I am a contributor since 2018 with very few rejections over the years. Recently I had a batch of 15 photos rejected for quality reasons. Here is one example from the batch. Please help. Thank you
I think this was mostly an exposure issue. It appears underexposed to me and the Histogram confirms it. You may be able to correct this, but I was unable to get a decent result with a quick attempt.
Without looking into the histogram, my first thought was: underexposed. And yes. I agree.
It appears that, due to achieving the right exposure on the bright white buildings, the rest of the frame has been underexposed. I would mask out the land / building area and lift the exposure in the sky and foreground.
I'm also having issues with rejection for Quality issues as of last 2 weeks or so. I've been submitting since 2018, with a good acceptance rate. Occasionally I'll get a few rejected- but lately I'm having whole submissions being rejected for quality- even though the images come from a large batch of similar quality that were all accepted each time in the past (I submit big batches over many months to spread it out). They were fine before- but all of a sudden it's a No- and btw, it's not every submission, as some are all making it through every other time. It's like there's one particularly strict reviewer who is just hitting reject to easily. frustrating.
If you upload a few of the rejected images here, members of the community will provide their opinions as to the reason for rejection. It is rare to find an image unfairly rejected. If your premise that a strict reviewer is hitting the button too easily, which is doubtful, upload smaller batches. I upload 4-6 images at a time, and if any are rejected, I carefully review to determine whether they can be re-edited and resubmitted. I never get an entire batch rejected.
It's like there's one particularly strict reviewer who is just hitting reject to easily. frustrating.
By @Sunshine Seeds
Moderation is done by humans, so the human factor plays. Just as an example: many fellow participants here are fast, criticizing a swallow DOF. I do that more rarely. We don't have here strict “instructions”, but we are all interpreting the rules. So yes, when you hit a particular stringent moderator, you get more refusals.
But also, if the moderator is still fresh into their working day, they may refuse faster than after having reviewed 789 assets. Others may refuse less after that.
And then, don't tell me that inside of a batch, all your pictures have exactly the same quality. I don't find that in my batches.
And then, you seem to think, that the refusals are not correct. Maybe, the accepted pictures got accepted by error.
If images are on the borderline of rejection, then the pendulum can swing to one side or the other. If the moderator has more experience or less experience, the pendulum may swing to one side or the other.
And a last: You seem to believe that the moderation is to check and accept your pictures, but it is not. The only reason pictures get moderated is that Adobe needs to feed the buyers with high-quality assets. And from that perspective, it is better to refuse a good picture than to let pass bad ones. That may be, I agree here, somewhat frustrating.
You tell me......
Here's a experience I recently had on Shutterstock. You tell me if you think its suspicious or not- and whether it might be repeating here on Adobe.
First of all, let me preface by saying that I have nearly 22k images approved on Shutterstock with at least a 95% acceptance rate. When I submit a batch of images I usually get a 100% approval rate with the odd exception here and there - and usually they go through on a second attempt.
THEN out of nowhere a few months ago I'd have about every 3rd declined - the entire batch. 20 out of 20 images declined. Then unless I got this particular reviewer again, I get almost all those declined images approved on the next attempt. This went on for about 2-3 months, where entire submissions were declined. Like I said not every time - maybe 1 batch out of every 3 or 4 submissions. These submissions at this time were all from the same set of images (about 300), which I split up into sets of 30 or so - so the images were all of the same quality etc.
THEN, just as quickly as this experience began - it vanished. Now I'm back to getting almost 100% images approved every time.
I'm not sure if my formal complaint did anything, but it has abated.
NOW, I'm having the same thing happen to me on Adobe - where every other submission is being decline 100%, and some are being approved almost 100%.
It's like this reviewer has been fired from Shutterstock and is now working at Adobe.
I'm not sure if reviewers are paid per image reviewed or per hour worked - but I can say that if they are being paid per image reviewed then that is open to abuse.
EG: If I was dodgy and was paid per image reviewed I might just decline a bunch of images really quickly without even really looking at them - knowing that the contributor will just try re-submit again - giving the reviewers more opportunity to earn.
They wouldn't just accept a batch without looking because they could get more easily found out if they let through bad images - but wont be found out if they reject good images.
The fact that my experience on Shutterstock came and went within a short period proves that something was definitely off.
You're welcome to share theories of conspiracy or misbehaviour by reviewers. EVEN if that's the case, some of us may want to improve our work, and people are invited to share their work for review: sometimes perfect art just isn't fitting Adobe's business model, sometimes people even can improve their work. Of course some people choose to just share their suspicions and not share any of their work to back it up. Some suspicious people might find that suspicious. Good luck with your chosen strategy.
This has clearly got NOTHING to do with the quality of my images - as it was fine for 5 years, and then rejected for a period of 2-3 months and only on occasion, and now my work is 100% fine again. My quality hasnt changed, somehting happened on their end. For a photographer, you're clearly bad at noticing patterns
Your experience on Shutterstock is not at all germane to Adobe's moderation practices.
I submit small batches of photos, usually 4-6, wait for those to be moderated, then submit another batch. Slow and steady is the way to go. My acceptance rate using this method is ~95%.
My point is that Adobe Stock does not make decisions about how to manage its moderation process based on what's happening on Shutterstock. Any similarities you can detect between how the 2 agencies have handled your assets is purely coincidental.
Congratulations, you've completely missed my point. 🤦🏻
There are very few rejections that we can't explain here. 99,9% are correctly getting rejected. But yes, the human factor is part of the game. I don't know if moderators get paid by the hour or by the picture, but I suppose that it is a low pay job. Bad moderators won't last long, however.
Thank you for the valuable feedback I have received. The photos were taken with a polarizing filter. It took away all the glare but also made the coulours more saturated and a slight increase in contrast made it worse. I shall be more careful next time and let me see what the result will be.
You're welcome. You may correct, what can be corrected: exposure in limits, saturation, contrast, and resubmit. If pictures are out of focus, there is no need to resubmit.