Rejected photos.

[Tony258658265jaw]

Hello, I'm new to Adobe Stock and was wondering why the very same images that where accepted at two other stock sites i'm with where rejected? They were all shot at ISO 100, there's no colour or exposure clipping, no motion blur and they are all macro shots with the main intended area in focus; minimal as that may be.

I've come across almost exactly the same type of accepted images on this site from other photographers and wonder why theirs got accepted but not mine. One with really bad blown highlights ( no offence, my personal opinion only ) and another with less parts in focus than mine. Their file numbers are if you are interested in, are: 269527607 and 269529084 and 280650712.

This isn't a gripe, i'm just trying to work out what you like; but it's a bit difficult with a generic reply with every rejection. 
Many thanks for your time!

Cheers!

Tony

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

08E12E4E-7F4E-4742-8 - underexposed, depth of field is too shallow, rendering most of the bloom and the stem out of focus, over-saturated.

ED18AFF4-C98C-49AC-  depth of field too shallow, almost nothing is in focus, over-saturated.

2EA211E1-E86E-42A2-A - depth of field too shallow, almost nothing is in focus

2EA211E1-E86E-42A2-A - underexposed, depth of field too shallow, almost nothing is in focus

All images are moderated by human beings, which results in some variability. Also, Adobe Stock acquired the stock database of Fotolia, and I believe they've gradually raised their standards for acceptance. Images that were accepted years ago and created with less advanced cameras and lenses simply may not have the quality you can get from current technology. I'm not sure whether there is any active program at Adobe to weed out older, lower quality images.

Floral images, in general, are very over-represented in the database, and I wouldn't spend much time capturing, editing and uploading such images. While they're fun and useful to work on to improve your photography and editing skills, the likelihood of ever selling one, if you can get it accepted, is slim.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

What were the reasons Adobe Stock gave for rejecting them? 

Did you read the Stock Contributor User Guide before submitting?  There is good information there to help you.

• 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

I didn't examine all of them, too many. 

1. Lily of the Nile is underexposed.
2. Pink flower is oddly framed and clipped on all sides.
3. Depth of field on knife & fork is too shallow, also the fork's reflection isn't singular and there are artifacts on the fork tines.

[Nancy OShea]

Examine your images at 100-300% magnification.  

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Tony258658265jaw ,

To maximise the potential for sale, your subject must be sharp enough for easy cropping. Therefore you need to have enough depth of field and your focus need to be sharp enough.

In addition to the links @Nancy OShea post for you to read from you may also have a look at these tips to improve your submission.

Best wishes

Jacquelin