Participating Frequently

Answered

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

Forum|Forum|4 years ago
February 1, 2022
3 replies
4829 views

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.

Troubleshooting

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer Abambo

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??

By @Chris22947351m009

Moderators have very little time to pass with one asset, so they need to be effective. The refusal is one of X redefined reasons, and it's always the first issue the moderator sees that triggers the refusal. I would like to point out that this is not a photographic school and that the aim is not to make you a better photographer, but to sell high quality stock assets to paying customers. So, no, having to add a note to each refusal is a big deal. Then there is the language problem. Moderators are from everywhere in the world, and they check submitted items from everyone in the world. In what language would you write the critique?

The real issue is “technical issue” is used for all faults that are “photographers errors”, “post-processing errors”, and “sensor errors”. So, it's very broad, and it's up to you to check the photography with a critical eye. Most of what gets presented here contains multiple errors, and we check for all errors that we see. It doesn't mean, however, that it is the error the moderator saw.

And you err in that sense that you think, niche target audience gets vetted more stringently. It's probably the inverse. There is an abundant database of cat images, so if you want to contribute, they not only need to be good, they must be perfect in every sense.

Let's take 4210:

Apart from the noise in the background that could be addressed in post-processing, you have (a slight) focussing error. Instead of the cat's eye, the cushion in front is the sharpest point (here seen at 100%).

I would also post process the eye, that it draws the viewer's attention.

As for 2237, it's out of focus and noisy. When taking pictures at ISO 2000 with that camera, I would expect some noise and I would need to put significant effort in to denoise.

As for your rocket picture, they are awfully out of focus (here seen at 100%).

The skeleton could also trigger an IP rejection, as you could consider that design somehow special.

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

Correct answer

Community Expert

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??

By @Chris22947351m009

Moderators have very little time to pass with one asset, so they need to be effective. The refusal is one of X redefined reasons, and it's always the first issue the moderator sees that triggers the refusal. I would like to point out that this is not a photographic school and that the aim is not to make you a better photographer, but to sell high quality stock assets to paying customers. So, no, having to add a note to each refusal is a big deal. Then there is the language problem. Moderators are from everywhere in the world, and they check submitted items from everyone in the world. In what language would you write the critique?

The real issue is “technical issue” is used for all faults that are “photographers errors”, “post-processing errors”, and “sensor errors”. So, it's very broad, and it's up to you to check the photography with a critical eye. Most of what gets presented here contains multiple errors, and we check for all errors that we see. It doesn't mean, however, that it is the error the moderator saw.

And you err in that sense that you think, niche target audience gets vetted more stringently. It's probably the inverse. There is an abundant database of cat images, so if you want to contribute, they not only need to be good, they must be perfect in every sense.

Let's take 4210:

Apart from the noise in the background that could be addressed in post-processing, you have (a slight) focussing error. Instead of the cat's eye, the cushion in front is the sharpest point (here seen at 100%).

I would also post process the eye, that it draws the viewer's attention.

As for 2237, it's out of focus and noisy. When taking pictures at ISO 2000 with that camera, I would expect some noise and I would need to put significant effort in to denoise.

As for your rocket picture, they are awfully out of focus (here seen at 100%).

The skeleton could also trigger an IP rejection, as you could consider that design somehow special.

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

C

Chris22947351m009Author

Participating Frequently

I believe your opinion on the eye is subjective and no reviewer every saw that (otherwise they would have spent enough time to give a valid reason for rejection) the eye is sharp the reflex is soft since the reflection is not inside the DOF (tv is further away than the focus distance from the cat)

The rocket. yeah its accelerating at around 40g's from 1500ft away. that's about as good as it gets really. that size model sadly exceeds the reasonable limits of my available equiopment. would need something like a 400mm L F4 to do much better than that. (not adobe's problem)

My core issue was "useless reason given" not that it was rejected. after that sadly it became a nitpicking and pi$$ing match here in the forums 😞

Thank you for a reasonable reply and for the details!

madscica

Inspiring

Sorry, I do not see either cat photo as "tack sharp", when I look at the eye on the one with the eye open it looks too soft to me, and the other one is too soft everywhere.

I also see a bit of noise in the background.

C

Chris22947351m009Author

Participating Frequently

the peeping cat is tack sharp in my book. it does not get better than that without either better equipment or a dead cat that you can make stay while you crank up the lights 🙂 hehehe when I can count hairs from 3 meters away and see myself (almost) in the reflection in the cats eye. it does not get much sharper. IT IS noisy (ISO low light) but if you took that shot "bright" (somehow keeping the subject from moving) it would not even be worth uploading anymore.

a brightly lit version of that shot? I would not have even attempted to submit it. not worth it. it would be a "bad shot"

the other cat yes. its not only not sharp it is out of focus (I have others in that sequence more in focus but the sharpness ruins the shot) but that "works" for that shot. and yes I understand now that is not what they want for stock photos. that photo is more "art photo" than "stock photo" I get that.

Rockets. 40g's of acceleration 1500ft of atmo. THAT IS in focus (not tak sharp at all) you just can't get sharper with that lighting at that distance with that much glass and air between you and a subject that small. and YES I totally understand they don't want that I just figured to toss some up and see what sticks.

My core issue my ONLY real issue was the "absolutely worthless reason" given in reply. worse than worthless. they are keeping 2/3's of the money they make they can pay for "SOME" sort of explanation even if its just a slightly deeper decision tree scripted response.

RALPH_L

Community Expert

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

C

Chris22947351m009Author

Participating Frequently

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.

Ricky336

Community Expert

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.

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!

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded