I am fairly new to photography and to adobe stock. I know my pictures are not necessarily award quality, but I just recently submitted close to 350 images and only 7 have been accepted. What surprised me that those 7 accepted are actually less clear and sharp then most of the rejected images.
I have attached a few of the rejected images. One of them is a buck and when you zoom in you can see the individual hair on his chin and the image is rejected for noise.
I have the feeling that the selection process is not very objective and almost think that as a newbie you have pretty much no chance to get any of your images on stock. In my opinion this is borderline discriminatory. I have two friends who are professional photographers and they looked at my pictures and could also see no reason why they have been rejected by adobe. Of course when you try to speak to somebody at Adobe, they tell you there is not customer support for Adobe Stock. Hmmm...
So here are my images:
Any help would be appreciated.—Thanks and God bless
You're new to photography and microstock photography... Watch YouTube videos, learn to take photos, get to know the stock business and then maybe you'll be more successful...It is not helpfull to think I am a great photographer because friends said this...This is a fault many contributers do...
Hi v.poth, just to clarify. I did not say I was a good photographer and neither did my friends. I asked for their opinion on some of the images and they said they look great and they wouldn't see a reason why they were rejected. I fully understand that I still have a lot to learn and I do watch videos on photography pretty much every day. I did not want to come over ignorant or arrogant.
Thanks for you tip though.
-= Charlie =-
that wasn't a personal accusation, it was just a general clue. So please don't get me wrong.
What I wanted to say is that someone have to know the microstock business, with its special requirements, before he can make a judgement about whether an image was rightly rejected or not. Of course, especially the requirements of Fotolia....
The agencies are very different in their judgement regarding the acceptance of pictures. As a supplier, you have to develop a "feeling" for which image motifs are accepted by which agency and ultimately sold best. No one can "reveal" this secret to you in general, as it is not possible to state this all-inclusive for every offerer with different picture offers and picture styles.
I agree. There is a different feel for what Shutterstock accepts as opposed to what Adobe stock except. I think I have figured it out for my own perspective but still the rejection rate is so much higher on Adobe stock than Shutterstock. I'm just guessing that Adobe stock has a different kind of clientele and they're looking for something different than Shutterstock. Just a guess, I have no idea really. The odd thing is that I have a number of winners on Shutterstock and they do sell very well. But the same photo does not sell on Adobe stock or sometimes I can't even get those winning photos into Adobe stock. So, go figure. It's a mystery to me.
Adobe don't accept editorial or pictures with a lot of dark shadow areas (my experience anyway and that is my guess) and adobe reject photos even if there is a little colour fringing (CA) but SS do.
Shutterstock are strict but at least you have a decent chance to correct rejections on there. Adobe I've found it very difficult because they reject for technical reasons. And composition is NOT a technical reason.
If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
@duns123 You should stop reviving every old thread. If you are unhappy with Adobe stock as a contributor, you are free to leave. If you love Shutterstock more, contribute there. Most refusals on Adobe stock are for reason. This diesn't, however, avoid the situation where a picture gets refused by one moderator that a different one would have let passed. As explained multiple time, Adobe's interest lies in making buyers happy. If buyers are not happy with the quality of the assets, Adobe won't sell their subscription. (fyi I'm a contributor on Alamy, Shutterstock and Adobe. I'm not an Adobe employee).
The OP's pictures are no more available, so I'm locking this thread.
What reason was given for rejection of these images.
The reason was "Artifacts Problem" (excessive post-processing and/or noise).
I have no idea why these images were rejected, as I would have been happy to see them on stock and would definitely have purchased the one of the buck for a children's book. I swear the process is completely automated, because some awful stuff makes it through and really good stuff gets rejected.
The buck has background confusion and no contrast between the rock and dry wood. Take out old wood - helps to see detail in horns.
Yes I too feel so. for example if the buck was shoot in front of green bushes one not have to focus specifically on buck.
Thanks... but the reason given was excessive post-processing and/or noise, That doesn't make sense.
Charlie - this image has one clear focus point (the squirrel) and the background is - in contrast to yours - blurred out ...
Thank you, makes sense what you said. BTW, this is also my picture. That's why I was wondering why this one was approved and not the buck. Thanks again.
Every rejected image have a reason given on rejected images page. I am also new and learning stock photography professional skills.
Let me try to explain you with an example if you see on most searched keywords. you may found Christmas. But most searched and popular images not necessarily mean most downloaded. many of contributors from us do search for such keywords and that adds to number of popularity graph. And most probably many of them start uploading photos and illustrations related to that keyword. (though this is not part of you query but I am just telling you.)
Now guess you are a blogger and wants a picture of a kid eating food at school table or an newspaper editor looking for image of train derailment or earthquake disaster. What will you do. Won't you download a image which is most suited for your requirement.
Adobe in one page (I was trying to find now but did not locate) in facts given that they have enough images of wild life, house pets like cats, dogs, sun set, sun rise, isolated on white background hence not require anymore of such images and need real life, real people doing stuffs in practical life images like office meetings etc.
There is difference between a good photo and a useful photo. personally I also feel that adobe's image moderation system is automated when I upload many images which are closer to each other in look and feel. Got rejected with reason similar already submitted. Here we are for selling stock photo which others need. I am learning that what real users are looking for and downloading. Just sharing with you. hope i may be able to answer some of you query.
Where is this "rejected image page" ?
I only joined adobe.forums recently and for my profile images I only used artwork that I personally made by hand and several of the items got rejected but I'm not even sure which ones because I uploaded a batch. Nothing was mature, hateful, or copyrighted content.
Where are the standards or rules for this?
How about just letting this long and interconnected chat go for now. Too many different questions, photos, and rejections to make sense to a newcomer. Let's just close this one out and start with a new question.
Please, try not to post more than three photos at a time with questions. That will get a few blanket replies, our best work is on clear questions about a few rejected pieces. The replies will be better, Best,
The one with the trees don't look sharp to me. And the third image has a strange yellow spot on the mountain.
The spot is called a lens flare.
Yes - but it is a spot with should not be there ...
OK I can see that argument. Sometime lens flares are even added after the picture is taken to make an image more dramatic. But I get your point. Thanks.
If it's any consolation, I've just had 12 of my 'best' images rejected in my first submission.
I defined this batch of images as my 'best' because these same 12 images I'm repeatedly selling via Shutterstock after only being a contributor with them for a couple of weeks. I thought Shutterstock were exceptionally picky. And through their rejection process I have learned quite a lot. I went from 10% acceptance to 100% in 3 weeks with Shutterstock by really looking very carefully at their rejection reasons and working hard to rectify.
I'm not a professional photographer either, but all the 12 images I just submitted to Adobe Stock I thought were sharp and acceptable but all were rejected for excessive artefacts and noise.
If it is a case of not being the subjects they are looking for, e.g. animals, fair enough, just be honest with us.
I've just submitted 3 more images, again selling well on Shutterstock, but without any post production to see if that's the issue with Adobe Stock. I try to keep post production to a bare minimum anyway. Shutterstock do not like it to excess either.
I think the thing to do is to keep trying with a range of Stock libraries and you'll find the ones that suit your work the best. Not all are the same.
Good luck, don't give up.