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.

[madscica · Accepted solution]

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.

[Chris22947351m009]

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.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

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

[Chris22947351m009]

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!