Review system

[will perrett]

A few days ago I uploaded 10 images, close-ups of flowers.  All were rejected for "quality reasons".  The same images were all accepted by Getty Images and Alamy.  I have examined them closely (as of course I do before uploading as well) and can find no faults.  As they are macro shots, the DoF is shallow, so background out of focus, but the subjects are sharp.  No artifacts, very little noise, good exposure - no blown highlights or blocky shadows.  What Adobe found wrong is beyond me.  My question is: how are reviews managed?  Is it done by AI or did I get a reviewer having a bad day?

Will Perrett

[Abambo]

Moderation is done by humans, and Adobe is known to be very stringent and especially stringent on flower pictures as there are millions of those in the database.

[Abambo]

Noise and artefacts!

Alamy does no check at all and Getty, I do not know. Anyhow, it took me about 10 seconds to spot the problems.

[will perrett]

Alamy does check.  Getty does too.  I still see no noise, and "artifacts" are part of the plant!

[RALPH_L]

Sorry, but @Abambo is correct. The background is too noisy. I also believe the depth of field should be better and the shadows in the flower are a little too dark.

[Abambo]

Look at the borders between the background and the plant and you see artefacts. Not only at the space indicated, butt pretty everywhere where the plant is sharp. And you see noise at 100%. You can discuss, if the noise level is high enough to earn a refusal, but there is noise. 

What I'm doing is not attacking your photographic talent. This is one of the best flower pictures I've seen here (where people present their refusals!) and I think that the moderator was picky. If that would have been a picture, where children would run in the greens, it would probably pass. But as there is no AI, moderators can be different stringent for different subjects. 

As for Alamy, I have 0 refusals. If they do check, I'm probably the number one photographer in the world. On Shutterstock, I have refusals, but by far less then here, and I have pictures open for sales, that definitly did earn a rightfull refusal here.

[George_F]

Greetings!

I'm also in agreement with @Abambo and @RALPH_L .  Simply opening the image at full size was enough to spot the noise and artifacts.  I think there is room for improvement with the settings, 1/800th sec seems high for shutter speed espeically with iso 1000.  I personally would have taken this on a tripod, although I'm not sure that would fix the artifacts around the petal edges.

Like Abambo pointed out though, there are already millions of flowers in the database already.  A search for flowers shows 28,351,185 results.  The sales potential here is extremely limited when you are competing with 28 million other assets.

Good luck with future submissions!

[glum person]

Hello! Agreed with @Abambo @George_F @RALPH_L . By the way about Getty images. They are checking serious enough. Average quality there is higher than this flower.

[Nancy OShea]

Another FLOWER!!!  Ouch. My head is exploding.  😵

Stock already has 25 million flowers. 

• If your work isn't as good or better than what Stock already has, it's unlikely to be accepted. 
• And it's even less likely to sell due to fierce competition in this keyword category.

Best advice, work on your depth of field -- the stem is blurry. Subjects must be fully focused.

And find other subjects to photograph. Something nobody else has thought of.