Hi. Tell the beginner, what photos should be ?

[Underhike]

What should be the criteria? 

photo 35mm 

camera Kodak star ef, film Kodak color 200

Photo is not verification

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Underhike ,

I am not sure what you mean by the photo is not verified. However, it is extremely noisy, underexposed and displays color fringing. It is likely this shot might attract a property release.

Please zoom to between 100 and 200% to inspect for issues.

You will also benefit from the following guidelines:

Stock Contributor Learn & Support (adobe.com)

Tips for getting your stock photos accepted | Adobe Learn & Support tutorials

Best wishes

JG

Photographer and Nutrition Author

[Underhike]

Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate

[jacquelingphoto2017]

You are welcome @Underhike 

[J E L]

@Underhike Well, the photo is out of focus everywhere to begin with and, as mentioned by others, there is considerable noise and color fringing. Also, the subject matter doesn't bring to mind any applications for usage unless this particular location was in the news or the building was illustrative of an architectural style for some reason. Those would be very rare instances so the chances of the shot being selected is practically nil. When using film, you have to develop negatives, then print, and then scan to a digital file. The Kodak Star ef 35mm camera is most likely never going to give you the results needed for stock photography submissions to Adobe or any other major library. If you like using film, you might switch to selling your photography as art prints to retain your native format. I hope our feedback is helpful!

[Underhike]

Cool. Thanks for the advice, i will take note

[Nancy OShea]

Hi @Underhike,

Nobody except elite, high-end photographic artists shoots with film cameras anymore.  35mm color film and affordable labs to process it are nearly extinct now. 

Get an entry level digital SLR camera. Take some photography courses to learn how to use your DSLR camera.  It's not quite the same as film.  😉

See links below.

https://www.techradar.com/news/best-entry-level-dslr-camera

https://photographylife.com/best-entry-level-dslrs

Adobe Stock Contributor's User Guide:

• 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

Good luck and have fun with your new hobby!

[Underhike]

Good. Thanks for the helpful links

[ricky336]

It really is a waste of time these days to use film. Especially in this context where you have to scan the negative/print to digital. This automatically increases noise and digital artifacts!

The attraction with film is its print quality, but then you leave it in print, so the aesthetic detail remains. It is destroyed when scanned - unless it is a certain look that one wants. However, that 'look' can be achieved in digital.

You won't get much success in stock when using film.

[Underhike]

I'll take note. Thank you for the comment 

[Abambo]

To add to the critics here:

Your picture exposes two problems.

1. Paper prints expose a lot of colour noise that is inherent to the analogue reproduction process and the papers used. You see that colour noise here and there is nothing you can do about it: 
2. Your scanning skills are not the best, and the scanner is probably also not a high-quality scanner. For your archival projects, you should try to educate you on scanning techniques and how to get the cleanest scans possible.

As it has been pointed out, digital photography today is far ahead of the old analogue photography in terms of cleanliness and perfection, so the results here cannot be beaten. On the contrary, nostalgics buy programmes that deliberately alter the images and thus the analogue look and feel. There is no chance that you can get scanned paper pictures accepted.

[Nancy OShea]

There is no chance that you can get scanned paper pictures accepted.

==========

@Abambo 

Maybe, maybe not. The image and scan would need to be very high quality to start with.  And the tedious post processing work would be considerable.  

I know editors in movie & TV industry who must work with scanned archival images.  Even for pros, it's not easy to get good results.

[Abambo]

There is no chance that you can get scanned paper pictures accepted.

==========

@Abambo 

Maybe, maybe not. The image and scan would need to be very high quality to start with.  And the tedious post processing work would be considerable.  

I know editors in movie & TV industry who must work with scanned archival images.  Even for pros, it's not easy to get good results.

By @Nancy OShea

Sure, 20-30 years ago, I used scanned images for use in brochures and I had stock images on CD-disks. The quality was OK after spending a lot of time with de-dusting and photoshopping fingerprints.

Most of the pictures were "on site" pictures from the site building supervisors. At the end of the project, we hired a photographer taking high quality mid-format pictures. I got them as big prints to scan.

But none of them would be able to compete against my digital camera today. We are talking about adding pictures requiring today's quality expectations, not about past masterpieces. Don't mix up historic value with quality requirement for modern stock images.

So, I stay with my assessment: There is no chance... considering today's quality requirements for commercial stock. This is not judging historical pictures and scans thereof.