''ARTEFACT PROBLEMS'' in images that look fine (at least to me)

[Maddias1]

My images have ben rejected for ''artefact problems'' even though they look fine to me and also the ''Shutterstock curators'' because the images have been approved there.

Rejection for artefact problems:

Path Forest Stock Photo 770241919 - Shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wooden-texture-closeup-770241931?src=7K5-GPWLn-ZT9KV_i1KaPw...

Wooden Texture Closeup Stock Photo 770241931 - Shutterstockhttps://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/wooden-texture-closeup-770241931?src=7K5-GPWLn-ZT9KV_i1KaPw...

Trees Fog Stock Photo 770241925 - Shutterstock

Dew On Leaf Stock Photo 770241928 - Shutterstock

Forest Branch Stock Photo 770241913 - Shutterstock

Autumn Leafs Sand Stock Photo 770241916 - Shutterstock

Rejection for technical Problems:

Big Wave On Beach Stock Photo 774640858 - Shutterstock

I have no idea why these got rejected, especially since they have been approved on Shutterstock.

Maybe someone else has a clue.

[v.poth]

Hi,

no one can really judge the accuracy of the rejections due to the links. I think it would make more sense to post some sample pictures directly here. Because of the linked photos I think there is a sharpness problem, but this is only a guess...

Generally speaking, however, an acceptance of an image by an agency is not a guarantee that it will be accepted by another agency, is my experience. The selectors decide very differently.

Greets,

v.poth

[Maddias1]

Here are some and the others look just as sharp throughout the whole photo (where it is suppused to be sharp)

But i assume Shutterstock does not accept out of focus areas when it does not make sense either.

[v.poth]

Hi,

sorry, but nothing is sharp in this linked examples.

Greets,

v.poth

[Maddias1]

So shutterstock approves blurry images?

[v.poth]

Hi again,

when I look at this picture: "Dew On Leaf Stock Photo 770241928" at Shutterstock in 100% there is nothing sharp in this picture. So it seems they accept blurred photos there, yes.

I don't know why, maybe you uploaded it as a "blurry background" with a corresponding title and keywords, so it was accepted.

Greets,

v.poth

[v.poth · Accepted solution]

Hi,

thanks for your PM. I looked at the photo Big Wave On Beach Stock Photo 774640858 - Shutterstock .

Please have a look at the white areas in the picture, they are often overexposed and have no more drawing, especially in the area of the pebbles in the foreground. The sky is clearly noisy. These are definitely "technical problems" that lead to rejection by Adobe.

I think you should be more careful (sharpening, contrast, etc.) in image editing to avoid such problems. It can also be that your camera is not able to process such contrasts in general and the raw material is "bad" from the beginning.

In general, it is also advisable to always take photographs in RAW format in order to be able to correct such image errors effectively.

Greets,

v.poth

[Maddias1]

I do shoot RAW but this photo was actually taken with my phone... I do have a d3400 now though.

But once again it's approved on Shutterstock so it does meet their requirements. I guess Adobe has higher requirements than Shutterstock does.

[Guest]

Adobe has a different alogorythm application and system. More pickey. Be more attention to detail before you submit. It’s not Adobe it’s you. Read the Adobe instructions on troubleshooting.

[tetyanao23495188]

Oh, come on now. Adobe is known for rejecting perfectly good pictures. I did not believe it until I submitted mine. Whatever they accepted I’m going to keep it here, but there is no way I am going to waste my time submitting my pictures in the future. And, if they feel like the picture won’t do well on their site, they should just say so. I totally understand that different customer base and needs require different product. As a manager and marketer, myself, I would understand that. What is getting on my nerve is when they are telling me that my pictures have quality problems. I would never leave the house without tripod and remote control. My equipment is also expensive and very good quality. I shoot in RAW, and hardly ever use saturation, only vibrancy. I can go on, and on with the list of things I do to insure the quality of my pictures. And, no, I will not post my pictures here to be reviewed because they are being exhibited internationally, and sold on six other microstocks. I am simply responding to your comment “its not Adobe its you”

[Maddias1]

I was not saying it was Adobe in the first place.

But if Adobe rejects good pictures because they want the best only, then Adobe stock is not for me.