Tons of rejections due to Technical Issues! Why?

[The Nature Guy]

I just had a bunch pf photos rejected due to technical issues.  What is a Technical Issue?  It seems like Macros with SDOF were the hardest hit.  Is adobe mistaking blurry background as artifacts?  Here are some samples.  Due to time constraints and low bandwidth I am not up loading full quality photos, so please remember that the photos here are compressed when critiquing.

[joanH]

Hello The Nature Guy, Each of the pictures posted has something wrong with it. If you look at these at about 200% enlargement you will see that they all lack excellent cropping and focus. The first one, the poppy. has some troubling things especially at the lower foreground. Yes, the background is a bit of a distraction - so you could fully blur it into a color and take out the bottom stuff. The middle one is without a WOW! factor and it too is poorly presented with many out of focus areas. The last one of the grass and lavender flower has the flower center and surrounding out of focus. Do not send your work before looking it at high magnification and studying the guidelines suggested here below this note. Composition, quality, focus, and exposure must be wonderful. Take a look at the accepted Adobe Stock and match it or better it or don't send it. Best regards, JH

To learn more about the reasons why we decline certain images, including technical issues, please visit this page: https://www.adobe.com/go/stock-contributor-help

[The Nature Guy]

You did a 200% crop on a compressed photo, even after I specifically warned you about that  Hummm.....?  Sometimes I wonder whether I am writing English.  Shallow depth of field means that some of the image will not be in focus, in fact most of it.  It is perfectly normal, and what most people desire.  P&S cameras with tiny sensors produce images where everything are in focus.  Guess, I will ditch my DSLR and start using my P&S for Adobe stock. LOL!

[joanH]

-Hi, The Nature Guy, I did not do any cropping -I did carefully look at the work as is and with my trained eyes I saw all the reasons you will get rejections no matter what  Compressed photos or not the problems will exist. The white Poppy comes closest to the quality of work Adobe wants but look for yourself. Read the guidelines and study other photos like yours already submitted to Adobe. Best wishes and kind regards, JH : = )

[ricky336]

Hello,

Technical issues means :

Technical issues 

When we reject a file based on technical issues, we have identified technical flaws other than focus, exposure, or artifacts, which we call out specifically.

Photography and video technical issues include but aren’t limited to

White balance: The white balance may be too warm or too cool.

Note:

When you shoot in raw formats, you have great flexibility to adjust the white balance in your post-processing workflows.

Contrast: There may be too much or not enough contrast.

Saturation: Oversaturation may give your file an unnatural look, but under-saturated or spot color can also result in technical decline.

Note:

You may want to try the Vibrance slider instead of Saturation in Lightroom.

Selections: Editing must be done inconspicuously. Selecting objects out of their backgrounds (or masking) to composite into new images requires time, patience, and care. Do not submit images that have been poorly selected or look like they are not a natural part of the scene.

Chromatic aberration: Refers to color fringing around objects in the image.

General composition: Is your horizon straight? Have you cropped the image too much? Consider leaving a designer room to add their own text or objects.

Quality and technical issues rejected at Adobe Stock

In your 1st image - I think how you framed your picture could be a problem. You haven't left a lot of room at the bottom. I think it's cropped a bit too closely. I think you also could tweak the white balance a bit. Decrease the temp just a bit (-4) and decrease the tint slider to more green (-7) Just a very minor difference. It will help to make the petals more white:

The image is cropped too much.

I think with the others it's more about composition and yes, the other two pictures do have a focus problem. When you are doing macro shots with SDOF, you have to be very careful with focus and aperture. Because at such focal lengths the SDOF will affect areas that you actually want in focus, but are not due to SDOF.

So with these shots, I think the composition is the main issue and then focus problems (which is another category).

[oleschwander]

Hi Nature Guy. These images is not what we normally would regard as SDOF. Look here:

17 Beautiful Images with Shallow Depth of Field

[duns123]

But you have picked out some of the best SDOF photoson adobe. This can be very intimitating for new contributors 

[Martin959]

Yeah, there are good photos but far from intimidating,  I have seen better 😄 

[Abambo]

Looking at down sampled images is difficult, but for technical issues it's ok. I can't see neither over/under saturated or a bad white balance.

Bad cropping is surely for the middle image the case. It could also be for the first one.

I do not know what the moderator thought, but the last one has definitively a focus problem, even on the small image.

The small images are also kind of over sharpened. Without seeing the originally submitted pictures an appreciation on this is difficult.

Even if you correct some of the faults -- the one that may be corrected --, you risk a refusal for lack of commercial appeal.

[The Nature Guy]

Okay.  None of the image were cropped.  They are in the original format.

Tell me what you think is wrong with this picture.

[oleschwander]

Even if they’re in the original format the cropping is too tight. You also crop an image when you look in the camera before you shoot.

