photo rejected for technical errors

[rodneyh4636537]

hello,

why was my photo rejected for technical errors/ the recent questions tab is not specific1?

rodney harper

[joanH]

We will need to see the photo you had rejected before we can tell you what we think. Please post it. JH

[claudio_hcf38957939]

Adobe says my rejected photo has "too much" post production. Should I post the RAW file instead?

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi Claudio, Adobe accepts JPG files only. I suggest you go through the Stock Contributor Guide. See my above reply to Rodney's question for the link. Also look at these Do's and don'ts for selecting and editing photos for Adobe Stock . For specific critique of you photo, upload it to the Stock Contributor Critique . I am hoping this was helpful.

Best wishes.

[joanH]

Hello Claudio,

We still need to see the photo that was rejected to comment on the problem but perhaps you should know that any sort of filters, layers of colors and textures and other post-production work can create a less than a clean product.  Yes, an original photo in a jpeg file of the scene might be resubmitted. Be sure to examine it for good lighting and look at the work at 100% magnification to see noise or blurring problems which will get a rejection too. Best regards. JH

[stah84]

I don't know if I should make a new topic or write here... I have also problem with "photo rejected for technical errors"

Below is my photo. Any ideas what is wrong:

[joanH]

Hello, Nice pigeon photo - post-production in this photo probably refers to the sharp cutout look. No natural feathering edges here. Also, can you get rid of the identification band on the leg? If you go back to the original and do not cut out into the feathers it might be more useful to a buyer. you may resubmit after corrections. I hope you will take jacquelingphoto2017 suggestions to review the Stock Contributor Guide. Keep a copy handy and refer to it often.  Kind regards, JH

[ricky336]

Hi there,

I tend to agree with Joan, that your picture has cutout look. You do have rather sharp angular edges around the feet:

So, this doesn't really give a natural look, so maybe the reviewers were thinking of this.

I personally can't really see any other reasons apart from this one.
Oh, maybe just a bit too sharp as well!

[jacquelingphoto2017]

There are some guidelines that Adobe has in place for contributors to follow. The guidelines are documented in a PDF file at tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle . Just click/tap on "Adobe Stock Contributor Guide", then tap on the link. It is important to read the entire document, however to address your question you may take special note of the topic, "Put your best content on the map". Also you'll find the relevant topics at tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle  useful. We could have been more specific if you had uploaded one of the affected images to the Contributors Forum.

[ThiagoDuarte]

Good evening, this image was rejected because of intellectual property infringement. The problem will be the car that appeared in the foreground? Despite being a Land Rover I reported the keyword Jeep. Can someone help me?

[joanH]

Hello, Yes, the rejection has many reasons. I can see the vehicle plate numbers on the LandRover (not a Jeep) -- the name on the spare tire cover -- the name of the tires -- and the Camping World gear on the top.  A few more I will let you find. SO, smudge them our carefully and maybe it will pass the intellectual property infringement problems. Check this photo under 100 magnification and you might find more. Best regards. Oh, it is an interesting photo and a wonderful sky. Regards, JH

[ThiagoDuarte]

Thank you for your help.