As I go through my back catalogue, I am running into dozens and dozens of images rejected for technical issues. In case it's something I can fix, I'd love to know what the reviewer was thinking. The images are quite varied, and I've had batches and batches of various shoots rejected. I'm attaching a few here in case someone can help me identify the issue. Thanks
Everyone has heroes and zeros.
102 -- The X-mas stocking looks unnatural. The girl's face has many artifacts.
While I think I understand what you were going for, the composition doesn't work.
The girls face as NO artifacts. That's a reflection of the fireplace metal screen. It's a fireplace after all. She is out of focus on purpose. The focus is on the stocking. No idea why you think the home made stocking looks unnatural. It's perfectly lit. None of these are "technical" reasons for rejection though. And why refect all the dozens and dozens of other images? I was hoping for a general theme for all the rejections. Now I'm back to a 10 Mp camera. Surely that's not it since many others images from this set passed. I remain mystified.
102 -- This is my opinion, I'm not speaking for Adobe Stock. I see several non-sequitors in your composite that could be classified as technical issues. Mainly, scale, angle, perspective and light. It looks like the stocking was shot separately in another room under different lighting conditions with a different camera angle.
For more on Compositing, Perspectives and Vanishing points, look up Jesus Ramirez / Photoshop Training Channel on YouTube.
Nancy, this shot is not a composite. It's a straight shot out of the camera. I just lit the oversized sock more brightly since this was the focus of the image. It's also a 14 year old image. For all we know the reviewer just didn't like the dark "shadows" in the fireplace. Although not "blocked" they do go down to 5/255.
"It's a straight shot out of the camera."
Whatever you say. The stocking still looks unnatural to me.
Better luck with your next submissions.
Deliberate faults which require insight or artistic interpretation to understand are very unlikely to pass. The very fact that an experienced contributor did not appreciate what you were doing means the image is doomed. This is not a gallery, you cannot explain or apologise, and artistic appreciation is low in the moderator's lists. You can make art, so long as the art is technically perfect and passes a mundane inspection and direct interpretation. Hopefully customers will appreciate the art and license more.
That may be it. I just wish there were more categories than "technical issues". That could be anything. If the reviewer didn't like the image, I'm good with that. But if the reviewer sees a true technical problem, I'd like to get a hint about what it is since I take pride in technically excellent images.
In my view, I personally think the white balance is a bit off with the girl and stocking. It is a bit too yellow - I guess taken under tungsten light. So You have to alter the colour temperature - reduce the yellow cast: You can add a bit more contrast as well.
As for the others - bowl - white balance as well and composition. I think it is a bit too cramped. Ring hearts, also white balance and composition. Don't like the green patterned edges, so maybe the moderators also thought about this??, and there is no space at the top/bottom of the rings. The shadow is pointing out of the photo:
Too many vertical lines.
Well, all four images were taken with off camera flash. They are a bit cool, but the colors are true. I'm beginning to see that theses are not "technical" rejections as I would understand the term. There is nothing here I can fix, so I'll just move on. Thanks for the feedback everyone. What I'd really like to hear is the rationale from the reviewer themself, but alas, that is not to be.