This flower image. Lighting is ok, but it don’t look sharp - grain all over. I think your images are shot in too high ISO, what ISO Do you use? It’s not centered, which looks sloppy when presenting, but customers can of course do it themselves - if anybody are interested in especially this kind of flower ..?

By the way - images of flowers and other plants are in huge competition at microstock sites and very hard to sell, they don’t sell unless they are overall top quality - everything, like flawless technical quality (low ISO as possible), super focus, great composition and beautiful flawless flowers and colors has to be the best on the market. So reviewer have to be much more selective when looking at photographs of flowers that many other subjects.

[Martin959]

Yes, they are in high demand as well... Plus you can always give a better or different composition than other people 🙂

[ricky336]

I also think you have focus problems and framing is not so good. Composition is just as important as any other aspect of photography.

[Abambo]

The picture is too small to appreciate.

But I do not agree on the tight cropping critique. Cropping is OK. I also do not agree on the framing critique. Framing is OK. What I saw in Photoshop looking at the picture was effectively some noise on the background. I would love to see the full-sized original to appreciate.

Flower pictures are declined because of lack of commercial appeal, when they are technically OK, but the moderator dislikes the picture.

[ricky336]

Hi Nature Guy!

Well, you did ask "Tell me what you think is wrong with this picture."

So, you got some answers...

Ask and you shall receive...

This is, after all,  a critique forum, and a lot is subjective, but not only...

and what about this of your flower shot?

(Even though you said it got accepted, here is just a minor adjustment which could improve it - to answer your query).

[The Nature Guy]

I would love to comment, but as you can see from the moderator deleting everything I say, unlike everyone else on here, I am not allowed to have an opinion on this forum.  Everyone else's right to have an opinion is cherished like gold, but mine are deleted and I get reprimanded for even having one.   I can't even tell where I shot a picture at for crying out loud.  I would like to see where THAT rule is the guidelines. LOL!

[tetianak71757242]

My comments and questions are also deleted by the moderator.

Apparently the rule is one - we neither have the rule to have an opinion and talk about it!!!

[The Nature Guy]

Okay.  This image is actually one that was approved. I did not say it had been rejected, I only asked your opinion of it. Not only that, it was my very first picture to be bought.  Beyond that, this image was shot with a P&S camera while the first three images were shot with a DSLR. 

Now, I am not trying to make fools of you.  My purpose is to demonstrate my position as a beginner trying to find solid advice based in tangible facts, but finding nothing but inconsistent subjective situational opinions.  The first three images were all accepted at three other stock image agencies, where as the one of the of the Milkweed Blossom was rejected.  But here on Adobe, the three that passed everyone else's criteria were rejected, but the one that was rejected was accepted. 

Can you see how confusing this is for a person who is new to this industry and trying to learn the ropes?  I want to learn, but I don't know what to listen to, because there are no hard fast tangible rules I can put my finger on.  The fact that you guys criticized the image that was accepted just as much as the ones that were rejected, shows me that you really don't not know what makes an image acceptable or not.  Your opinion about this image were based on your assumption that it had been rejected. So you reason then there must be something wrong with it and you only looked for weaknesses, not strengths.  We live in a world where no perfection exist, so you will always be able to find imperfection if that is all that you look for.

Now, if one of you would have come back and said; "Hey, that is a nice image and I think it should have been accepted.  I can see some areas where it could be improved, but it meets all the minimum criteria for acceptance."   I would have then know that I was really talking to someone that knew exactly what they were talking about and had a solid grasp of what the rules of Adobe Stock acceptance are. 

This is where I am having problems.  All I can find is subjective opinions.

I am not saying you guys are wrong about anything your are saying to me.  I admit my images are not perfect.  I am the Nature Guy, not the "I am the Perfect Studio Conditions Guy".  Nature is Chaos.  Nothing in nature is the same.  Every snow flake is different from another.  Nature is random and chaotic, and that is what makes it beautiful.  It is the inconsistency of nature.  Expecting controlled studio conditions out of natural photography is just unreasonable.  If you shoot a flower on a bright sunny day you make get reflections off of the shinny petals.  That is normal, it is not over exposure.  That is the way it looks to the human eye as well.  There are many photographers that try to defeat the chaos of nature to try to produce images that look like they were shot in a studio.  I don't understand this mentality.  It is the chaos of nature that makes it beautiful.

[oleschwander]

Hi, Nature Guy. I’m very surprised this photo is accepted here on Adobe - but congrats. Some other agencies accept almost everything these days. Adobe use to be very selective with harsh reviewers - but maybe that also is changing here ..! Congrats with your prank. Always good to get one’s prejudices shaken. Anyway it’s the best of your flower images, the focus is right, but I personally would not have accepted it because of garin noise.

The thruth is that nobody know what will sell. Sometimes it’s the weired things that sell. I have also had god sellers on other sites rejected here on Adobe, and I don’t understand why they didn’t want them because in my (and costumers) eyes they are unique.

Seems like you know best youself, so keep on uploading and good luck ..!

