Too many files rejected.

[kennyj4242]

A recent batch was mostly rejected due to artifacts, noise. I was very careful with this last batch and cannot understand why most were rejected. I re-did one a week or 2 ago ( I agree that 1 was overdone) and resubmitted and it sold already. New to Adobe, but have the same shots listed with other agencies with no problem. Been submitting stock for 5 years and never have gotten the rejects that I get here. Asking for a critique on these photos.

[v.poth · Accepted solution]

In the first picture, the head of the deer falls directly onto a bush in the background. In the second picture it is the antlers. This means that the deer is not completely separated from the background.

Unfortunately, the pictures are only uploaded in very small filesize to be able to analyze technical problems well and reliably. But it seems to me that the pictures are too sharply sharpened and there are many small picture areas in the lights and depths which do not show any more drawing.

Generally speaking, I think that there are already many pictures of a deer in better quality in the database of FT/AS and so it is difficult to get such pictures accepted.

Greets

v.poth

[kennyj4242]

I set my Canon on Faithful, which is zero sharpening, contrast, saturation etc. Then do the sharpening in post, once with low settings unsharp mask. These photos are NOT oversharpened. I wondered if they are looking for less contrast? I set them for true blacks and whites, as is standard at most places. I do slightly add an S-curve, and this increase always adds a touch to saturation. I rearely add any saturation itself, and none in these. The only thing I did not like working them up, were the hot spots of sky among the tree branches, I darkened them up a touch and on close inspection maybe they don't look right, Bright skys can be problematic. ISO of 200 should not be a problem. I will redo and re-submit a few and see what happens. These have been accepted at 3 other stock houses, so I have my doubts about adobe, no sense wasting time if they won't accept what everyone else finds acceptable. Heres a link (if it works) to Flickr where you can see and blow up a larger version. I do a lot of art work, so all my stuff on Flickr are not straight photos, so don't draw conclusions on most of my recent stuff, they are not stock material. Look at the elk only. Click the pic once and it will blow up. IMG_0494fff | kenneth jacobs | Flickr

[Ricky336]

Hello Kenny,

They well may be not oversharpened, but they do look that way, hence I agree with v.poth, also with his points about composition - if one were to be somewhat critical. You should bear in mind that Adobe has a higher standard (I think)- technical quality, ascetics etc., than other stock agencies. From my experience they tend to have a significantly lower acceptance standards, despite them saying they have very high standards. Just because images are accepted on other sites, doesn't mean Adobe will accept them here. Adobe may well be picky, but it is with good reason I think! If you continue submitting, you can actually learn what is and isn't a good photo!