rejections, generally

[Ken Tannenbaum]

I've been doing this a long time, recently joined here.  It's surprising how many of my existing images at quality stock agencies are rejected here.  Questions of noise especially are strange at best....as well as for content rejected but reviewers who may not understand nuance or art for that matter.  In some cases the images have sold dozens of times.  It doesn't matter all that much since my images are in one basket, but Adobe is losing sales too.  Thanks and Merry Christmas!

[twaritar3263062]

Moving to Adobe Stock Contributors​

[Ken Tannenbaum]

Thanks!  That was a moving experience! 

[sjlocke215]

Try the critique forum: Stock Contributor Critique

[Ken Tannenbaum]

No point in that.  As mentioned, I've been doing this a very long time.  Critiquing images is perfectly right to do.  This is NOT about that but more about the criteria that Adobe seems bent on adhering to.  I get it, some stock agencies want entirely crisp, sharp images which is not the way the world works and certainly not what the buying public often looks for.  All I[m saying is that some of the rejections here sell well at other places...the names you know, the names that preceded Adobe Stock for a long time.  I thought if I asked the question in a contact it might be seem by senior editors who might than think about the reason for the question.  Anyway, thank you...end of story.  I;m covered elsewhere.

[MatHayward · Accepted solution]

It would be helpful to see an example of a rejected image you are referencing. Our standards are very high as the level of expectation for quality is at the top level from our customers. The images are reviewed manually by a very experienced team of moderators but it's also possible we made a mistake. It is a human process after all and in most cases the criteria is subjective.

Regardless of whether you post an image or not, your feedback is appreciated and I wish you the best of luck with your future uploads.

Mat Hayward

[AutumnSkyPhotography]

Here is honest feedback with best intentions:

I fully support "very high as the level of expectation for quality is at the top level from our customers"  (this standard is however not matched by contributor compensation, but this is separate topic).

However  "lack of commercial appeal" rejection reason is completely bogus.  As example, my image that AS rejected for "lack of commercial appeal"  sold on Alamy for $84 USD -- of which I got half, 42 (something that is impossible from single sale on AS btw.)   I had a good laugh at "lack of commercial appeal" at that point!

While it is true that some topics (such as flowers) are over saturated and generally in low demand, fact is that you can NEVER fully predict what customer wants or will be searching for.  This is one of ultimate truths in stock industry.  Your "lack of commercial appeal" criteria is in essence reviewer individual criteria that is also inconsistent between different reviewers.   My honest suggestion is to drop editing for content (but retain high technical quality standards).   Both agency and contributors will benefit from this

Kind Regards

[sjlocke215]

"Both agency and contributors will benefit from this"

No, they won't.  Buyers are tired of having to spend an inordinate amount of time searching through millions of useless images. 

[AutumnSkyPhotography]

"No, they won't.  Buyers are tired of having to spend an inordinate amount of time searching through millions of useless images"

Wrong.  You totally missed the point.  If image is useless, nobody is looking for it anyways, and thus not "spending inordinate amount of time". 

Point is that nobody in the world can tell for sure if image is useless or not.  "Lack of commercial appeal" is hurting agency because they are missing potential sale as well as losing contributors that will leave (and be successful) elsewhere.

[sjlocke215]

No, you missed the point.  Thousands of useless and repetitive images that come up in a keyword search annoy buyers who can't waste the time paging through them.

[Ken Tannenbaum]

To whom it may concern:

No real point in this except to say there’s much written about how short-sighted are some companies….virtually all of these sell elsewhere, in some cases many times.

Just these rejections are enough to make me laugh. One of them has sold to the tune of over $550 at other microstock agencies.  Believe me, there are more in my rejection pile….ridiculous.  Nobody’s perfect, live and learn.

183236455

183236100

182067146

182438461

182436061

[Sheena Kaul]

Moving to the Stock Contributor Critique​

[Ken Tannenbaum]

[joanH]

Sadly, I see your work is average and any staffer at a small company can shoot the same images and get exactly what project needs or wants. Gotta be spectacular and very very unique. Everybody has a very good camera on their phones. Ad agencies have lots of photographers either on staff or available to take shots for them. This market is not for the "normal" sort of work. Make the buyer desire it and get excited about your work. Sell wherever you sell. Good luck.

