Why these graph images has been rejected?! For techinal issues

[Ambrosial_Sunset5E5A]

I hate local tech support. Permanent I don’t understand a damn thing.

[Ambrosial_Sunset5E5A]

No ideas folks? I need help, because I'm seems to be a complete fool - I upload it to the site for the sixth time.

[Jill_C]

The first image seems quite overexposed and softly focused, and I'm not even sure what it is...  I can't comment specifically on the 2nd image because I'm not sure what the Adobe Moderators are looking for in terms of illustrations; however it also looks quite soft to me. Here's what they say about vectors: 
"Tips for Vectors:
• Have a purpose in mind—such as a
greeting card, brochure, or info-graphic.
• Close paths, reduce anchor points, and
label your layers.
• Use a variety of stroke weights.
• Consider using translucent
gradients to add texture."

What I can say is that if you keep uploading the same image over and over hoping for a different result, you run the risk of having your account blocked for spamming. Here's what they say about "image spam": "Engaging in image spam may result in
your account being blocked temporarily or closed entirely."

[Ambrosial_Sunset5E5A]

Thanks for the answer!
Of course, I don't upload the same image all the time. I made corrections. By light, color, noise, etc. But still a refusal.
Blurring refers to the composition of the elements in the post.

The forst image is accepted and....  it seems to me that the curator simply filters them out by file name.

[Abambo]

---

@Ambrosial_Sunset5E5A wrote:

The forst image is accepted and....  it seems to me that the curator simply filters them out by file name.

---

I suppose you mean "the first image"! There is no filter by file name. 

Even being 3d renders, they are mostly vetted to the same criteria than photographs, especially when they are photorealistic. Your first looks to be overexposed. (But if it got accepted now, I suppose that you corrected whatever was disturbing)

The second is more difficult to evaluate, but I have the feeling that as the elements in the background are distorted, that can be a reason. I would expect for such a picture a more clean visual. But this is only my own appreciation.

Please note also that the aim of the vetting is to provide the customer with correct and clean pictures, it's not exactly for telling the contributor what is wrong in the picture. This is, however, sometimes difficult and frustrating for us contributors, to second guess the moderators thoughts. 

[Nancy OShea]

If the illustration is original, did you submit a signed property release with it?  Adobe cannot accept original artwork without the artist's/owner's permission.

Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in their own projects. Read these links.  Post back if you have questions.

• 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

[PaintedKitty · Accepted solution]

First images looks to me not a vector. Second might be a vector but I don't have any idea how you rendered that thing. None the less if its yet another JPG, it must have perfect sharp edges especially if you zoom in at 100 percent. If fuzzy when zoomed in, its back to the drawing board and that 3D graphic must be rendered at a higher dpi so you can have those smooth edges at 100 percent. Otherwise must be made into a true vector with a vector program.  That's just how it is.  If you can't afford Illustrator in any form, just get a free knock off till you can afford one. And no you can't make a true vector in Photoshop. 🙂

[Ambrosial_Sunset5E5A]

Thanks for the answer.
Of course they are original. Simple Molecule and bones are made in Cinema. All sources can be provided.

Refusal does not come from 'property refusal" it goes by "quality and technical issues" Which is very, very vague. For example, at one of the well-known stock, it is made clear what is meant by technical issues: Noise, cropping, blur, etc. And this is not here!

[Test Screen Name · Accepted solution]

Does your description make it absolutely clear that it is a 3D render, rather than a photo? This is very important and sometimes forgotten; Adobe's customers sometimes get very angry. Please give your keywords and subject, as you chose them, in full, maybe there is a clue there.

[Ambrosial_Sunset5E5A]

Exactly! Thanks for the advice!