A few images were denied due to "technical issues". Thing is, this is a very broad term, and I have no clue what issues there could be with some of the images. Additionally, there images were reviewed within a relatively short period of time, which is odd. Finally, I'd also like to ask: it seems like images are more likely to be rejected if submitted in a large batch. Is that just something particular to me, or have others experienced the same thing? Especially since when I resubmit one at a time, they are often accepted...
[Moderator moved the thread to the correct forum]
The adobe receivers seem crazy to me!
Several people have complained of the same issue in the past 48 hours. If you check the past posts, you'll see at least 7 other complaints of the same issue. I also checked your post, there seems to be very little wrong with your image. I have no clue at all what's going on.
Maybe there's something wrong with the current review process? Because I resubmitted one of the images here, and it was accepted.
All your images that you presented here should not be accepted. If they wre, they were by error. The moderation process is done by humans, so yes, there are from time to time pictures that get refused that may pass if they get looked at by a different moderator and vice versa. I would be interested in learning which one go accepted.
The first one.
And the last hibiscus was also just accepted
Let's start with the dog:
It's black and white and black and white pictures pass very rarely. This is for good reason: You can convert colour pictures to black and white, but you can't do the inverse. Keep your pictures in colour, except it is one of those very rare cases where black and white is absolutely necessary. In addition, if you look at the picture at 100% magnification, you will see that detail is missing. Look at the eye. you have that stoned glass filter effect.
The butterfly pictures are over exposed. The first one may have also colour noise as the second one may need some more detail. Detail is not here to be confused with sharpening, as the pictures are oversharpened, but still missing detail:
The flower pictures are simply out of focus:
They too are missing the detail structure needed. But they too are exposing those artefacts that get introduced by oversharpening.
If images like this get accepted, you will be in trouble when a buyer acquires these assets.
It has noting to do with large or small batches. The images as presented here are correctly flagged for TECHNICAL ERRORS.
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
As much as I may come across as rude (the original word I wanted to say wasn't allowed), I'm genuinely interested in learning what exactly went wrong. I have read the manuals several times over, as well as rejection reasons and quality/technical issues.
So on the first: what exactly is the filter or effect that you mean? I tried looking it up but nothing really came, so I'm not sure how to avoid it. Additionally, would what you said imply that if I were to resubmit the same image, but colored, it would have a higher chance of acceptance?
On the second: I could see where you would say it was overexposed, but I actually wanted the image to be really bright... nonetheless, I could see that. On the detail part though: I have compared the original images with the final result, and I haven't really been able to see much loss of detail. I don't remember applying much sharpness to the image either. I did have to shrink the file size to post it in the way I have, but I don't think that it was by enough to have a noticeable effect.
As for the last part: The stamen on the first flower were near impossible to get perfectly in focus, while also getting the flower in focus. As such, I made sure that the focus was on the flower, which I wanted to be the main focus. However, if reviewers would like both to be in focus, bar a few angles, what would one suggest? On the second flower, I don't really see how the stamen is out of focus to be honest... The flower was meant to be out of focus, but not the stamen. Maybe my eyes just aren't as attuned to such things, due to a relatively lower level of experience? I'm not sure.
Thanks, if you do respond. I would understand if you didn't.
The moderators have little idea or interest in what is possible, difficult or impossible in nature shots. They just expect perfect pictures BECAUSE Adobe's customers do. If the customer finds "faults" it affects Adobe's reputation and future sales. This means many subjects just can't be represented. It's also (though this isn't the reason for rejection) a very competitive area in Stock; there are over 19 million images with the keyword "flower".
Filter effect: in Photoshop the filter is called "Glas". Fine structures disapear. You find it also when you look through some structured glas windows where the effect is used for see through protection. I've lightened-up your picture, the effect is now more visible.
It happens with noise reductution that is applied very strongly. There are very few examples where a black and white picture is more appropriate vs the colour version of it. Look here what Mat has to say into this: https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-contributors/input-please-imaged-rejected-why/m-p/11467772#M245.... If you submit in colour, it should still be technically correct.
Your original picture may well miss detail. Did your camera generate RAW or JPEG files?
As for the flower, I can't see that also in focus:
But I see artefacts and colour noise, but no sharp flower.
If you say that your second flower has been accepted after resubmitting, you are lucky, because I see also there artefacts and sharpening problems. But it is not that pronounced...
On that first part: that's very interesting. I certainly did not notice that in the image the first time around. As for the black and white part, I do think I see what you are seeing there as well. Thanks for the advice, those are things I will definitely look out for next time I take a portrait.
You're welcome. Look always at your pictures at 100% (for some artefacts or if in doubt 200% may also be a good choice). At 100% you can evaluate the sharpness best, at 200% you may have a better view to chromatic noise and chromatic aberration, if it is not to prominent.