Why "Rejected for technical issues" a secret black box?

[SpivR]

I understand the need for strict standards and photo review, but I don't understand the lack of feedback.

How am I going to learn to be a better photographer and stock contributor if I am not given even basic feedback beyond a cryptic rejection for "technical issues"?

I checked the Adobe stock website, and even there at least it lists possible reasons at this link https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

So why can't a rejection for technical reasons at least give feedback by stating which issue or issues amongst the list such as:

out of focus
artifacts
lighting issue
image quality

I think that would be a great start.  And yeah, "image quality" subdetails listed at that link such as white balance, contrast, saturation, selection editing, chormatic aberration, general composition would be even more helpful but Rome wasn't built i a day.

I assume the preliminary review checks of our submissions is done by algorithms or ML/AI processing for efficiency. (Afterall, Photoshop and other Adobe tools have some awesome AI built-in so it would be strange not to think similar advances are being used to filter submissions), so why the reluctance for Adobe to give even basic feedback?

[Jill_C]

Image submissions are checked by human Moderators, and they can choose only one rejection reason per image. They have to review many, many images per day, and can spend only a few seconds on your images. To put it bluntly, it is not their job to make you a better photographer. There are many other photo sharing sites where you can post your images, get feedback and learn from others. In order to be successful at selling stock images, you have to invest the time to learn your camera equipment thoroughly, to learn the art and skill of photography, and to learn how to edit effectively. Fortunately there are many other resources to allow you to acquire that learning. Adobe Stock is not one of them.

[SpivR]

I somewhat reset your assumptions about my skill and capability.

Perhaps if you paid a better wage and didn't offshore the job of photo review, you can provide some meaningful feedback.

I have learned my equipment thoroughly, and have experience with the art and skill of photography, as you put it.

Actually, most of my submissions that are rejected for "technical reasons" are shot with iPhone and not my "professional" equipment.

I assume, and continue to assume, there is a bias against smartphone photography.  Although, IMHO, some of the images rejected by you are superior to the "shot for stock" images I have submitted from my "equipment" and accepted by you.

I would love to understand the "technical reasons" why iPhone or other images are so frequently rejected as I do not believe it is as simple as "not knowing my equipment" or the "art and skill of photography" as you rudefully imply

[Nancy OShea]

You're not talking to Adobe here.  You're talking to fellow contributors and stock customers who probably know a thing or two you don't.

In any case, read the stock contributor user guide carefully.  If you wish to receive feedback about a rejected image, post it here along with the reason for rejection -- technical, IP, etc...

Good luck.

[Jill_C]

First of all, I, nor any of the other community members here in this forum are Adobe employees. We are other stock contributors, just like you. I meant no disrespect regarding your capabilities as a photographer. I was simply responding to the comment that you made "How am I going to learn to be a better photographer". 

[Nancy OShea]

With respect to low (12) megapixel smartphone cameras, you're competing with images taken on high (20+) megapixel DSLRs.  It's not impossible but it's certainly more difficult to get great shots from lower quality cameras.  Plus you need extra post-processing time to fix the mistakes in Photoshop or Lightroom. 

If you have a choice, use your smartphone for quick snapshots and posting on social media.  Use your DSLR for Stock photography. 

Read these links:

• 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-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html

Hope that helps.

[ricky336]

I would love to understand the "technical reasons" why iPhone or other images are so frequently rejected as I do not believe it is as simple as "not knowing my equipment" or the "art and skill of photography" as you rudefully imply

By @SpivR

There is another point to consider.

Sensor size (the digital age) Film size (the old days).

Have you ever used a film camera? 110 film? (This is going back a few years) Small film did not make for good enlargements - 6x4 inch was fine but an 8x10 inch was not so fine!

To get better enlargements 35mm film was necessary. (And for magazine shots - medium to large format is/was used.)

Welcome to the digital age. 'Full Frame' cameras have a larger sensor size than APC - C  ('Classic size ) sized sensor. (By the way APS = Advanced Photo System - popular in the 90s.) Therefore you can get larger prints.

Along comes smartphones (which evolved from mobile phones with built in cameras and the photos were crap).

Technology gets better. marketing gets better, iphone gets better, marketing gets even better to the point you can take awesome photos, we believe them, take an awesome photo, upload to to Adobe and... gets rejected for Technical Issues.

