Personally I would point out the issue with the composition of this image. It's not very visually pleasing.
White balance could be one reason.
Focus could be another.
"Not very visualy pleasing".
OK. That would seem to fall under "no commercial value" rather that "Technical Issues"
White Balance... The snow was bright white. The branches were dark and the sky was a very foggy and misty grey. Kind of exactly what my eyes saw.
Focus... I've had the branches up to 150% and no focus problems evident to me.
The reviewer had valid reasons for rejecting the image in its current state. We can only guess what the reviewer saw and provide you with feedback based on our collective experiences and what our eyes tell us.
Composition is definitely a technical issue and so is framing and cropping, color saturation, lighting, camera angle, white-balance and depth-of-field. The background is not well-focused.
If it was rejected for commercial value alone, there would be no way to fix it. But since it was rejected for technical reasons, you have an opportunity to fix it and resubmit if you wish.
Or you can try submitting it to another Stock agency.
Thank you Nancy O'Shea. There is absolutly no way the background can be "focused", it is misty grey dense fog. There is actually a celltower on top of a mountain behind that fog about a mile or two away.
I have submitted the photo to the other "usual" stock agencies and all have appoved it so far.
Thank you for your help and comments.
When I zoom in to 100%+ I have difficulty finding anything in sharp focus. The white balance is a bit too blue.
The color is fine. The blue adds to the mood of a cold morning. .
I've looked at thousands of images on AS and quality, color balance and compostition are questionable. Let's admit it: What is acceptable to A.S. is very inconsistent to say the least. Images that I've had accepted by other reputable stock houses are rejected here.
Images that I've had accepted by other reputable stock houses are rejected here.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Other Stock agencies have different acceptance standards & customer base. The royalty payment rate may be lower, too. In all cases, it's not what's accepted that counts. It's how many get sold and how much you earn from those sales. If you can do better with other agencies, keep using them.
Personally, I think the focus is fine. For me, the issue I see is white balance. The overall picture is just a bit too cold - blue looking (or grey). You can warm it up just a small bit - it makes a difference, and also brighten the image just a bit as well. Due to the fact it is snowy, there is a lot of light reflection, so the camera meter thinks it is very bright, consequently it reduces exposure. The camera meter measures to 18% grey, so that is kinda the result you have got. An 18% grey exposure.
However, I do think the composition isn't that great. One just sees a tree with snowy branches. You have no contrast in colour. It must have looked great via the eye, but you haven't captured the beauty of the scene with this image.
Did you read Adobe's list of technical issues? Composition is specifically listed there.
Well... This posted has taught me a lot. Everyone can have an opinion, even if they are opposite opinions. I probably should have converted this to a black and white image. White balance and color issues would vanish. And compositionwise probably not the best. I was initially intrigued by the texture of the branches and the snow. When I saw the grey swirling skies above I decided to leave them in.
And it re-enforces another lesson I forgot. I have had Adobe reject a couple of images that have turned out to be some of my best sellers at other agencies. So I'll just dust myself off and move on to the next picture.
Thanks for all the comments.
Except... that Adobe reject black and white images, typically.
You need to realise that while everyone's reply is just their opinion, we're trying to reflect what we understand to be Adobe's technical requirements (rather than our own ideas of the pictures we like).
Also, there are kinds of picture where the choice of original, or processing, produces effects that Adobe consider to be a reason to reject. I hear that pictures of foggy scenes are one of those. In general, Adobe make no allowance for art.
Don't forget: the moderator refuses on the first issue he or she sees. We comment on everything we see and from time to time we respectfully disagree. But at the end of the day is what counts is what the moderator accepts and what he or she refuses.
What is also important: not all stock providers are equal, and my bestseller here is not my bestseller there and vice versa. But I've got pictures rejected here, accepted there, that when I looked at them in detail again, I retrieved on other stock providers because the Adobe moderator simply was right.
The consensus opinion here seems to be: White balance needs to be improved. And the image composition is not the best.
The composition can no longer be influenced significantly, but the white balance can be improved.
That's probably not a lot of work. I would try it.
IMHO: White balance and exposure. As @ricky336 explained, you really need to manually correct snow pictures.
The histogram shows that the image is missing blacks and whites.
The focus is OK, the trees in the background are blurred out, but that is what is expected.
Playing a little with the parameters and the snow gets white:
As for the composition, I agree: it's not great. And I do not see any commercial value in this picture. But I've seen worse.