Technical issues??

[RJMitchellPhotography]

So Adobe rejected this image for "technical reasons? Can anyone shed some light on why and what they might be? I thought the image would lend its self to project as there is plenty of space on the right for wording, also the image has been accepted by Shuttershock.

[v.poth · Accepted solution]

Hi,

the picture shows strong noise in the sky and the birds don't seem to be really sharp. Seams around the contours are also visible. These are definitely technical problems that lead to rejection by Adobe. If another agency accepts such pictures, it is not technically understandable, I mean. But each agency has its own level of quality here, but I don't think it fits the quality standards of Adobe Stock. Here you should pay more attention to the technical requirements for an upload and acceptance of images by Adobe. The User Guide for Adobe vendors provides helpful information here.

Greets,

v.poth

[RJMitchellPhotography]

Thank you I have taken a closer look and see what you mean, appreciate your time.

[oleschwander]

Shutterstock accepts almost everything these days - beats me. For some years ago your image would be rejected for a number of reasons. It’s so much harder to get images accepted here on Adobe!

[RJMitchellPhotography]

Thanks and yes I already have a number of images on Adobe stock currently, but some of their rejections are suspect as I believe they use some kind of automation not an actual person.

[Ricky336]

You also have chromatic aberration - which is the purple/green fringe on the edge the vultures. ( If this is what v.poth means by 'seams around the contours') This can be removed - Lightroom for example does a really good job at removing that.

As well as istock - they also don't seem to have such technical standards as Adobe, among other criteria.

[RJMitchellPhotography]

Yes thats what I noticed after v.poth mentioned it. However as I mentioned in another reply some of Adobe's rejections are odd, I'll post another image that was rejected due to noise, bit in actual fact it was shot at ISO 200 and has next to no noise but does have some great looking bokeh which I think their automAtion mistakes as noise!