I’ve started submitting wildlife and landscape images, and so far more than half have been rejected because they ‘don’t meet our quality standards’ even though they are mostly full-frame, perfectly exposed pictures taken with a 45mp Nikon D850 and processed in RAW. Looking at what they have accepted, I don’t believe this is about technical quality – they seem (quite understandably) to have accepted the more unusual pictures, rather than those with the highest pure image quality, perhapos because they already have enough standard pictures of frogs, owls, lakes etc – but if that's the case, why don't they say so? It would help me to know what to send in future.
Had Adobe rejected images because they're not unusual enough, or already heavily represented in the database, they would have rejected based on "Similar Images", though there does seem to be some inconsistency in their application of that rejection reason. If you would like feedback from the community members on any of your rejected images, post 2 or 3 here in full size.
Hello, it depends on your view of quality. Most people think their photos are fantastic, and are disappointed that it gets rejected, even though the quality isn't great.
Have a read of this. It's a brief guide on quality:
You need to post a picture as submitted here, and we will analyse the asset.
Having won prizes in photo contests does not say anything about the usability of the pictures in stock. Other criteria are applied here. Moderation is done to protect the buyer from erronous pictures, not tojudge your photography skills. My bestseller here didn't even get consideration in a photocontest, and my best placements in photocontests are pictures that would get refused here for different reasons.
If you would load two or three of the images that got refused we could probably tell you what standards were not met.