Rejections - quality issues on all uploads with new Tamron lens

[Sentern]

I've gotten rejections before, but never an entire batch of seven images at once. All seven were the first pictures I uploaded after getting a Tamron 70-200mm for my Canon 80D (I know...I need a newer camera). But I've had decent enough success uploading and getting accepted images using my 80D with other lenses. Oddly, the Tamron 70-200mm is the most expensive and highest quality lens I now own, so having all seven images rejected for quality issues was a bit odd. Anyway, the photo below is one of the rejections. Maybe I need to reduce the noise in the sky? I'll try that and re-upload.

[Nancy OShea]

I think this was rejected for poor lighting, not a lens issue.

[Sentern]

Well, I could have artifically raised the brightness of the flags, but it wouldn't have looked natural for a photo taken at 8am. Plus, the light source is BEHIND the flags, so again....brightening them much more would look artificial. 

I thought Adobe Stock recommended not overedting submitted photos, as the 'buyer' would do more post-processing anyway.

[Nancy OShea]

Well, I could have artifically raised the brightness of the flags, but it wouldn't have looked natural...

By @Sentern

===========

Too much explaining.  Adobe Stock customers don't care if the rooster crowed. They want visually & technically perfected assets for use in commercial projects.  That's what they pay for. 

If you can fix the problems & resubmit, great.  If you can't, just set it aside and move on to the next ones.

[Sentern]

It's not 'too much explaining'. It's trying to understand and improve submissions. Folks on these forums should be a little less snarky and a little more supportive. 
All's I did to this photo was adjust the sun spot in the middle a hair and it was then accepted. Everyone telling me how imperfect the shot was and how I should stop complaining are not helpful. I kind of thought the communirty here would offer suggestions rather than social media slams. 

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

There are artifacts in the sky, particularly noticeable in the upper left corner, but present throughout. The large white spot in the center is probably burned out, with no detail.

[Sentern]

The large white spot is the sun.

[Test Screen Name]

You are having to explain: the white is the sun. The time is 8am. No! The photo must stand as perfect without explanation. Adobe Stock is not a gallery, it is looking for a particular kind of perfection (which almost always needs correction to get the right appearance). 

[Sentern]

I may have slacked on making sure the sun wasn't blown out. All's I did to resubmit and get accepted was to knock the sun exposure down a bit.So everyone thinking there were artifacts here, and shadow issues there, and composition issues all over: the sun was just a bit too bright. That's it.

[RALPH_L]

@Jill_C is correct. Examine the photo's upper left corner at 200%. Noise and artifacts.

[Sentern]

I may have slacked on making sure the sun wasn't blown out. All's I did to resubmit and get accepted was to knock the sun exposure down a bit.So everyone thinking there were artifacts here, and shadow issues there, and composition issues all over: the sun was just a bit too bright. That's it.

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

The problem isn't the lens! So, don't worry about that!

The problem that has been identified is the sun!

Also because of banding around the sun - you're getting visible shades of brightness.

[Sentern]

Ricky336: you are the only one that got it right! Despite others indicating there were/are artifact issues, and shadow issues, and other various issues, the sun was the problem. I almost always use PhotoShop camera raw tools to make sure parts of the photograph aren't blown out, and other areas aren't too black.

I made a simple adjustment to the sun (which I normally do, but must have been too deep into my IPA's to remember) and the resubmission was accepted. 
Thanks for taking the time to give feedback!

[Jill_C]

Glad to hear that your edit, based on the input you received here, allowed you to get the image accepted. Moderators are humans, which introduces an inevitable amount of variability into the process. There is definitely an area with artifacts in the sky; perhaps the Moderator didn't notice it, or perhaps the subsequent edits that you applied improved that area as well. 

[Abambo]

Ricky336: you are the only one that got it right!

By @Sentern

So mark it as the correct answer. (I did for you)

There are some rules that you should keep in mind: never assume, it's the technology, at least not the technology alone. So, when upgrading to a better lens, pictures should be better. But if you have artefacts, you have artefacts and that banding are artefacts. 

And all identified either the sun or the lightning as the cause. And if you are on the edge with a picture, you either pass or fail depending on the human factor of the moderator.

We are all guessing, but our guesses may all be wrong. At the end of the day, the refusal could be simply, because an issue nobody of us detected. You never know why an asset got accepted, or which error exactly triggered the refusal. 

BTW: The editing you made may also have addressed the other lesser problems. And it could have been, that a different moderator at a different time would decide differently. That, btw, has been confirmed by Adobe. "Resubmitting the same image again, does not necessarily acceptance again." (Out of memory quote). The question was if one could delete an asset and resubmit.

[Abambo]

Ricky336: 

By @Sentern

Tipp for using the fora: when tagging someone, use the @-character before the name. That triggers an event in their feed.

[ricky336]

Hi @Sentern , for me personally, the banding around the sun would be a big problem. Glad you got it sorted!