Okay, I'm a glutton for punishment, here is a couple I had rejected, chop away at them

[defaultze8m4iof7sw1]

Seem pretty picky from a company that keeps the dollars and sends you the pennies. I seem to have not problem selling these in the real world, perhaps it's an omen telling me to leave stock photography alone?

[menschmaschine69]

Both images show a strong noise in the 100% view.I think the image quality is not good enough. It looks like these are image crops?

[defaultze8m4iof7sw1]

Really? I just don't see it, must be your highy trained eyes?  Maybe if I spent some money on Adobe's website my images would somehow become better? No they have not been cropped, nor heavly edited. I had my doubts about this site, now I don't, I'm pulling my photos, and will be looking for a serious photography site.

[menschmaschine69]

Hope you can see the noise by yourself now...

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @defaultze8m4iof7sw1 ,

Sorry to hear you are not open to gaining new experience from Adobe and their experienced contributors. There are many out there that you can choose from, but before you go you need to know this. Adobe provide a platform with forums that will take the time to explain to you what the issue is with illustration. Most of the others don't. They just reject and that's it. Others accepts anything, but getting them sold is difficult. Others will tell you what is the issue, but you are on your own figuring out how to resolve it. I'm not sure which you prefer. You may select your preference and I'll tell you where to go.

Best wishes

JG

[ricky336]

Hello,

Unfortunately, I think the main issue is that this type of camera has a small sensor, so what you are getting here is JPEG compression. This means that it won't enlarge so well should the customer want to do so. 

There are many photos on Adobe Stock, not to mention all the other microstock platforms, so competition is now rather high. This type of photo is good for personal use, but probably not stock material as you have found out.

One does not need 'highly trained eyes' to see the problem. However on a small screen like a smartphone or tablet, the problem won't be noticeable.

It is noticeable though on a 24-inch monitor, and that's rather small by today's standards.

Think about 4K monitors and what they can show.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @defaultze8m4iof7sw1 ,

As said both images are grainy. They are also under exposed. The first seem to be too saturated. Your images should be as close to natural as possible. The customer will do the rest. 

The second is a bit shallow. It is harder to crop the soft edge. See soft edge below.

The good thing about Adobe being picky is it helps you to increase in knowledge. You need to examine your images at between 100 and 200% for flaws before uploading. There are flaws you will be able to identify that inexperienced people wont be able to. I walk in a bank once and saw a huge picture that I considered poor quality picture. I believe they were happy with it because a cleanup image was not available to compare it with. Your image will be place beside high quality images. Yours will not get sold if it does not match-up with at least the average.

Best wishes

JG

[Nancy OShea]

Seem pretty picky from a company that keeps the dollars and sends you the pennies. 

========

@defaultze8m4iof7sw1,

I suppose you're right.  Adobe Stock customers come here expecting perfection.  Imagine that!  And when they don't find it here, they go elsewhere.  It's basic supply & demand.

Stock photography is no profession for thin-skinned personalities who can't take criticism.  There's way too much competition from talented contributors who accept critiques graciously and learn from their mistakes.  All of which makes them better stock photographers.  You can't compete with that so just cut your losses now and find other interests.  Hopefully you'll land on something that fulfills you and makes you feel truly happy.

Goodbye & best of luck!

[defaultze8m4iof7sw1]

Thank you for you time and effort. Honestly, I expected many more "sour grapes" comments than I recieved. These images were taken with a Sony Cybershot 5.0MP, no cropping, and very little post adjusting.

I've thought about it a lot, and decided you are wanting apples, and I am trying to give oranges. I shoot mostly rural landscape, I am worried more about subject matter, and composition than what it looks under a magifying glass. My photos have been printed at 11X17 and display on my monitor quite often, and look quite well to my inexperience eyes (I've only been taking photos since 1975). Anyway, thanks to all for being civil. Perhaps I'll try again later?

[Nancy OShea]

For what it's worth, I used to have a Sony Cyber-Shot 5.0 MP and I loved it. Back in the day, it was a great little camera for the price. But 5 MP doesn't cut it anymore.  iPhone and iPad have 12 MP.  Entry level DSLRs have 16  - 24 MP.  

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

[defaultze8m4iof7sw1]

Thank you Ms. O'Shea, for taking time to reply. I began to wonder if it wasn't the camera. I've been taking photos for a long time (you should see my supply of 35mm photos). I just hated the thought of all them on disks and nobody ever getting to view them.  I tried the photo forums, but they quickly turned into the " I'll like your photos, if you like mine" I didn't want that. I found a place that is about halfway between Adobe and some photo forum. 

It's a shame, IMO, the world we live in, where the equiptment is the deciding factor. Imagine the great artist of the past being rejected  because their paints, brushes or canvas were outdated (not comparing myself to a great artist).

None the less, you have been more than thoughtful and polite in your responses, best of luck to you, take care.

dave

[Test Screen Name]

I think a different way to think about Adobe Stock is this. It isn't an outlet, and it isn't an art gallery, no matter how good your art. It's a fast-talking ever-changing follow-the-fashions commercial service to commercial designers: advertisers and publishers. Adobe's customers are demanding and have very high expectations, set by work from the top commercial agencies with the latest equipment. If photos don't meet their expectations, then complain, and Adobe's reputation (compared against other stock agencies) suffers. So Adobe reject anything that doesn't match these highest expectations, and are on a chase-the-latest-tech spiral (up or down, depends on your viewpoint).

Certainly it isn't a "serious photography site" if you mean a site devoted to sharing great work of photographers. As long as you're looking for an outlet for your art (rather than an opportunity to develop a business and find what it takes to be one of Adobe's suppliers) you will find it a frustrating experience.

[defaultze8m4iof7sw1]

I agree, and thank you for your response. Simply put, what they're buying, I'm not selling.  I wish your review would have been the first I recieved, would've saved a lot of misunderstandings.Thanks again, and best of luck to you. 

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @defaultze8m4iof7sw1 ,

Before you get totally dejected about your photo-stock I suggest you read the information below, then make a decision. 

https://wp-modula.com/adobe-stock-contributor/#:~:text=Video%20resolution%20should%20be%20at,square%....

Here is the screenshot of the section that is of importance. 

Please note that the minimum accepted is 4MP.  If that was not the case your file would not upload at all. When your files are reviewed they are with the same criteria as any other file, which are basics, most of which can be corrected once you understand how to. All photos taken no matter the MP has the potential to and do display all the basic issues your photos do. 

Best wishes

JG

[defaultze8m4iof7sw1]

Thank you for being helpful, I will read what you posted.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

You are welcome @defaultze8m4iof7sw1