Technical problems

7076: You did shoot this one at ISO 2500, which means that you needed to do a lot of noise reduction to get this level. Noise reduction, however, does not come for free. You also destroy the fine structure that is still left in the picture despite the high ISO. The exposure time is 1/1000s and as trees rarely jump out of the view, you can go down to a fairly reasonable exposure time. The background is underexposed. You also could have framed the picture in such a way, that there is less background in the view.

7475: Not only do you have that very disturbing spot in the picture, you also have a high noise level. As said above, you should really set the ISO level to the lowest possible value. Such static objects do not need that fast exposure time of 1/1300s.

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

Hello,

The lens flare as it is called - is bad in this case. It is very distracting and would never sell!

Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in commercial projects like posters, brochures, product packages, t-shirts, coffee mugs, video & TV ads, etc...

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustrations.ug.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html

Unsightly shadows, artifacts, sensor spot and blown out regions.