Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Better composition! The exposure is more balanced as well. Your first photo the composition is not so good, the moon is too much of a bright spot and I don't think it has much commercial value!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hello,
Can you give the rejection reason that came with the email? Did it say 'Technical issues?'
You DO need to inspect at 100% or more to see problems with the file. Remember that files are not only used for small screen viewing but also for large prints. This where the defects can become noticeable like noise, artifacts, incorrect exposure etc.
Have a read of this. It's a brief guide on image quality:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
i didnt get email but it does say it has 'Technical issues'
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
There are a few reasons I can see.
The moon is overexposed with no details.
The structure's shadows are underexposed.
There is too much empty space (the sky) with no details.
The scene is poorly cropped.
I think this would have come over better:
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
hello. thanks for comment.
i like to darken(underexpose) parts i dont want to stand out. its just my style.
do you think this kind of personal style be a problem for uploading on adobestock in the future?
should i look for better stockimage site?
(sorry if my english is not good)
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
A better stockimgae site? Let me know if you find one.
Under exposed and overexposed areas in photos contain no details.
When enlarged and printed these appear as blotches in the prints. No reputable customer wants these
in purchased photos. In small prints you might get away with it however in a good stock agency these photos will be refused.
As a photographger, the correct approach is to crop out or blur the parts you do not want to emphasize in the photo. This is called "composing your photo". This can be done "in camera" or in post processing.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
hi. this is a photo accepted. taken on same time and place.
can you give me your thought on how this is better than rejected one?
i comparing 2 photos and i have no idea. im trying to find good things that are only in the accepted photo and not in rejected one and use the knowledge to pick the good photos i have.
thanks.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi @Sejin.___.Bears ,
I certainly understand the point you make.
I do find a purple color fringing at the top of the building. I also find the eve of the building dark, and in my opinion might not turn out well with printing. I also find display of grain noise in the sky. Also in my opinion it is a bit over-saturated. The only difference here is the improved composition and this seem a bit sharper.
However, it's different humans that review these images. The likeness, and experience of one is different from others. What one overlook the other might not. In some cases in an effort to meat deadlines, quota or goals there are errors. At least errors can be found on your rejected image. I've had multiple consecutive rejections that I cannot identify issues.
Best wishes
JG
Photographer and Nutrition Author
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Better composition! The exposure is more balanced as well. Your first photo the composition is not so good, the moon is too much of a bright spot and I don't think it has much commercial value!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
after deleting the moon the photo got accepted. thanks for all the usefull coment
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi @Sejin.___.Bears ,
When your photos are printed details must be visible in the shadows and no artifacts must be visible. Therefore exposing your photos correctly is critical and so too is removing camera errors such as artifacts. A platform accepting underexposed images do not make it better. I can introduce you to a site where your files go straight to market once you upload and tag. However, even there poor quality files do not sell and are removed after a while.
Best wishes
JG
Photographer and Nutrition Author
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
thanks for the reply. can you tell me the site? im trying all options.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The best stock provider is the one getting me the most money. It's not the one accepting the most pictures.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Adobe Stock customers expect to find high quality full scale images for use in professional projects. With that in mind, I'm not sure what commercial value this would have for Stock customers. It's underexposed, tilted and the moon is microscopic and blurry.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi @Sejin.___.Bears ,
It is beautiful. There is, however, color fringing at the top of the wall. It is underexposed - not enough details in the shadows. Also the subject is not completely sharp. The composition is not good. You could include a little more of the building.
I also observe writing on the building. That could be an IP issue.
Best wishes
JG
Photographer and Nutrition Author
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I had to look up "pixel peeping". One definition is "Pixel peeping is when you view your images at 100% or greater magnification." To which the answer is - of COURSE Adobe are doing this, because it's what their customers do to check quality. World class commercial photography must be perfect at 100%.