JH

[Ken Tannenbaum]

If I were you I'd refrain from positions based on myopic and biased assumptions.  This industry thrives on diversity, which in my case are often images driven by concept.  The photos I posted are but a very few of mine, however, among these rejections (here) is work that sells repetitively elsewhere.  Really, this is a joke.  I'll let my work speak for itself.  Joan, why not do the same.  Anyway, if it's true you speak for the crew, no problem, I'm gone.

www.kentannenbaum.com

[sjlocke215]

Well, that was a waste of my five minutes of typing.

"Anyway, if it's true you speak for the crew, no problem, I'm gone"

I'm not sure you understand how forums work.

[Ken Tannenbaum]

What a drag...I just spent serious time answering you specifically because I appreciate your comments.  THEN I inadvertently hit the back button and it didn't auto save. Give me a little time, I'll recreate my post to you. 

[Ken Tannenbaum]

I’m back…about your comments:

1) For sure, small versions suck…can’t see detail which is key in some images, for instance, the KEYBOARD shot is of an old lady, an inept typist (with pencil), veined hands, struggling.  Sold many times.

2) Car in winter keep selling and selling and selling.  The composition makes the shot…room for type, I was lucky.

3) Money in Drawer, very good seller…pure concept.  Search for a competitor, not much.

4) The early morning road shot is pure mood…I just sold that image in a gallery for $350, less than others sell for and probably it shouldn’t be royalty free stock.  In fact, it’s silly that it is.

5) The World Trade Center images have sadly made me quite a bit of money.  Rejected here?  Ridiculous,

6) Road sign not convincing?  You’re right but it’s not intended to seem real.  Much of my work on conceptual and some designers what just that.  I retouched that picture into other languages with other verbiage and the labor was worth it.

7) The Door Knocker, really, one of my best sellers…that soft shot has made me at least $500, all through RF sales.  But rejected here because it’s not sharp, which had nothing to do with its effect.

My problem with AbodeStock is that it’s not diverse.  I joined here on a lark a few weeks ago and it seems, it’s not for me.  I’m not getting rich from this stuff, it’s just a part of how I earn my keep.  AND, my apologies for assuming that one of the other posters was staff…I do know better.  Anyway, that’s the deal.  Thanks again for the post. 

www.kentannenbaum.com

[joanH]

This is an open discussion place so you will see diverse opinions and points of view. I am not a staffer for Adobe but I am a professional classic artist, digital artist and early days photo retoucher since the mid-1960s. Take a look at Adobe stock - look under topics that cover what you have posted. Awful good stuff out there. That is your competition. As I said sell where you can and rest with that or keep asking why. Best, JH

[sjlocke215]

Well, you linked to tiny versions, so I had to take the time to go find them on the web.

The motion on the door knocker is interesting, but it looks like nothing is in focus at all.

I'm not sure why he's holding a pencil while typing, but it's fairly illustrative of the subject.

Although newsworthy, the titled horizon is just too much.

Nothing particularly wrong with the car in winter.

Good illustration of the hiding money theme.

Doesn't look like anything on the road is in focus.

Unconvincing execution of text on road sign.

Couldn't find larger size to look at.

Nothing wrong with tower from small size.

Not that you'll find any of those comments valid.

Interesting that these are all one-offs.  Why only one photo of the tower on fire?  Why only one picture of the keyboard?

[Ken Tannenbaum]

I'm unable to find a way to cancel my contributor account.  Yesterday I deleted all my files and yet, made a sale today.  What's important to me is to end the relationship.  You are the one person it seems who knows what's what.   Much appreciated.

My email is: ken@kentannenbaum.com 

[MatHayward]

I’m out of town Inti Friday. I can delete your account as soon as I return to the office.

Thanks for your patience.

Mat

Sent from my iPhone

[MatHayward]

Please email me directly on Friday so this doesn’t get lost in my email box.

Mhayward@adobe.com<mailto:Mhayward@adobe.com>

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone