technical difficulties

[Verbbaitum]

So I just submitted 20 images. 18 of them were rejected. The two that were approved were not even close to being the best of the bunch. Several of the others have been published in magazines. The images were supposedly rejected for "technical difficulties" which is short for "I don't like them." I don't think it had anything to do with the quality of the images. The images were mostly of snow goose hunting. I think I had the misfortune of getting someone who is an anti-hunter to review my images. I've suspected this before. I have a feeling they are biased and it had nothing to do with image quality. The images were dubbed to not be PC. Tell me differently. I've tried to attach several to this post along with an image I just had on the cover of Great Lakes Angler. One of many covers I've had on magazine covers. It's obvious we don't have a level playing field.

[Test Screen Name]

Did you really submit a picture of a magazine as a Stock photo? Why? 

[Verbbaitum]

No. I just posted it as an example.

[Test Screen Name]

Ok, I understand after rereading that you didn't submit that as stock. Specialist magazines, however, have a very different audience (it's an exciting and dynamic shot to talk to an angling fanatic) than general designers who are looking for absolute technical perfection, and complain to Adobe if they find any "faults" by their standards. I think you need to look for technical issues; if Adobe don't like a picture or feel it's not suitable, they say so.

Issues include non-level horizon (multiple images - make sure your tripod has a spirit level), focus, bleached out overexposed images. I like the dog, but I suspect the composition is considered marred by just the tip of the gun barrel, and the decoys are overexposed (yes, it works as art, I know, but Adobe aren't art buyers). And these are the issues that I can see without starting to zoom in (which reviewers always do).

[Verbbaitum]

That's funny. I just saw where they approved about eight more of them.

[Nancy OShea]

The images were supposedly rejected for "technical difficulties" which is short for "I don't like them." 

By @Verbbaitum

==========

Your disappointment is duly noted but no, that's not what it means.   Rejections are not personal and nothing to get salty about.   If Adobe didn't like them  you would NOT be invited back.  You'd receive flat out rejection saying "Thanks but no thanks. Adobe can't use it, sorry."  😝

Adobe is telling you there are noticeable technical problems here however you are invited back.  So fix the problems if possible and resubmit.  Adobe wants to accept your images.  That's what their business is all about. 😊

[Abambo]

Hi @Verbbaitum,

You are entirely wrong. Adobe stock image vetting is not about liking an image. It's about to guaranty the quality of the database. You should know that by now, as you are not a beginner any more.

I won't comment all your pictures, I've just picked a few:

0069-2 is overexposed and despite the misty atmosphere could get some dehazing.

It's containing some noise, and it's out of focus.

DSC_0030-2.jpg:

The focus is on the nose, instead of the eyes.

In portraits, it's important to have the eyes in focus. In addition, you have an overexposed (blown out) background.

0010-2: The white balance is off, you have chromatic aberration, and the DOF is not great for such a picture.

0014-2: The whites are blown out, resulting in missing structures.

In addition, the white balance is too cool. The eye of the trap should be crisp-sharp.

Congratulations on your pictures getting published. But this really does not mean that the images are good enough for stock, where you need to cover any application, including high-quality prints. I've prepared numerous pictures to be used in a technical publication. Most of the assets would have been good enough for being submitted and accepted for stock.

As a side note: When Adobe thinks that the asset is not usable for stock because of the subject represented, the refusal reason is “Lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal”. Technical issues are what it says. Your photo contains one or more issues caused by technical limitations of your hardware or your settings or your photography style or your post-processing. In no case, it's “the moderator disliked my image”.

[Verbbaitum]

Thanks for your critique and your time. I still believe a lot depends on
who is doing the judging. I just submitted 16 very similar images. 14 of
the 16 were excepted. I do not have the technical knowledge that you have
obviously and never will. I do know what makes for a good outdoor image
though. I'll have to keep submitting and learn to just take it all with a
grain of salt. One of my reason for submitting the image is to preserve
them for posterity for my kids. I'm accomplishing that. 😁🤔

[Abambo]

Thanks for your critique and your time. I still believe a lot depends onwho is doing the judging.
By @Verbbaitum

Adobe tries to get consistent moderation. But as moderation is done by humans, getting images through sometimes depend on the moderator or his mood, working hours, and different factors influencing all of us. However, the three images I've looked at clearly show multiple technical issues. Those that I didn't analyse also show, simply by looking at the miniatures, more or less important defects. So, the assets probably would have been rejected by most moderators at any mood.

For preserving images for the posterity, I, personally, think there are better options.

[Verbbaitum]

I submitted three different groups of images all on the same topic from one
of my folders (snow goose hunting). With regard to the first submission, 16
of 18 images were rejected. In the next batch, 14 of the 16 images were
accepted. Regarding the last group of images 10 were accepted, 2 needed
corrections, and 2 were rejected. Maybe this will illustrate my point and
confusion. But somehow I doubt it. 🤔

[Jill_C]

As others have noted, the Moderators and Adobe Stock are not "anti-hunting", "PC" or "biased". They're just looking for high quality images that will sell. Without spending a lot of time on each image you've uploaded here, the issues are evident: overexposure, underexposure, blownout highlights, soft focus, leaning horizon, lens spots. The subject is unique, and could result in sales if you can overcome the technical issues.

[Verbbaitum]

My illustration above would seem to indicate otherwise. "getting images through sometimes depend on the moderator or his mood, working hours, and different factors influencing all of us"

[Nancy OShea]

Like any well-oiled machine, moderators go through training and have a list of criteria they follow.  They evaluate thousands of images each week. 

Try submitting your rejected images to other stock agencies like Getty Images or Shutterstock and see if that works better for you. 

[Abambo]

My illustration above would seem to indicate otherwise. "getting images through sometimes depend on the moderator or his mood, working hours, and different factors influencing all of us"

By @Verbbaitum

Your images above exhibit defects that get refused with "technical issues"! They have been rightfully rejected. If it depends on the moderators' mood, it is minimal, it may lead to getting technical imperfect images passed. When buyers select such images, and they complain, the image gets deleted from the database. There are also from time to time images that get rejected, but that are technically correct. But definitely that's not the case with your images above.