Why were all three photos rejected but accepted by other stock agencies.

[Bhupinder_Singh2178]

I submitted what I though were really good quality photo, but were rejected on the basis of quality. Have a look. Would love a critical feedback. These have been accepted by Getty!

[daniellei4510]

The second one is underexposed and the third one was poorly cropped. Adobe is pickier about those issues compared to other stock sites. At 100%, the feathers of the owl aren't sharp..

[Bhupinder_Singh2178]

Sure Thanks! What was wrong with these!! Really?

[Jill_C]

The first and third images seem underexposed. The second looks fine to me and I don't know why it was rejected.

[Bhupinder_Singh2178]

Just realised my perfectly captured images will get rejected by Adobe for frivolous lame reasona because its being pitted against AI generated soul-less "Art" created by the likes of banal creators Eg: Daniel L, Photographer and Graphic Designer. AI generated material hasno chromatic aberration, no noise, no depth of field issues. I am pretty happy being a Getty contributor. 

[Jill_C]

I have actually seen many AI images with excessive noise and DOF issues, though perhaps they are immune from chromatic aberration. Don't forget, all AI enginers are "trained" on real images. AI images aren't being compared to real photographs, and there is still a market for such images. Nevertheless, sometimes Adobe's "quality" rejections are inscrutable and unjustified. I have also had some assets that were rejected by Adobe accepted by Getty.

[daniellei4510]

I am the last person who would classify AI images as "art." It's a craft that can, on occasion, be elevated to art in the right hands. I feel pretty much the same when it comes to photography, but that's a whole different conversation. My tongue in cheek response to people who say that "all AI designers do is sit around typing prompts" is that "all photographers do is walk around and push a button." 

I have somewhere in the vicinity of 30 years experience as a photographer (mostly fashion, fine art and figure...the latter being why I can't submit the bulk of my images to Adobe Stock). I've studied with the likes of Joyce Tennesen, Greg Gorman and numerous others, and I'm also a strong believer that individuals interested in creating AI should have a background in photography or graphic design before they consider delving into AI.

Anyway...I just got home from having back surgery. (Is it surgery or surgary? I'm a bit high on painkillers at the moment, and I hope I'm making a modicum of sense). In any case, at the age of 74, running around with cameras, camera bags and tripods while dealing with models with attitudes just isn't my thing anymore.

Good luck to you going forward, whether here or Getty or both.

[Abambo]

Is it surgery or surgary?

By @daniellei4510

I would say “surgery” as my spellchecker does mark “surgary” as wrong. And my most trusted dictionary does not know “surgary”. However, Google finds many “surgary” entries… 🙂

Get well soon!

[Abambo]

Just realised my perfectly captured images will get rejected by Adobe for frivolous lame reasona

By @Bhupinder_Singh2178

Sorry, the reasons are correct, and the pictures have errors that since ever lead to rejections here on Adobe stock.

This does not mean that I dislike your pictures, but your processing leaves room for improvement. The fact that many of your pictures are taken with high ISO opens the gate to noise, and that noise needs to get addressed.

its being pitted against AI generated soul-less "Art" created by the likes of banal creators

By @Bhupinder_Singh2178

There is no doubt that many of the generative AI pictures accepted here are substandard, and if the same stringent moderation would be applied to them, much of them would not have passed moderation.

AI generated material hasno chromatic aberration, no noise, no depth of field issues.

By @Bhupinder_Singh2178

AI-generated assets have all the issues that photographic images have and much more. I've never seen a 6-finger hand in a photographic representation, bad geometric lines or other nonsense. But I have seen generative AI with noise, chromatic aberration, compression artefacts, wrong DOF, wrong focus… What I rarely see is badly exposed generative AI. That seems to be the only thing that the image generators did not copy from their models.

I am pretty happy being a Getty contributor. 

By @Bhupinder_Singh2178

At least Getty is not (yet) accepting low quality generative AI.

[daniellei4510]

I think composition could be improved. Give the buyer some room for copy.

[Abambo]

The first: You should pay more attention to your processing:

Kingfisher:

Noisy and missing contrast. Exposure. And well, bad processing (You see in the picture that you blurred the background and sharpened the foreground).

Your Puffin is noisy and too dark (lift the shadows and put more light on your bird).

[Jill_C]

It's unfortunate that the beak was cropped in this one - shooting in vertical orientation would be better.

Dalmatian Pelican closeup Kerkini.jpg

[Abambo]

These have been accepted by Getty!

By @Bhupinder_Singh2178

That's of no interest to Adobe stock. Every agency does its checking according to their own rules.

Short Eared Owl Dive:

It has exposure problems (underexposed), it is not sharp, and it has been processed in a strange way that does not make it a naturally looking picture.

Dalmatian Pelican Flying Dawn Kerkini:

This one is extremely underexposed:

And there is a lot of noise.

Dalmatian Pelican closeup Kerkini:

This one is extremely cropped, but I am not convinced that this is the main refusal reason. The refusal reason is the massive noise that is present in this picture.

(seen at 100%)

Adobe does not accept noisy pictures.