It might refer to a slight lens vignetting at the corners. You can correct this in Adobe Camera Raw.
Thanks for your feedback. Vignetting is a technique for highlighting the main subject. Or is this not welcome on the drains? I sent this photo to 6 photo banks, it was not accepted only here. This photo is an example. Adobe rejects many photos that were easily approved by other photo banks. I wanted to find out the reason.
Adobe stock is much more stringent on quality checks. Lens vignetting is infact a defect even if your artistic view would introduce it. There are several reasons for this, but the main reason is that vignetting can be added easily to the final image (which may be very different from yours). If you add vignetting by yourself, you may render the image less usable for the customer. Stock is about craft, not art...
If you translate the refusal reason, please add always the original text or even better the link to the exact refuasal reason in your local language. The quality of the translation is sometimes not as accurate as it should be.
Can you include the actual rejection reason - the reason given for rejection. It may be something like 'artifacts' , 'Image Quality' etc. (Also just copy in your original language and post here.)
I very much doubt it was because of the vignetting.
In my view, it just may be due to image quality - your white balance may be off. The image is a bit cold. Include the reason given and I will have a better idea.
This is how they describe the reason:
Excessive distortion / noise can be caused by low light, improper camera settings, strong compression, or excessive post-processing.
So, in this case, 'artitfacts' has been translated into 'distortion'. 'Artifacts' is in the English version.
So, this means in the image you have some, from what I can tell JPEG compression artifacts. Though to see them you have to enlarge to around 200%. Also, the background just may give this kind of rejection as well.
JPEG compression gives the pixels a 'blocky appearance'. This can be seen a bit in your image.
Adobe also tends to be pickier than other microstock sites.
PS, distortion is to do with camera lenses. And clearly, this is not the case here.
"So this means that in the image you have some of what I can say JPEG compression artifacts. Although, to see them, you need to increase to about 200%."
Inspectors always check the image enlarged by 100%. In this case, objectivity is not a failure!
The moderators really check a lot of factors. The guidance is to look carefully at the image at 100% and even more to detect faults in the image. And believe me, moderators here are very picky...and in most of the cases they are right for my images, even if they pass on a different stock site.
Ricky, lens vignetting came to mind only because of the term "distortion," which as you pointed out has to do with the lens (this image does have vignetting).
I like the composition of your work. Distortion is usually referring to damaged pixels. I believe this many times occur during post processing or compression while saving in jpg. I was introduced to this rejection reason some time ago when my photos were taken in JPG format. I have not come across it since photographing in RAW.
Hi jacquelingphoto2017. Yes, this photo (more precisely a few photos) was taken and processed in JPG format. This is a macro shot of the zones, then stitched in one frame. But, having discussed this photo here, I wrote to tech support asking me to explain the reason for the refusal, they reviewed and accepted, without giving a clear answer about the refusal. 🙂
Thank you all for your responsiveness!
Thank you for the update, and congratulation.