Review Needed Feature

[chattereye]

It would be nice if the reviewer rejects a photo, check marks a little box that explains for the contributor the reason the photo is rejected. It could be noise, artifacts, property issues, focus, etc. It's not more than 10 of these I think & it takes less than 5 seconds for the reviewer to put the check mark/s. This way it eliminates any guesswork for us as contributors & rush here to ask others for the reason.

[Jill_C]

Honestly, if there are 10 things wrong with an image, the photographer needs to get more training and learn to properly assess their own images. Adobe isn't in the stock business to make us better photographers, though they do offer a lot of free resources with all of their products. The trend over the last few years that I've been selling stock on Adobe is for them to provide LESS feedback. They used to advise if there was a focus issue, or artifacts or exposure problem. Now the Moderators just hit the "Technical Issues" or "Quality" button and move on to the next image. I assume that Content Moderation is a significant expense for Adobe, and it appears that they're trying to get the maximum productivity out of each Moderator. 

Nevertheless, they have provided this forum for feedback from other experienced Stock photographers as a method of allowing you to receive the feedback you wish for.

[chattereye]

I meant the complete list of reasons can't be more than 10, but usually a photo is rejected for 1 or 2 reasons. I don't think adding these list & providing these info to contributors would be huge cost to adobe. But the benefit is so much more, because the contributor learns faster about the technical issues usually his photos has, and naturally his rejections will be much less in his next submissions. This also will be less cost for Adobe. I agree that Adobe is not responsible to teach contributors, but this is the thing that both sides will benefit from, specially new contributors that will have lots of rejections in first submissions & they don't know exactly what they should look for to improve.

[Test Screen Name]

I think it is a deliberate tactic to discourage people who are not already experienced commercial photographers. A lot of people, judging by what makes it to this forum, view it as either a photography school or a gallery. By discouraging those who will need a lot of help to get acceptances, the cost per accepted photo goes down.

[chattereye]

If I understood you correctly, you say provoding these info will discourage people to come here asking for help. I think they still come but their question will be different. For example simple "artifact" reason doesn't stop him from needing to know more about what artifact is, how it looks, what hould be done against it, etc.

[Jill_C]

I do suspect that a lot of the truly neophyte photographers who come here for feedback after getting their initial submissions rejected soon decide that they're not ready for stock photography, or their existing camera equipment is just not up to the task. It can be quite time consuming with little reward if you are getting most images rejected. Indeed, this type of photographer is not one that Adobe wants to cultivate. It costs Adobe just as much to reject a photo as to accept one.

[George_F]

I remember someone eluding to this being to be the case previously, but people were up in arms that they didn't get a full accounting of errors.  I think Adobe reviewers just reject photos based on the first thing they see, not all the things they see.  But that's hearsay on my part.

When I review a photo here, I spend a few minutes on it.  I doubt there would be money to be made for Adobe to spend so much time on photos.

I agree with @Test Screen Name, I also suspect this is a measure to set the bar deliberately high.  Stock is a supply and demand scenario and there seems to be a ton of supply right now.  Just like any other exchange of goods, it's either acceptable or it's not 🙂

I wish all contributors good luck!

[Jill_C]

I agree with George. Moderators hit the "reject" button as soon as they see one flaw. There's no need to look for, or enumerate, additional flaws. I'm sure all of the active contributors here spend far more time looking at and commenting on the rejected images posted than any Moderator would be allowed to invest. 

It seems that everyone with a camera or mobile phone gets the idea that they can make money from stock photography, and uploads their snapshots, only to be disappointed that Adobe is "too picky". Adobe doesn't need more pictures of puppies, kitties, sunsets, sunrises, flowers, etc. and the quicker they can screen out such images, the more time then can spend on reviewing/accepting saleable images.

[chattereye]

George, moderator doesn't need to go for additional problems in photo but at least he can mention the problem he sees by ticking a box. If this ticking is too much for the supply & costs too much, then I agree. BTW the bigger picture that I might not see is that Adobe is competing with SS that put bots (or very low level reviewers) to do reviewing which resulted garbage to be accepted & useful images rejected. So Adobe should reduce its reviewing cost to minimum at any cost.

[George_F]

I think it was frustrating when a photo would get rejected for chromatic aberrations, have it corrected, and then rejected for noise, and then resubmitted again and rejected for yet another reason.

Adobe gives you all of the answers in a few handy guides instead 🙂.

There are so many other stock companies to compete with.  I recently read about a service that submitted automatically to 38 stock companies simultaneously, so it's definitely not just Shutterstock they compete with.  I suspect they all have different strategies to success, and I happen to like Adobe's approach.  Or at least their review model.

