Rifiuto per problemi tecnici

[Giovanni5E9C]

Salve a tutti!

Questa foto è stata rifiutata per problemi tecnici, chiedo un vostro parere, grazie!

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

Hello @Giovanni5E9C , view your photo at 200% and you can see artifacts around the antenna and head.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

In addition to the artifacts mentioned by Ralph, I think the insect and the tree trunk are rather underexposed. The insect could also use some sharpening, particularly around the eye.

[Giovanni5E9C]

I do not understand what you mean by "artifact" ... the photo has not undergone changes.
I confirm that it is a bit underexposed, the insect was far away and I used a zoom without a tripod.
Tell me if modified like this can be better. Thank you!

[Jill_C]

Here is what is listed on the Adobe Stock "Learn and Support" page regarding Artifacts:

Artifacts

The most common artifacts problem is excessive noise, which causes the image to look grainy. Artifacts are often caused by a high ISO setting for images captured in low-light situations. Get to know the limitations of your camera. Most cameras are excessively noisy at ISO 1600, and some at lower settings. 

Artifacts can be caused by invasive post-processing. Always save your original file. If you get a rejection based on artifacts, compare the image you submitted with the original and assess where artifacts were introduced.  

Finally, artifacts can be caused by sensor dust. The smallest speck of dust on your sensor can cause spots on your image. Sensor dust spots can be removed in post-processing, but a simpler solution is to keep your sensor clean. We recommend that you check with your local camera store for cleaning options and advice.

[Giovanni5E9C]

Thanks for the useful explanations!

[Jill_C]

Looks like the overall exposure is improved (lightened), but you still have a significant amount of noise (the most frequent artifact) in the image.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

The image has a green cast.  White balance needs to be corrected to give it more warmth.

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/white-balance.html

[Abambo]

You also have chromatic aberration:

And as a small remark: Most images in stock have a history of more or less editing. Editing is necessary for addressing many problems with noise, chromatic aberration, the crop, sharpening, the white balance, the horizon... I would guess that rarely an asset is as it left the camera.

Very often, people overdo processing, but it is as bad as under doing processing.

[Giovanni5E9C]

thanks for your suggestions! I ask, but just to understand: the buyers who buy these photos, for the use they make of them, are expected to enlarge it so much? Furthermore, could it not be that this "color aberration" is the reflection of the sun on the glossy mantle of the cicada?

[Nancy OShea]

The people who review your photos will enlarge them to ensure the quality is good enough for Stock. If the image quality can't hold up at 200% magnification, it won't be good enough for professional print or video projects either.

[Abambo]

I ask, but just to understand: the buyers who buy these photos, for the use they make of them, are expected to enlarge it so much?

By @Giovanni5E9C

To examine your images, you need to examine them at magnifications of 100% (for sharpness) and 200% or 300% (for artefacts and noise). The better the image performs here, the better it can be used.

Furthermore, could it not be that this "color aberration" is the reflection of the sun on the glossy mantle of the cicada?

By @Giovanni5E9C

The chromatic aberration is a lens defect that happens even with the best lenses, and that is that small border of reddish or blueish colour shift in high contrast areas. Most of the time it can be easily corrected. Programs like Lightroom may apply corrections like this automatically together with other lens defects.