Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I just had hundreds of images rejected, kind of discouraging. Especially when clients loved the photos and had me feeling like an awesome photographer, but Adobe Stock tells me they lack aesthetic and are not commercially viable - bummer. Any feedback on these? Kind of makes me not want to submit any more, but if its fixable, maybe I will.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Those photos look great
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi Diversity,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to analyze your photos. For us to be effective in doing this we would like for you to state, for each of the photos, what they were rejected for. Also these photos are too small to analyze. We are able to do a better job with larger copies.
Best wishes
JG
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thumbnails often looks great, but when zoomed into have a lot of flows. Moderators do not reject images except there are issues, otherwise would be an error. To learn how to produce flawless images require being willing to accept constructive criticism. That cannot be done to these images except they are at a size that they can be properly examined. The quality of all these images are very poor with damaged pixels, and excessive chromatic noise/color noise. I do not have to zoom in the first image to see that it might be rejected for technical error. The thing is, they are so small I cannot conclude that the actual photos are as bad as they appear to be on examination. My guess is that they were taken in JPG format. All I am asking is for you to upload larger images so that we can give a fair response to your concern and to provide relevant guidelines you can use in the future.
Best wishes
JG
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
No worries JG. I've uploaded thousands of images and have had thousands accepted on adobe stock premium. I only shoot in raw. There is no technical issues with any of these - they were rejected for "lack of aesthetic or commercial viability" - I personally disagree but have moved on. I like the photos and clients like them, especially the 1st one that you said has a technical error. I disagree there is a technical error, but thank you for taking the time to look.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi nselena,
It is possibly based on the tone of the images. If the correct tone is displayed here, I would say it is a little flat on the dark side. So the real issue in this case would be "lack of aesthetic". I observe that lighted vibrant photos tend to go faster.
Try lighten the shadows a little more, and add some vibrance and see what happens. Make sure to double check at 200% zoom for the other issues I mentioned earlier.
Best wishes
JG
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Okay thanks for taking the time to respond.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Basically, as far as Adobe is concerned, these images don't have any commercial value. Commercial being the keyword!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Welp, I guess no one in this world would ever buy these photos sigh... thanks for taking the time to provide feedback.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I always mentally add "for our target market" to rejections involving cosmetics or commercial value. It's more accurate and it helps me accept and try to learn from rejection.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Good point. That def helps ease the generic responses.
I also did finally receive some feedback on at least one image. Basically, they said "The flaring was determined to be outdated and for Premium, not the aesthetic we’re looking for"
The flare was new to me, but I guess it was old to others....now I know.