I'm new here so trying to learn. I understand that here at Adobe Stock, images can be rejected for no specific reason, just "techinical issues." What is the theory behind this?
I'm coming from other companies which give specifics, so it's easier for contributors to learn and get better content up quickly. Why not give reviewers a set of boxes to tick: color balance, composition, cropping, focus, etc.—fix these and you're good; and even, you should just forget about this particular image: it's hopeless?
I understand there is a Qualtiy and Technical Issues link that explains several possible areas of deficiency.
I also understand and am thankful that other contributors may be willing to critique and shed light on rejections, as I've seen in similar threads. That's wonderful.
Jsut curious about the system here. I'm seeing a few rejections that were approved by other companies. So I assume the photos are not total garbage. Maybe the standards are higher here. Maybe it's laziness on the part of Adobe, sort of like a judge saying, "You broke the law and will be punished. Never mind what specific law it was." Jokes aside, I'm asking here to learn more about my new company. Can anyone lend some insight?
I'd say Adobe are trying to set up the most efficient system possible - efficient for Adobe, that is. Setting up processes that trim seconds from the reviewers work. Perhaps taking the view that there are plenty more photos in the sea.
Copy link to clipboard
The thing to understand, which I think many people don't get, is that Adobe Stock and are not instructors, it is not a photography course where you submit images for critique. As the photographer, illustrator, vector designer, the contributor is supposed to know what the standard is. So really, Adobe do not have to tick boxes according to the type of error/fault etc.
This is why there is this community/forum, where one can get feedback on their submission. It works pretty well I think.
Fellow contributors can give more specifics like lawyers. More detail on which actual law/issue one broke...
The rejection reason is just a guide - what to look for. If the type of rejection reason is given here, fellow contributors may be able to shed more light on the rejection reason. For technical issues, it could be colour balance and that's it!
Over time, you'll get to know what to look for.
I see this is the system.
This method, however, leaves the judges who accept or deny submissions unaccountable for any errors. This pretty much guarantees bad feelings as with millions of photos, even a small percentage of mistakes add up.
Like I mentioned, some photos I've had rejected were accepted by other companies, sometimes multiple companies. So, it's not just me.
And, though not a pro, I've been doing stock for over a decade. Seems to me that in some cases, it is just a matter of opinion or personal preference, and there's no technical, objective flaw. This seems like a clunky system that could be improved on with a couple of checkboxes that narrow things down and could get more images in Adobe's catalog faster.
I'm coming from other companies which give specifics, so it's easier for contributors to learn and get better content up quickly.
Which company gives specifics?
It's all about optimization. 99% of the contributors know where to look when they get a refusal. As for the rest, asking the forum is hell more effective (and does not cost Adobe a dime...).
Shutterstock did. Though I've since left them because of their contact changes and come here. Same with iStock, though I haven't uploaded there for awhile. I believe DreamsTime does, too. From my background, Adobe is the only one not giving more info.