Artifacts Rejection Reason

[Bruno Coelho]

Hello.

I wanted to talk about the "artifacts" rejection reason. But I want to do it IN GENERAL, not in particular (although I don't think you'll be able to abstract this issue and help me if I don't include some examples).

I've been a contributor of Adobe Stock for almost a year now (and before I was working with Fotolia for 2 years). I shoot mainly travel pictures, and I organize my batches by cities / regions / countries (you get the idea). My average rejection / acceptance rate is about 50% when taking into account all of my history; it's easy to ascertain this value by comparing my Adobe Stock with other "more open" stock websites and check the difference in portfolio size (I submit the same pictures to all stock platforms).

Sometimes I submit a batch of a new city and I get almost 100% of rejected pictures due to ARTIFACTS. Now, I'm not aware of how many different rejection reasons you have (I mean in total), but you could at least make an effort (like Shutterstock for example) and diversify the kind of feedback provided for each shot. Otherwise, you'll have to convince me that all my latest shots coincidentally have the ARTIFACTS problem. Not only that, but the actual ARTIFACTS explanation is VERY BROAD and you should split it into different reasons to help the artists. For me, it's just "too suspicious" that so many pictures have this single rejection reason in a row. I had a similar suspicion with Shutterstock for example, when they would review 50 of my pictures in a matter of minutes; again: highly suspicious.

Today this suspicious grew rather strong,when I got 27 consecutive pictures rejected for artifacts (no other reason). Don't get me wrong: I know that a lot of my pictures have artifacts. But I also know that many of them don't, or at least that's as best as my camera can shoot. Let's look at two rejected examples. If you have access to my rejected pictures through an ID, then those are IDs 200096414, 200096752 and 200095598. They are attached next (but in small sizes for security reasons):

The first one is an example of something I understand may not be optimum quality. It's a picture taken from a distance, on top of another building where the wind was hitting hard and I was handholding my camera. Plus, I used a sharpness-based filter because it's good for web usage (I'm actually a bit sad because most of the shots on that vantage point turned out not very good).

The other two pictures, however, were taken on the ground, with better camera parameters (I always shoot on manual) and they don't have any filter, just manual adjustments. Now, both of these pictures are rather crisp in the middle, and they slowly become worse around the edges. That's because I have a Canon 70D with an 18-135 multi-purpose lens. This is the EXPECTED BEHAVIOR of the lens, because, sue me, I don't have a better gear (zoomed images decrease this effect). I understand that the edges are worse and believe me, I want to purchase a new lens, but if these pictures were rejected because of that reason (can't think of any other), then you're just saying that people with my gear cannot make it in this business, which is horrible.

As I said before, I DO HAVE accepted pictures in Adobe Stock, and they were taken with the exact same gear. Surely many of them aren't zoomed (I don't zoom that much anyway), so I'm bound to have pictures with the same lack of quality around the edges, but they WERE ACCEPTED (as they should, because they're still good pictures and my pictures ARE SOLD).

So how can you explain this discrepancy? How much of this ultimately rests upon the personality of the reviewer? What's your opinion on this?

Thank you.

[Asfodelia]

Adobe sometimes rejects digital paintings because of "artifacts" or "lack of focus".

I use the contact form then. ;->

[burroshooter]

I have had some images rejected for the same reasons. Interestingly they are also of European locations with "smoggy skies," lower sunlight or complex subject matter. Places like Venice and St. Petersburg tend to get this kind of response from Adobe, but not from Shutterstock.  I think perhaps some of the reviewers don't have experience in these regions and really don't know how accurate the shots are.   Here is the kicker, I have one image of a high Colorado pasture with some cattle feeding in the snow.  It passed muster. Another shot three minutes earlier 300 yards away didn't for the noise and artifacts reason.  I think it depends on who the reviewer is, some are big on focus, some are into noise and artifacts.  Of course, we are assuming that someone actually looks at them, and we are not relying on software as the judge.  

[Bruno Coelho]

Well, my experience with Shutterstock is, GENERALLY,  similar to Adobe Stock when it comes to the acceptance rate (50%). However, I must admit that, for this batch in particular (Saint Petersburg, you're correct!), they have accepted almost all of them, for which I was actually baffled. Shutterstock breaks my heart even more because they're my most successful portfolio money-wise.

Yeah, maybe there's a bit of prejudice against certain weather conditions that aren't seen as "stock-worthy" as others. For example, I do have some images that feature snowfall (although I don't know if any of them were submitted to stock websites), but clearly, I wonder what they think of it. As I said though, I don't think it's exactly because of the weather, but rather the lens "ring effect".

Oh, don't get me started on the possibility of reviewing being done with AI / computers! I would snap if that would be true! Leaving the size of my portfolio, and thus my potential income, in the hands of a technology that works by being trained with millions of examples is not the way I want my art to be evaluated! (and I'm an IT guy!)

Still awaiting a response from someone from Adobe Stock though!

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

This is a user to user forum, so you may not get a specific response from them.

As for you pics and artifacts problem, your upload size is too small to tell.

You must remember to view your pics at 100% as they do and look for any signs of noise etc.

Most probably you have issues with noise. Even at ISO 100, you can still get noise issues. Adobe basically want technically and aesthetically (near perfect) images.

As for the many rejected pics at once - have you considered the fact that the reviewers may look at each different image and then 'reject' as one batch, as we may upload batch photos as the same time. Why not being able to reject as a batch? (This is only speculation though).

[joanH]

I  have noticed that a batch might be refused if they are all showing a constant flaw in the camera or lens or exposure. JH

[Bruno Coelho]

Well, I do admit that I thought someone closer to Adobe Stock could reply to these questions, as this was the only official Adobe Stock-related type of support I could find. I've seen other artifacts-related posts and someone always seemed to know for sure what they were talking about; I thought those were moderators of some kind, but maybe it was wishful thinking. When reaching out to the support team through a support ticket, I get this: "Our moderation team works independently from contributor relations, and due to the need for timely reviews they are not able to provide specific feedback on individual content rejections." Sadness...

I would include my full pictures with no problems, but if someone from Adobe Stock won't help me, then I will refrain from doing it. As I said, I wanted to discuss this subject broadly and not go into examples because I have hundreds of stock pictures. And furthermore, I won't EVER micro-process my pictures. I don't have that kind of time. That's why I'm trying to "fix this problem" as it is, without changing my process very much (although I intend to buy better gear this year).

I don't think noise is the problem of my shots (at least not the ones above). If anything, it's a lack of focus, which technically is the visible effect of the edge problem I mentioned earlier. In any case, a shallow depth of field is, of course, a possible scenario in many shots due to the creative effect, so technically out of focus parts, by themselves, are valid, but most probably only on shots when it makes sense (for example in my shots above, maybe the middle one could include that).

Yes, I understand that most probably they mass-reject pictures (I always get those emails in a row), although they still left a significant part of my batch pending at this stage. This happens across different subjects, days and weather conditions, and that's why I think the only constant attribute left is the quality of my lens.

I appreciate your comments and will continue arguing this issue with other members.

[Slow Ride Photography]

I have had had many images, especially close up wildlife rejected. The subjects are tack sharp but there is a very shallow depth of field. I think Adobe needs to have a meeting with their reviewers