I am new to Adobe Stock and have had several images not accepted due to technical issues. Why don't they specify what the technical issues are? Several other images were accepted of the same resolution, quality, and subject matter, so it is unclear to me why the other images were not accepted. I don't want to waste my time or theirs by submitting photos that Adobe Stock won't accept. What does one do in this case? Attached are two examples of the photos that were not accepted in web-sized format.
I see no error issues.
It would be better if you posted the original photos that you submitted which were rejected. Sometimes issues are only seen at 100%-200% magnification of the original image.
Tal vez en este caso interesaria obtener mas bokeh, mas deenfoque de fondo.Las uvas estan bien para una ublicacion agricola pero si la tuvieses que usar para un catalogo de vinos deberian estar mas "maquilladas". En las flores, las mas cercana se ve un poco desenfocada. Quizas por eso
@DR Carlson wrote:
I am new to Adobe Stock and have had several images not accepted due to technical issues. Why don't they specify what the technical issues are?
Because this is a highly optimized process and not the school of photography.
Technical issues is not a matter of resolution but a matter of photographic and postprocessing quality.
If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
The devil is in the details.
There is a focus problem in the middle of your crocuses.
Grapes are a tad too dark. Look at your Histogram panel in Photoshop.
Also, the grape stem isn't sharply focussed.
Read about Depth-of-Field.
This is distracting: