Skip to main content
duns12317219734
duns12317219734
Known Participant
December 30, 2020
Answered

rejection for technical issues

  • December 30, 2020
  • 3 replies
  • 2800 views

Can't understand why these photos were rejected at 100% can see nothing wrong but my eyesight or PC monitor isn't the best. There's plenty of light & shadow detail but in the old street I had to take out lettering on shop signs: I wonder if it's that but I've deleted logos and lettering on other images and were accepted on here before. When I first contributed on adobe about a year ago I hardly had any photos rejected so have they changed the acceptance criteria? 

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer Abambo

No, the criteria have not changed. The street picture has colour noise and washed out colours. I would also say that your Photoshopping of the logos is not exactly good work. 

 

The building site has still massivly logos in (that's IP violation) and has chromatic aberration (look the fence posts). It is probably als not really in focus. In addition, I do not think that this picture is a great one. 

 

3 replies

Nancy OShea
Community Expert
Nancy OSheaCommunity Expert
Community Expert
January 8, 2021

The criteria haven't changed much but you are in a fiercely competitive business with photographers and equipment that are improving all the time. The standards bar has risen.

 

  • Pretend you work for an ad agency. Would you buy this image and what would you use it for? 
  • Compare your work with other Adobe Stock Contributors' work in the same categories. 
  • Pay attention to trends. The only constant in Stock Photography is that's it's constantly changing.  1-1/2 years ago, if I had said the new hot trend is face masks, you probably would have laughed and said I was crazy. 
  • Adobe stock customers expect to find compelling & relevant images that are of highest visual and technical quality.

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert
duns12317219734
duns12317219734Author
Known Participant
February 23, 2021

Well, customers should hire pro photographers then and It costs money to produce that kind of work. In case you are wondering I am a trained designer in the '80s but if I'd known then how difficult things would be now which digital I'd never have gone near this industry.

    duns12317219734
    duns12317219734Author
    Known Participant
    February 23, 2021

    My last 2 downloads were for 25c each an insult. If adobe wants great work they should pay decent prices Just because the industry is so competitive is not an excuse to pay crap money. 

      Ricky336
      Community Expert
      Ricky336Community Expert
      Community Expert
      January 8, 2021

      Hello,

      The pictures also suffer from artifacts which you can see when zoomed in. So the image quality is not so good for enlargements (which may be needed).

        duns12317219734
        duns12317219734Author
        Known Participant
        February 23, 2021

        artifacts what do they mean?

        Abambo
        Community Expert
        AbamboCommunity ExpertCorrect answer
        Community Expert
        January 5, 2021

        No, the criteria have not changed. The street picture has colour noise and washed out colours. I would also say that your Photoshopping of the logos is not exactly good work. 

         

        The building site has still massivly logos in (that's IP violation) and has chromatic aberration (look the fence posts). It is probably als not really in focus. In addition, I do not think that this picture is a great one. 

         

        ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer
        duns12317219734
        duns12317219734Author
        Known Participant
        February 23, 2021

        The picture is fine and I cannot see any of the problems you see

        Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
        Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices