How I can understand the logic of this rejection?

[ViktorBirkus]

I respect the job and professional knowledge of editors team, but some times for me is difficult to understand the logic of reasons of rejecting some pictures.

For example:

I made three pictures from one shoot.

Two of that is approved

1. https://stock.adobe.com/images/antique-typewriter-with-a-sheet-of-white-paper-stands-on-a-wooden-tab...

2. https://stock.adobe.com/images/antique-typewriter-with-a-sheet-of-white-paper-stands-on-a-wooden-tab...

But third, that is identical but has a metal dividers File ID: 192359252 rejected as IMAGE OUT OF FOCUS.

How I can understand the logic of this rejection?

Or other two pictures with one story:

The first picture with focus on the backround is approved: https://stock.adobe.com/images/the-steering-wheel-binoculars-and-a-barometer-on-a-wooden-boat/192358...

But the second, with focus on the foreground File ID: 192358965 is rejected as IMAGE OUT OF FOCUS

It seems to me that in this case the buyer is deprived of the opportunity to choose between an emphasis on the foreground or background.

[v.poth]

Hi,

if all three pictures were taken with the same camera settings and lens, I can imagine that different selectors have judged the pictures.

It seems to me that the typewriter as the main object is not sharply displayed (frame of the keyboard and space bar in the foreground) and that it has been evaluated with different precision. This can happen when two people independently assess an image.

As far as the images of the steering wheel are concerned, the second rejected image has only a very small area which is in focus. I could imagine that it was not enough for the selector,

Here is a link to the User Guide with an explanation of the reason for the refusal "Out of focus":

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

With these criteria listed there, it can happen that they are interpreted subjectively in different ways, I think.

Greets,

v.poth

[ViktorBirkus]

Hi v.poth,

Thanks for your thougths. It seems to me that in what you have said, it makes sense.

You correctly noticed that: "...the typewriter as the main object is not sharply displayed (frame of the keyboard and space bar in the foreground)"

Is the frame of the keyboard and space bar in the foreground important elements?

Unequivocally, that photographing from a tripod and using stacking several images into one, you can achieve a result that is close to ideal. I do not raise the question of the quality of the image itself, it's like everything is not perfect.

But my question was not this, although this is also a question.  

This three pictures are made from one shoot. This is one picture where in one of copy I remove the metal compass, in other of copy I remove the compass and text from the paper and third copy I leave compass and text on the picture. All this I sent for review at a time in one group.

Is it good that two copies of the same image received at the same time are examined by different editors?

On the photos with the typewriter, the question was that one photo in one lot is evaluated in different ways.

About the second picture, thanks for the link into Contributor guide.

I read this:

"Out of focus

When you use motion blur, ensure that the main subject is sharp and in focus.

A shallow depth of field can help draw the viewer’s eye to where you want it to go. Make sure that the depth of field choice is intentional. If you shoot with a wide aperture, depth of field should enhance the photo. Make sure that shallow depth of field does not result in important elements being out of focus. If the image is in focus but lacks sharpness, ensure that any sharpening in post-production does not introduce artifacts."

Is it really necessary that all part of wheel will be totally in focus?

Everything of course is subjective, and this is the right of the editor to decide what is good and what is bad. This also applies to the question of the amount of sharply depicted space in a rejected image with a wooden steering wheel.

If the editor decides that this is not enough for the Adobe site, then so be it. Thanks God there are other opinions.

My question or my problem is not this.

Unfortunately, it is not enough to reread the section of the guidebook: "Out of focus" to fix the work and further widen the shading of the sharply depicted space of the main object.

Now I remember one story from school life.

In one school there were three parallel classes, and in each class there was a different level of academic performance.

One teacher checking the homework gave an assessment and pointed to a textbook on the subject of instruction, where the student could find the answer.

The second teacher - showed what exactly is wrong in his opinion and why.

The third teacher did the same things, but he also showed how he thinks it should be to be correct and also tried to find out why the pupil did so and why.

Which teacher did the results better?

Well, it's in school, but here it's certainly another matter.

Dear v.potn, the above does not apply to you or to your link wich you gave in any way.

The only thing I firmly convinced that the customer-buyer, the photographer-maker and the company Adobe should work in concert as one big team for achieving the best result.

