Review system that is capricious and arbitrary...
- May 16, 2020
- 2 replies
- 2779 views
I would like to know why Adobe cannot be more specific about why they reject images that we spend a great deal of time processing and keywording. "Technical Issues" is too vague!
How difficult would it bee to have a series of checkboxes for the reviwer to check, e.g., Focus, White Balance, Contrast, Saturation, Chromatic Aberration, General Composition, Artifacting, etc? Many of these issues could be corrected.
The Contributor Guide says, "Don't take it personally." How can we take it any other way if you don't give us a reason?!
They always suggest to upload the image to the frightfully tedious "forum," where any pretentious knucklehead can GUESS why the image MAY have been rejected. I have seen some of the most outrageous responses to contributoer posts about rejected images! This system is so capricious and arbitrary! Why can't we get more specific feedback from the "technician" who actually rejected the image. I have had images accepted a few months ago, that were shot on the same day, with the same equipment and in the same manner as images that were rejected this time around. When I compare the rejected to the accepted, I can see no logical reason for the rejection.
Also, it seems that I always get a bunch of images rejected out of hand on the same day. It's as if the "technician" who rejected the images did it in bulk. How do I know that he just didn't have a fight with his wife or something?
This system is VERY FREAKING FRUSTRATING to your contributors! How about a little courtesy?!
This isn't SOUR GRAPES! I have taken some great images and I've taken some really crappy images. I'm not pissed off because may images were rejected—I'm pissed off because this system STINKS!
