What do they want from this picture?

New Here ,
Dec 11, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

DSC03786.JPGHello. Does anyone have an idea what's wrong with this photo? It's one of several that were rejected for no visible reason. I've definitely got more questionable images accepted not once.

TOPICS
Asset Quality

Views

109

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

What do they want from this picture?

New Here ,
Dec 11, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

DSC03786.JPGHello. Does anyone have an idea what's wrong with this photo? It's one of several that were rejected for no visible reason. I've definitely got more questionable images accepted not once.

TOPICS
Asset Quality

Views

110

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
Dec 11, 2020 0
Most Valuable Participant ,
Dec 12, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

There is always a reason - what did Adobe say? But if I had to guess, I'd say composition and intellectual property. 

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...
Dec 12, 2020 1
New Here ,
Dec 13, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

They say "technical". Be it either of your options I'd say: "tough luck", although it's just a simple street view with ordinary buildings and not much intellectual property visible there. But sharp, readable, so the "technical" reason got me really annoyed.

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...
Dec 13, 2020 0
Most Valuable Participant ,
Dec 13, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Technical is a specific requirement. IP problems and unsuitable subjects are something else, though if the tech issues were solved, more might be reported. Technical problem can include problems with focus, colour balance, fringing, contrast and much more, but in this case I fear the composition isn't good enough for a million dollar advertising campaign. Especially the balcony canopy, wires, and the near balcony itself. 

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...
Dec 13, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Dec 12, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

There are probably more than one reason to refuse this. But you should always tell us (as requested by @Test Screen Name ) the reason Adobe told you by refusing the picture: Please give the exact refusal reason. This is important so that we do not need to guess.

You may also look up the contributor documentation for more information about refusals. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html

 

However, just looking at the picture I saw 4 simple reasons to refuse the picture right away: 2 license plates (privacy reason) and 2 people (also privacy reasons). For those 4, you will need consent from the people or owners to use the picture. There may also be technical reasons however, I did not look very deeply into that picture for now.

 

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

 

Note: I'm moving this to the stock contributor forum.

Regards, Abambo
Hard- and Software Engineer and Photographer.

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...
Dec 12, 2020 0
New Here ,
Dec 13, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

In Poland neither of the "privacy" reasons would apply (people are not the object of the photo, they are not clealy identifyable and even hardly visible and the cars are not persons to have privacy) but that would be OK, there are different regulations and maybe somewhere you need a signature of every person from the crowd to publish a picture of full stadium of spectators. But they say "technical". As you yourself noticed - you can read the license plates and you are concerned of privacy of those people. You can see the prongs of aerials on roofs and the shadows of wires on the walls. So how can I not doubt in professionalism of the reviewer that rejected this image for "technical reasons"?

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...
Dec 13, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Dec 15, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Just to clarify: none of us is an Adobe employee. We are also experiencing refusals more or less regularily and we then need to look into our images to get a clue of what may have been the reason. Your image however has more than one refusal reason based on my experience, one is clearly the missing model releases. 

 

The people are identifiable. The image is better than what you have from surveillance cameras... And yes, you need a signed release from every person in a stadium if you want to use a picture commercially. Only for art and news you have exceptions. So you may use that picture for editorial use or in contests but not for commercial uses. 

 

But the discussion is anyhow mood as we are here not with Polish rules, but with Adobe rules. Adobe makes its own rules and what may be legal in Poland may not be accepted by Adobe. That's not bad, nor is it good, it's simply a fact. 

 

You didn't give the Adobe reason, however, the moderator refuses on the first issue he finds, not all issues in the picture. So this is now technical:

 

I see noise in the shadowy parts of the cars when looking at your picture at 100%.

Abambo_0-1608042220286.png

That's also true for the Peugeot a little bit down the road. 

 

The antenna has kind of halo and the sky is effectively also noisy:

Abambo_1-1608042388325.png

I also think that the picture is missing contrast.

 

 

 

Regards, Abambo
Hard- and Software Engineer and Photographer.

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...
Dec 15, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Dec 13, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello,

 

The sky area shows JPEG compression:

DSC03786crop.jpg

The sky is a bit patchy and is noticeable if you zoom in. You can see pixel colour patches.

Secondly, if the license plate on the car is visible, the pic is rejected. The photo is sold on stock, so it's international!! Privacy laws count.

The reviewer chose Technical Issues, but they could also have chosen IP reasons. Technical Issues here is the main problem.

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...
Dec 13, 2020 0
Adobe Employee ,
Dec 15, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

As has been mentioned, there are a number of reasons this file could have and should have been rejected for. The moderator can only select one. Technical is the most "catch all." Had they (justifiably) selected Intellectual Property violation, you may have been inspired to remove all intellectual property elements from the cars and resubmit. They would have then had to reject it for another reason which could have been a lack of model releases for the clearly recognizable people as we strictly require model releases since we are selling commercial licenses. Maybe you actually know the people in the image so you obtain the necessary releases and resubmit for another review. They still wouldn't accept the image because the quality is generally quite poor. The composition is lacking (porch elements do not belong), there is little to no commercial value here and at first glance it appears there is excessive noise. This is not a great stock photo. My recommendation is to forget this one and move on to something with more commercial appeal.

 

I wish you the best of luck with your future submissions.

 

Mat Hayward  

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...
Dec 15, 2020 0