Rejected Imges due to Quality Issues

[MoRavid]

Fixed and Resubmitted for the 3rd time and rejected again. Are they really that bad?

[RALPH_L]

I see no commercial value in the second photo.

The first photo I think can be improved.

As an example, here I cropped down and removed unwated objects.

I adjusted the lighting and colors.

I sharpened and applied noise reduction.

What do you think?

[MoRavid]

Hi Ralph, It looks great! The edited image is different from the one I shoot! How did you remove the green objects? I tried to improve the image as you did but failed miserably.

[RALPH_L]

PhotoShop

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @MoRavid ,

In Photoshop there are several tools that you can use with content awareness to remove unwanted elements. There are the clone brush, spot healing brush, healing brush, the patch tool and the selection and fill command are a few.

Regards

Jacquelin

[Ricky336]

Hello,

Well, in these photos, I do see a white balance issue. The rocks have a slight magenta cast to them. You'll need to correct this!

The composition could also be improved in all shots.

And finally, I also wonder about the commercial value. How can they be used? And don't say to show types of rock formation, because there are better examples in the stock library.

[MoRavid]

Hi Ricky,

Re-editing & resubmitting the images of doubtful commercial value for the 4th time is not worth the effort, so I quit!

Thanks for your advice.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @MoRavid ,

If your files don't have commercial value the review moderator would not waste time to look for quality. The reason for not accepting the file would be Lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal. Once you get a quality rejection reason assume your file is of commercial value. If the quality can be corrected, you correct it and resubmit. The only times a quality or technical rejection cannot be corrected are if the file is out of focus, the overexposure has blown out details beyond repairs or underexposure hides details beyond repairs. No one on this forum can say for sure if a file has commercial value. None of us has Adobe Stock marketing experience to the extent to say for sure if your file has commercial values. I can think of several uses for your files if they did not have quality issues.

There are several file categories that if I did follow the comments on this forum I would not submit but get them accepted and earn multiple sales. Your file potential depends a lot on how you keyword it. 

Students use stock images

Specialists use stock images 

Artists use stock images

and many other people and categories that we cannot imagine.

There is a tool in Photoshop that converts images to texture and your second file is ideal. It would make a very beautiful texture. The other two images can be used by artists, in tourism industry, in education, for background and I'm sure other areas that you would not imagine. Always allow Adobe to choose.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Nancy OShea]

No one on this forum can say for sure if a file has commercial value.

By @jacquelingphoto2017

=========

Valid point. 

But 3 times refused for technical issues implies something's missing.  Maybe the OP hasn't enough post-editing experience. Correcting image imperfections is just as important as taking them.  One hand washes the other.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @MoRavid,

All three file seem to be over-processed causing pixel damage. They have halo on their edges and are noisy. The shrub in the forefront is out of focus. You should have removed it or avoid it when taking the photo. The highlights of the second file is too high causing the appearance of overexposure and there might be a slight purple color imbalance. 

In my opinion all three file would have commercial value if they were of better quality.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Nancy OShea]

Not bad but not terrific for Stock.

3 strikes is enough. Find other images to work on. 😉

[MoRavid]

Hi Nancy, I completely agree with you, enough is enough. I quit. Thanks.