography is luck the other half is skill and practice) Compostion? excellent. its not "busy" but still has some meat in it for cropping or adding text overlays etc.. Resolution? they allow 4mp its 18 freaking mp highest quality jpg not recompressed afterwards.

I mean give me something USEFUL to gauge on. if you have the time to say nope not good enough you have the time to add even just a COUPLE words as to what is not acceptable if the bar is so high that you reject images so often.

as I said. I get it. my kind of photography is likely not what they are looking for. my ego can handle that just fine. I only added it because someone said hey thats good enough you might want to add it. never heard of this service before yesterday. figured might as well upload some other decent images to see what they are or are not interested in.

I was expecting to get SLIGHTLY more than a nope. technical issues. ie SOMETHING to work with.

[reedesign1912]

So I understand getting a prescripted reason picked off a list can be frustrating for the contributor.  As others have mentioned, the Adobe staff saw something in your photo that they considered to be a technical flaw and rejected it.  They don't get into more specifics than that for a couple of reasons:

1. Time - they are going through so many submissions that they are trying to keep the contributors happy by evaluating the photos in a timely manner and trying to keep Adobe and its customers happy by accepting as much new content as they can.  As soon as they see something that qualifies as a reason for a rejection, they pick an item from the list.  Occasionally, they may pick an unintended reason, but they still saw something that to them warranted a rejection.
2. Adobe is not a photography school and is not here to make you a better photographer.  They have outlined what they want for stock photography contributions and if what you submit doesn't meet what they want, they will just reject it, assuming if they say "technical reasons" you can be critical enough of your own work to look at it again and see what could be better (or what would suit their criteria better.)

@Nancy OSheahas given multiple links to review which references what Adobe wants and don't want when it comes to submissions that are acceptable to them.  Sure, it would be easier for you as a contributor to have Adobe to be more detailed in their refusals, but what they have done is created this Community Forum for you to ask other users for their opinions to help you understand the rejections.  Please understand that we are all contributors here as well and are just offering opinions as to what we see in your photos as to possible reasons for rejections.  We're here to help you to be more critical of your own work, but ultimately we do not know specifically why your photo was rejected either.

Looking at your cat picture, did you really examine it at 100% magnification?  You mentioned several times how it is tack sharp, but I honestly don't think it is.  I think your DOF is too shallow and there is not enough of the cat in focus.  I also think that your background is fairly noisy as well.  Again, just my opinion and an opportunity for you to take another look at your photo and either accept or reject what I or anyone else here has to say.

Here is  a look at part of your photo at 100% magnification:

I think you're right about a lot of things with this photo.  I like the composition (although personally I would have cropped off more of the left of the photo.)  I think your exposure was good.  I think the photo invokes emotion. I think this would be a very good photo to post on social media, but ultimately not on a commercial stock site.

I hope this helps clarify a few things for you.  I would suggest reading through the links above and reading through many of the other posts online here.  Many of the posts are regarding rejections for technical reasons as well and it can help you be more critical of your own work.  On a personal note, I have had some photos that I thought were really cool rejected and I've learnt to not take the rejections personally.  When it's all said and done, it's a business and I've either got a product they want or I don't.

Good luck with your next submissions @Chris22947351m009 .

-Rob

[Chris22947351m009]

then say that. don't say "technical reasons" that is not a technical reason.
also cropping is bad. let the end user crop. if you crop you remove options from the end user. (in fact I think it even mentions this in their info pages)

technical reasons means file too small compression too high file format wrong etc.. etc.. that's "technical" reasons.

yet none of those reasons apply. if they don't have the time to type 3 or 4 words then they they don't have the time to actually analyze the photo.

This would be like grading a paper. you put in a grade with no markup and no explanation. you check your answers they are all right which leaves you clueless as to why you got an 80% or a 70%.

it renders the test literally useless.
its not so much I want more detail. I just want "any detail at all" even the most simple of details.

I don't think that is asking so much.

and then people in here spout off nonsense they are clearly inexperienced at. focus color etc... ie they are literaslly "guessing"

I am beating a dead horse at this point. I do thank you for at least trying to give a reasonable response. that took valuable time for you to do that and I appreciate it.

[Chris22947351m009]

I will leave you with this. 3 crops eyeball hair over eye and claw. it does not GET sharper than that without a whole lot more light and a much lower iso.

Again thank you for a reasonable reply.

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello @Chris22947351m009 ,

Well, I have a different viewpoint.  What you say is valid.

Adobe's technical issues cover a range of technical issues. People understand this term in different ways. That's why it is good to read Adobe's guidelines on what they refer to as 'technical issues'.

The issue here, I guess is that Adobe dosen't specify specifically what the 'issue' actually is. Sure, it is a lot of guess work on our part, but that is a skill in itself,  to identify what the issue could be.

So, for the 'peeping cat' in my view, yeah, it's sharp enough I think; I think DOF is OK, the composition is fine - you have left enough room for cropping if needed etc. BUT, there is noise in the red background and, due to the reddish background the overall cast is slightly red. And I think you could add more contrast to the photo to make the cat 'pop'. As it stands the photo, dosen't pop! (Not for me.)

Just as an example:

The issues as I see it, are:

• white balance
• contrast
• noise

These are technical issues!

The other cat photo:

• contrast
• focus here is not as good - it's not 'tack' sharp 
• a tad noisy
• white balance - just a tad yellow!

As for the rockets, they are not out of focus! They are rather soft, and the reason for this is as you said, bearing in mnd that the heat from the rocket exhaust would indeed make the surrounding air shimmer making it appear out of focus givinng the result what you have got!

Some food for thought!

[Chris22947351m009]

Excellent feedback. thank you.

I need to get out to some tripoli launches. Some of them let you sign a waiver and get as close as you have the nuts for 🙂 200 ft would be about perfect with the equipment I have.

Chris

[Abambo]

I will leave you with this. 3 crops eyeball hair over eye and claw. it does not GET sharper than that without a whole lot more light and a much lower iso.

Again thank you for a reasonable reply.

By @Chris22947351m009

Then you need more light and a lower ISO:

The eye is a 100% excerpt view of this picture:

f2.8 - 50mm - ISO 160 - 1/160s - with flash - 5DM3

[Abambo]

but that cat eye one. is pretty damned close to perfect.

By @Chris22947351m009

Sorry, no. See my comments here.

[Nancy OShea]

There's no sense in arguing about this further.  The reviewer's decision is final.  It's up to @Chris22947351m009  to decide if the images can be fixed and resubmitted or not.   There's nothing more we can say.

[Chris22947351m009]

The reviewers lack of decision sure. and "There's no sense in arguing about this further. " I already said that. not sure why you felt the need to repeat it.

[Nancy OShea]

Locked.