Requesting opinions on an image..

[DarkClearSky]

Greetings all, 

3d illustration artist here.  Recently I submitted this image to Adobe stock and it was rejected.  I'm kinda perplexed on this one. See attached image.  Reason given was "Quality issues." 

I'm thinking maybe rejected because the people in the image are (intentionally) blurred?  If so, the blur is sort of important to the concept of the image, this is an abstract illustration afterall (not a photograph).. Otherwise, maybe they just don't like it..?  No marketable value?

Anyway - pondering whether to resubmit or just move on (leaning toward the latter) and hoping fresh eyes out in the community can poke at this and help me out.  I have other images with a similar style that have been accepted and this image was accepted at other sites (I know this means little).

Image 

Thanks!  Looking forward to your thoughts..

 

[daniellei4510]

I think you may be correct about the people being blurred, but some moderators are picky when it comes to leaning verticals. Photoshop could be able to correct for that.

[DarkClearSky]

Thanks for that insight.  I had not really considered the leaning verticals aspect of it..  Lens was 32mm and shot just slightly angled upward as I kinda liked the perspective.  Maybe I'll reposition at a flat angle and see how that looks.  

Still ponder if the blurred people triggered some type of AI automated red flag..  Makes me wonder if I should bother with it.

[daniellei4510]

Yes, I do suspect the blurred people may also be an issue. While you will no doubt come across accepted submissions with leaning verticals, I think that during training, moderators are told to reject them and take the recommendation to heart, while others either ignore them or are adept enough to feel they add to the image rather than distract from it. I always assume it's one of the boxes they check off when reviewing an asset.

[oleschwander]

Personally I think it's a nice image. Try to write 'Deliberately blurred image' in the caption.

[DarkClearSky]

Thanks!  That's always nice to hear.  

Good suggestion - if I resubmit I'll mention the deliberate blurring of people in the image description.

[Jill_C]

The people aren't just blurred, they're also distorted.

[DarkClearSky]

Interesting observation.  They of course aren't "real people" but they are calculated from real people in poses using photogrammetry so should be accurate representations..  I didn't think they looked distorted although a few do look a bit dorky..  Some of that may also be because I reduced the original from 8K to a low resolution to post here and some lines lose integrity.  Here's a zoom in on a portion for your consideration:

That one guy - third from the right.. kinda dorky.. maybe he needs to go.