Thanks for reading

🙂

[v.poth · Accepted solution]

Hi,

Generally speaking, picture agencies are not photography schools in which the offerer should be taught to take the "right" photographs. You can also generally not expect to receive a detailed explanation of the reason for the refusal and possible suggestions for improvement with about 20,000 uploads per day, I think.

There are tutorials and tips of a general nature from Adobe to help beginners, advanced learners and professionals get started.

A personal consultation is certainly not possible here and I don't think it is the job of a stock agency. This would like to market pictures professionally and expects appropriate pictorial material which can be marketed successfully. Here, the image supplier is generally required to meet these demands by optimizing his photographic skills and production in line with the market.

A good thing to make faster progress here is certainly the possibility to use the forum and benefit from the experiences of other providers. But to expect here a detailed instruction for the guaranteed saleability of an image is certainly not possible and you shouldn't expect it.

Greets,

v.poth

[ViktorBirkus]

Generally speaking, picture agencies are not photography schools in which the offerer should be taught to take the "right" photographs.

Nobody said that the picture agency is obliged to teach. Learning photo art and the quality of photos is not the topic of this conversation.

Please, do not take the metaphor with the schoolteacher, in the literal sense.

I can tell a different story, where in one restaurant, the receivers of goods pointed vendors on the cookbook and the global quality standards used by this restaurant instead of rationale the reason of rejections.

Sometimes one batch was checked by different receivers of goods, part of the production was accepted, and the other part of identical products was rejected. The reference to quality standards and the cookbook was given without fail. The supplier was also invited to talk with other suppliers on this issue.

They had a lot of suppliers of products (read: offers) and more than 2000 items of products and ingredients. The duties of the personnel for the procurement of goods consisted only of either receiving goods or rejecting the goods. It was the duty of the personnel to purchase goods only to either receive the goods or reject the goods, because there are a lot of goods, and the staff is not enough to explain. Too much time will go to justify every refusal.

In another restaurant, the headwaiter collected information from the waiters about the preferences of customers and passed it to the restaurant manager, the restaurant manager analyzed customer preferences with the products available to him and developed not only general recommendations and rules for improving the quality of products, but also quantified and qualitative the condition of the product to such a level that they could not only give references to the cookbook and the quality criteria of this restaurant, but also OBJECTLY JUSTIFY the reasons for rejecting the goods.

After a while, the first restaurant continued to work as usual, and the receivers of goods worked harder, as the quantity of the delivered and rejected goods all the time increased. Suppliers sent all the same substandard products.

In the second restaurant, in addition to the increased number of suppliers who were more comfortable and understandable to work with the restaurant, but also the quality of the delivered products has improved, as a result of which the volume of work of the receivers of the goods has become normal, and the quantity of quality supplies has increased.

In this restaurant, the purchasers of products began to receive basically high-quality goods and neither they nor the suppliers lost time on unnecessary goods.

In the first restaurant, still, according to the old tradition preferred market dishes professionally and expects appropriate products that can be marketed successfully. They have established the rule that the supplier is generally the quality of their goods and production in line with the market.

Some of the suppliers found the opportunity to communicate among themselves in order to understand the logic of this rejection and to make the right deliveries of goods.

Well, it's in restaurants. There everything is certainly different.

1. V.Poth, Please, excuse me if I wrote something that is not very clear. Like my photos, my English is also not perfect.

[ricky336]

Hi Viktor

I've taken a closer look at your above images and basically, they are out of focus or rather soft would be a better description I think! The wheel photo for example, is not sharp in the centre, but 'soft'. Perhaps, for commercial purposes, the image should be sharper. I am not saying that the whole wheel should be in focus, but a least the main part, Maybe Adobe are looking for a crisp image rather than a soft image. I think the same applies to the typewriter.

I think the buyer would be looking for the same thing as well.

Obviously I can only take an educated guess as to why - I do this with my own rejections. I just relook at the picture in question and see why they rejected it. Sometimes I can fix it - e.g. technical reason or artifacts, but others with 'image out of focus' I leave, because I can't do anything with that and move on!

[ViktorBirkus]

Do I understand correctly what you are proposing, guessing about the reason why two copies of one photograph from one batch are taken and one that is identical in quality is rejected?

[ricky336]

Proposing, guessing - yes. Not being the reviewer, I can't know what they are thinking. But looking at their rejection reason given, in this case image out of focus, I would conclude that yes, indeed it is out of focus and move on.