[chattereye]

I agree that comparing to other agencies Adobe still is more likable. But why not just letting know the contributor that: your asset is rejected, or accepted?. He can still himself find out if its property issue or quality issue. Removing last reviewers' efforts, lowering costs. Why not? 🙂

[George_F]

There is a way to submit feature ideas, give it a whirl! 🙂

[chattereye]

No, my idea will be rejected for too much noise probably 🙂

[Abambo]

So Adobe should reduce its reviewing cost to minimum at any cost.

By @chattereye

A customer complaining on the quality of an asset costs a lot of money at the end. Look it from a customer perspective, and you understand that you and all the other contributors, me included, are not relevant, as long as there is a certain number of contributors submitting high-quality assets.

[Nancy OShea]

Consult Submission Requirements in your Stock Contributor User Guide. If it helps you, make your own checklist of things to evaluate. 

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustrations.html

I can't quantify what separates a great photo from an ordinary one with a checklist.  But I know a good photo when I see one because it draws me in and grabs my attention. 

A Twitter prankster invited her friend to a new nightclub with this photo. "How sick does this club look?"  Her friend texted back, "Trippy as &!@#$, where is it?"

It's the inside of a cheese grater.

[ClaudePhoto]

In view of the considerable quantities submitted, it is impossible to go into details. And objectively for most photos submit to this forum, it's still the same issues. Unfortunately, many sites advertise gains by writing sentences like "don't let your photos sleep, sell them." Yes, good, but it's a bit more complicated than that. The images must be technically flawless. Forget the so-called "artistic" aspect. There is undeniably a learning curve that must be passed before mastering the quality that Stock expects. My advice, browse the images to upload and compare with what you are doing. Good luck !

[Abambo]

Don't forget: moderation is done to assure that the pictures that get entered into the database are flawless and usable for potential buyers. It's not to make you learn photography.

Moderators refuse on the first error they see. Adobe could also simply go and say: we refuse this picture because of one or more errors.

The reason to rush here to ask is to get advice for your pictures. When I'm looking at someone's pictures, it takes a considerable amount of my time to analyse what could be wrong. Most of the pictures have, however, quite obvious errors for the trained eye. At my starting point, I got quite many refusals. That comes down today to near to zero.

[chattereye]

. At my starting point, I got quite many refusals. That comes down today to near to zero.

By @Abambo

Good point! We all started somewhere, and there's been and will be people who start from zero always. Many of them learn & go up based on how much are motivated. Agencies can't close the door to them when they are starting, lots of rejections. Moderation is not to make them learn photography, but nevertheless they use it to learn & improve. That's what happened to all of us. We were not born natural quality uploaders.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @chattereye ,

That's a nice suggestion but looking down a list to find what to check-mark is still time consuming.

The moderators at first started to select specific reason for rejection and send the contributor to the forum. (There is no point looking for other flaw after a reason is found.) We started identifying all the reason we can find. Adobe saw our competence and decided instead of wasting time going down a list of whatever, why not just use a blanket rejection reason and send the contributor to the forum. We continue to do what we do best. Spend time to find all the flaws identify them and sometimes offer additional suggestion. 

This save their time in that the contributor will not be coming back multiple times with the same image with different issues. It save time, they do not have to be searching a list for a specific reason.

Here you are directed to links that can help you to see what Adobe wants and how you can identify the errors by yourself. For some of us who are now answering on the forum, learning to ID flaws was difficult because we did not have the resource that now exist. I think its a very good and beneficial idea that all contributors should be happy to take advantage of.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[chattereye]

Thanks @jacquelingphoto2017 

For some of us who are now answering on the forum, learning to ID flaws was difficult because we did not have the resource that now exist...

Agreed.

I don't want to discuss further but like to mention last thing that many are uncomfortable to post their original full size image here.

Thanks

[Abambo]

---

@chattereye wrote:

I don't want to discuss further but like to mention last thing that many are uncomfortable to post their original full size image here.

Thanks

---

It's a choice you make, or not make. I never have posted a refused picture here, most of my refusals are obvious. Most are leftover artefacts, that I did not see, or that I introduced while correcting the image. 

IMHO, after 3 to 4 pictures posted here, you can workout most of the troubles yourself. It is, however essential, that you post a full scale image here, because we need to see, what the moderator got to see. Rarely, we did get pictures here, where we didn't see the reasons. Mostly the reasons are multiple.

We also rarely see people coming back with different pictures, either because they found out, that quality requirement is high, and they can't level up, or they understand the system and submit without a big hassle.

[Nancy OShea]

“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!”

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”
― Ansel Adams

Close-up of leaves In Glacier National Park (1942)