We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
I am new to Adobe Stock as contributor. In your pic the dog is cropped (in the one with shades). Also look at the reason cited by moderating team for the rejection. The resource below explains each of the reasons in detail.
The link you can visit for the requirements is part of stock contributor guide.
I think that as you have used a smartphone for these shots in portrait mode, the background is not in such a good way, compared to using aperture on a DSLR with a wide aperture. The background is blurred unevenly. You would have more control using the aperture rather than the phone's software. It is fine for general use, but rather not for commercial use.
The dog in the pink shades, not only is there a cropping problem, but you have the reflection of a person's legs in the shades. The dog on the beach - it's also cropped too close to the bottom.
Another problem with smartphone photos is that when enlarged to a larger size, quality issues become more noticeable. They are fine for general use and sharing on social media, but rather not for large prints. Especially, as most phones save photos as JPEGs.
It would be well worthwhile reading the link given and Adobe's guide for submitting photos to Adobe Stock.
So, happy reading!
The first picture: (Dog on the beach): Cropping is wrong. You should have left more material in the lower border. The picture is, however astonishing good for a phone picture, however the fake depth of field has it's limits as it cannot sense the sand correctly.
The second picture: (Dog on the stone): It's nicely framed, but when you look at it at 100% magnification, you really see the imperfections introduced by the small sensor and the overzealous processing of the in camera logic.
The third picture: (Dog on the bench): overzealous processing of the in camera logic, the feet could be completly on the picture (but less important than with the first picture), contrasts could be better.
The fourth picture: (Dog at home): overzealous processing of the in camera logic, you see the effects of the "fake" blurry background in the single dog's hairs. In addition you have the same problem as with the sand: the floor is processed inconsistely.
All in all: Nice pictures. I would like them on Facebook or Flickr or similar. But they are not suitable for stock. The problem is the camera, wich does to much processing decisions for you but cannot work over the deficiencies of the small sensor.
Those are lovely shots. However there are a few problem some of which are highlighted in previous posts. A common issue with all the images is that they are noisy (That is not technical issue, but is also a cause for rejection).
The dog on the beach in addition to the cropping issue mentioned, do not have smooth shade in the shadows. The black should be as smooth as close to the dogs right leg. The grayish blabs are faults.
The dog on the stone: wet side of the stone has an artifacts issue. There are colors on the stone that should not be there.
For the dog in spectacles, the reflection is already dealt with. However it too has artificial color issues.
The dog with the object in it's mouth is the one I love best. It's quite sharp at the head, but your shutter speed was not fast enough to freeze the motion of the dogs rare. There is a halo forming as a result of the dogs movement. In addition there was not sufficient depth of field, hence even though its head is beautifully sharp cropping would be difficult at the soft edge rare.
To see all these issues zoom to between 100 and 200%.
In addition to the link above, also take a look at https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html?set=stock--fundamentals--adobe...