Highlighted

Technical issues or uncultured reviewer? Feedback request

New Here ,
Aug 10, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Of course I'm not really accusing anyone of being uncultured, but a few test photos of mine were summarily rejected for 'technical issues' and I don't believe it was justified. Musicians and musicologists do produce web content, and I'm exploring the idea of photographing famous moments in the orchestral repertoire for its use as an artistic reference. Opinions on relevance aside, this shot is of an extremely well-known and comical 2nd horn solo that occurs in Beethoven's 3rd symphony. I intentionally focused only on the solo, and it is a crisp (where I wanted it to be) and noiseless shot. Cropping is not an option--this shot has exactly the FoV that was intended. I'll accept that it may be a tad underexposed, but again that was intentional--this piece was written well before we harnessed electricity.

 

Thanks for your time and help. I'm glad to be a new part of the community.

 

 

Most Valuable Participant
Correct answer by Test Screen Name | Most Valuable Participant

Intentional faults are unlikely to pass. The reviewer is not (and cannot be) party to your artistic decisions. All photos must be technically perfect, and this means art is often rejected.  You may find you have to make statements about IP as well, but this will come after technical perfection. (Yes, I know it's an old score. But a reviewer can't know that. More seriously, unless this is a 100+ year old printing of the score, copyright OF THIS PRINTING may rest with the publisher, leaving you in violation; you will need an IP release from the publisher).

Topics

Troubleshooting

Views

66

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more

Technical issues or uncultured reviewer? Feedback request

New Here ,
Aug 10, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Of course I'm not really accusing anyone of being uncultured, but a few test photos of mine were summarily rejected for 'technical issues' and I don't believe it was justified. Musicians and musicologists do produce web content, and I'm exploring the idea of photographing famous moments in the orchestral repertoire for its use as an artistic reference. Opinions on relevance aside, this shot is of an extremely well-known and comical 2nd horn solo that occurs in Beethoven's 3rd symphony. I intentionally focused only on the solo, and it is a crisp (where I wanted it to be) and noiseless shot. Cropping is not an option--this shot has exactly the FoV that was intended. I'll accept that it may be a tad underexposed, but again that was intentional--this piece was written well before we harnessed electricity.

 

Thanks for your time and help. I'm glad to be a new part of the community.

 

 

Most Valuable Participant
Correct answer by Test Screen Name | Most Valuable Participant

Intentional faults are unlikely to pass. The reviewer is not (and cannot be) party to your artistic decisions. All photos must be technically perfect, and this means art is often rejected.  You may find you have to make statements about IP as well, but this will come after technical perfection. (Yes, I know it's an old score. But a reviewer can't know that. More seriously, unless this is a 100+ year old printing of the score, copyright OF THIS PRINTING may rest with the publisher, leaving you in violation; you will need an IP release from the publisher).

Topics

Troubleshooting

Views

67

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Aug 10, 2020 0
Most Valuable Participant ,
Aug 10, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Intentional faults are unlikely to pass. The reviewer is not (and cannot be) party to your artistic decisions. All photos must be technically perfect, and this means art is often rejected.  You may find you have to make statements about IP as well, but this will come after technical perfection. (Yes, I know it's an old score. But a reviewer can't know that. More seriously, unless this is a 100+ year old printing of the score, copyright OF THIS PRINTING may rest with the publisher, leaving you in violation; you will need an IP release from the publisher).

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 10, 2020 1
New Here ,
Aug 10, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 10, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 14, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello,

 

It is underexposed - way underexposed and it doesn't have anything to do with electricity. How are the two connected?

Being cultured has nothing to do with a well-produced photo. If the exposure was intentional - well this was a bad idea.

The rejection was indeed justified!

Have a read of this. It's a brief guide on image quality:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 14, 2020 1
New Here ,
Aug 14, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I read that article long before I ever posted on here, but thank you anyway for the condescending redundancy.

 

I'm glad you got all of that off your chest!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 14, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 14, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I do apologise if my comment sounded condescending. It was not my intention.

Photos do need to be of good quality and well exposed among other things.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 14, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 14, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

IP issues aside.  Even after a levels adjustment, you can see that the image has significant problems at 100% magnfication.  I believe the reviewer made the right call in rejecting it. 

image.png

 

Nancy O'Shea, ACP
Alt-Web.com

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 14, 2020 1
davidre LATEST
Community Beginner ,
Aug 14, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You're not going to score a lot of points by writing a shrill note characterizing the reviewing staff who found your photo unacceptable for stock as "uncultured." A more measured approach might play better. Even if the IP issues could be muted, though, the problems with exposure and depth of field make this image unlikely to strike a chord with stock customers. To paraphrase an old saying, Every Good Buyer Deserves Focus.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 14, 2020 2