Reason is the sensor is just too small to make large prints. Smartphone photos have to be of the same quality as from a 'professional' camera.

So, despite the marketing hype that you can take awesome photos is just not true in all cases. It depends on what the photo will be used for.

As for Adobe providing feedback they have provided this community forum, where users can give advice!

Wow...

From a business perspective this is very efficient!

[Abambo]

I would love to understand the "technical reasons" why iPhone or other images are so frequently rejected as I do not believe it is as simple as "not knowing my equipment" or the "art and skill of photography" as you rudefully imply

By @SpivR

iPhone cameras or cameras on similar phones are great. But the small lens-sensor-combination does not offer much room for error and difficult environment. The software in the phone will work hard to make a pleasant looking picture, but noise reduction, fake DOF and other “artificial intelligence” algorithms don't compensate for the correct hardware.

There was no rudeness in @Jill_C's answer. She correctly described what stock is and what not, and she pointed out to your options.

If you are a skilled photographer who only wants to know why your iPhone pictures get more refusals than your high-end-camera pictures, it's simple: size matters. You can take great pictures on an iPhone, but if you pixel-peep, you will see the difference.

[SpivR]

Anecdotally, jpegs produced by Apple's algorithms and image processing (no portrait mode, night mode,  or other tricks, just "regular" photos) seems to generate a higher Adobe Stock acceptance rate than Apple raw images lightly processed in Lightroom.

So right or wrong, Apple's processing to compensate for sensor size and lens limitations seems to be doing a good job.

Again, not to belabor the point, I totally agree that mobile phones are not ideal.  In fact, I often argue the same point with mobile phone fanatics that buy every incremental new model year for the "great new camera".

Not preaching, but I point out to them by NOT buying new phones for myself and my wife for the last few years I saved enough $$ to invest in a new mirrorless full frame camera and non-kit lens that will last a lot longer.

[tiger622010]

Microstock Group Forum is a good place for folks to learn the ropes about this business. Back in 2011 I joined and become friends with several folks- two turned into mentors for me.  I've learned a lot in my 10 plus years and realize how difficult this business can be.  Good Luck... 

[Guest]

If you post the photo in question, perhaps we could have a look and try to help.

[Abambo]

First, stock has not been created for us photographers, but for the buyers. Buyers want perfect shots, that's the reason for moderation. Moderators, however, need to act fast. They can't do an extensive analysis and refuse on the first error they encounter. There is no need to go further as the picture is not good enough for stock.

So, photographers ideally are professionals who know the bells and whistles of photography and can select the correct and perfect shots. If not, they get a refusal with a quite generic message. Professionals understand where to look, when they get a refusal and to correct, if the error is correctable. Beginners (in stock photography), however, often don't understand how to look at the picture, so they post their picture here and fellow contributors point out the flaws in the pictures.

Moderation is done by humans. If you are well-trained, looking at the picture at 100% and 200% mostly immediately gets you eye directly to the error, especially if the error is all over the picture because of the sensor related artefacts, noise or some other trouble.

Giving more detailed information would require more time for the moderation. It's as easy as this. So instead of getting more precise, refusals get more generic. That saves time and you get more images moderated with the same number of people.

[SpivR]

Not to continue being a PITA, but I am amused by all the non-Adobe employees coming to Adobe's defense.

Do you know first-hand what you are saying, or is this simply your educated guess?  Unless Adobe itself answers the question, this is all heresay and logical inference.

Having worked at some very large companies (in other tech fields, not this one), I know what the outside/public/customers/users speculate about motives and internal processes is often very wrong and even comical.

[Nancy OShea]

Unless Adobe itself answers the question, this is all heresay and logical inference.

===========

@SpivR,

Adobe Staff seldom visit this user-to-user space. And reviewers NEVER come here.  That's not their job. 

Stock Photography is a business.  Either you have something of commercial value that people want to buy or you don't.  It's a simple supply & demand sales strategy. 

The advice you receive here is from unpaid forum volunteers with many years of experience in photography/videography and digital content creation.  We are Adobe product users and contributors with no agenda other than to help you be more successful at Stock.  In return, we only ask you to be gracious and respectful to fellow participants who are trying to help you. 

Post back when you have one or two rejected images for us to critique.  We'll be happy to provide feedback. 

Goodbye & good luck with your next submission.