[The Nature Guy]

Having said all that above, I understand that I am new to the stock imagery scene and that it is not about what I like and want, but about what other people like and want.  I admit I really have no clue what it is people are looking for.  I will willing admit that my style may not be what everyone is looking for.  Okay.  I admit that.

But what I want  you to understand is that the photos I am submitting now, were not shot for the purpose of Stock Photography.  They were shot over my 20 years of world travels in my real profession, which was not photography.   I have always tried to do my best to take pictures with the best equipment I could afford at the time, which was much better then what your average person had, not anything compared to what is on the market these days.  I have a few images that are so rare, that in the stock image industry, I am the only one who has them.  Do a search on adobe stock and see if you can find Saw-Nosed Lantern fly (Cathedra serrata)

[The Nature Guy]

What I am trying to say here is, that I am submitting what I have already, that was not purposefully shot for stock photography.  If it passes good, if not, that's okay too.  If it sells, great.  If not, it is no skin off my nose.  The way I see it is this, these images could sit on my computer with no chance of earning anything, or I can put them on line and let people decided if they want to buy them or not.  I don't see any harm in trying.

Now going forward from here is a different subject. I would like to try to learn to shoot better images for stock photography, and I am listening to hear good advice.  I cannot do anything to change what I have, but I can change going forward.  I have over 100,000 images already.  I am guessing maybe 1% or less will I submit to sell online.  I am being very choosy. I am shooting for images that are unique and that speak to me.  I know that is not the best criteria to go off of for stock images, but it is what I know. 

Take this image for example.  I put it up on another site and it sold in less then one hour after  being approved.  Blew my mind.

The reason I put this image up is that I could not find another image like it on stock image sites.  If you can guess what this image is off, I will give you a gold star.

[oleschwander]

"If you can guess what this image is off, I will give you a gold star."

Don't know what you mean, but I think its two people killed by a bear who has hung their shorts to dry as a warning for other intruding nature guys ..!

Did I win a medal ..?

[The Nature Guy]

It was not a prank.  I was simply trying to demonstrate my position as a novice trying to find solid advice in a very confusing and subjective industry.  Photography is art.  Some people will pay millions for a piece of art I would use for toilet paper if were not told that it was valuable.  I have a good friend who is an art professor.  He has paintings in his house that he is very proud of.  I look at them and try not to laugh at him (he leans towards Abstract art).

I am not a person running around with a smart phone thinking I am a photographer, but I am also not someone who has $50,000 invested in my equipment.  I love capturing images of God's creation.  I do it because that is what I love to do.  I try to do it well.

The picture of the objects hanging from a pole in the last image I posted, is called a "Bear Bag Hang".  This picture was taken while backpacking at over 11,000 feet along the continental divide in the mountains of Colorado.  The picture is about "Bear Country Camping Safety".  When you are camping in bear country, you have to hang all of you food and equipment up in the air at night to keep it away from bears.  What you see in the picture is two backpacks that are covered with camo rain ponchos.  I cannot find another picture of a bear bag hang anywhere on a stock image site.  The market for it may be tiny, but if I am the only one with a picture, I guess I own that market. LOL!

On the trip where Bear Bag Hang photo was taken I spent a week in the back country.  My backpack weighed 55 pounds, but I was also carrying 15 pounds of DSLR camera, lenses, and accessories. I could have taken a light P&S, but I carried the heavy DSLR equipment because I wanted to get the best images I could.  I also did not follow any trails and paths.  I went where no one else normally goes and got pictures of places you will not find pictures of any where. Can you imagine what would be like scaling 45 degree mountains with 70 pounds of gear and no trails?

Here is a picture of an unnamed high mountain large beaver pond I got on this trip.  I particularly like this photo.  I got up before sunrise and hiked to this spot I had seen the evening before to waited hours for the sun to get just right and the pond to be perfectly glass like.

[oleschwander]

Keep on hiking, Nature Guy.

Happy trails ...!

[joanH · Accepted solution]

Well, Nature Guy, no matter what you say or how you form your investigation into the information given here on the forum, you will just have to abide by the rules Adobe teaches us and please use the guidelines that Adobe written for you new to Adobe Stock. Take time to learn what will sell and what will not and leave this forum for those who have an authentic question for us.

Our opinions are just that. You may not like them or think they are appropriate to you but that is how this goes.

Here is all the information you will need to improve and get your photos accepted in Adobe Stock.  Once you know the guidelines well and use them you will still need to look at each photograph you submit at 100 - 200 % magnification and correct the things that do not comply with stock requirements. So no tricks and no long stories about your photographs, just do the work, submit the photos and see how you can improve. Have fun. Regards, JH

Quality standards

For your images to have commercial value, we expect them to be:

• Appropriately lit and exposed
• Without visible noise or dust
• Well-composed
• Processed inconspicuously

For more information on what makes a quality image, see The review process and Create better photos for Adobe Stock with 7 tips for success.