Hi, More information about the reasons for refusal can be found here: Quality and technical issues rejected at Adobe Stock In the first and third picture I think the following technical problems are recognizable: White balance: too cool Contrast: not enough Saturation: too low In the second picture: White balance: too warm Contrast: not enough in the sky The composition of the picture could also play a role here, since the horizon is very high up, resulting in a black area that occupies 50% of the picture and does not provide the viewer with any further picture information. It would certainly be advisable for a photographer to decide what the main motif of the picture should be, the landscape or the sunset, and design it accordingly. Since it should surely be the sunset, the picture should be in my opinion rather in such a way arranged: Greets, v.poth ... View more

Hi, as you can see in the Adobe Contributer guide, it is ok if people in the picture can only be recognized by themselves or their relatives and if no special features (face, tattoos, etc.) are recognizable in the picture, Then a model release is not required. Greets and good luck, v.poth ... View more

HI, very nice work, I think! Have a look at the explanations for the different reasons for refusal here and check your pictures, titles and keywords in this case: Reasons content is rejected at Adobe Stock First, signatures in the image are not allowed and lead to rejection due to non-compliance. A property release is usually required for such drawings, in which you as artist and owner of all rights sign. Here you should check after a rejection in your provider account whether you will be asked for submission. For rejections due to noise and artifacts the compression rate when saving as jpg seems to be too high due to your sample images, which creates compression artifacts. Possibly the opacity of the strokes in the creation of the drawing could also play a role here. Greets, v.poth ... View more

HI, that happens sometimes. Write here to the contributor-support@adobe.com Greets, v.poth ... View more

Hi, in addition, the fastest way to check if your images are in the database is to enter the image number in Adobe Stock's search. If it appears then it is also available online. Greets, v.poth ... View more

Hi, I think a good first step might also be to look at the reasons for such a rejection in the Adobe contributer guide: Reasons content is rejected at Adobe Stock If you can't find a solution here, post sample pictures with picture title and keywords and if you submitted releases. Greets, v.poth ... View more

Hi, I think it's not a good idea to post personal data of the models here. If you want to find bugs in your model releases, look here first: Model release and protection guidelines for Adobe Stock If you can't find a solution there, write to contributer support. Greets, v.poth ... View more

Hi, I think two aspects of the technical rejection are clearly visible here: White Balance: too warm Contrast. not enough Furthermore, the image section may be too narrow for the selector. The depth of field is sufficient for the image, I think. In general, however, one should note that an aperture of 16 does not always guarantee sufficient depth of field. The distance to the object being photographed plays an important role here. The closer the lens is to the object, the smaller the depth of field. With 22mm focal length you were surely quite close to the object to be able to reach this image section and the depth of field is accordingly less than if you had stood further away. It also plays a role which lens one uses, since these provide different sharpness results and from a technical point of view a possible "diffraction blur" already starts from the aperture of 16. This only as supplementary information. Greets, v.poth ... View more

Hi, I am surprised that the picture with the rowing boat was accepted because it also shows strong image noise. Also the picture with the boy contains image noise and is well recognizable e.g. on the waves. Under such light conditions, a higher ISO than 100, in this case ISO 320, can very quickly become noticeable as noise in the image, depending on the camera. Too much image processing can also produce/amplify image noise (e.g. too much sharpening). As far as the image sharpness is concerned, only a very small depth of field can of course be achieved with an aperture of 2.8. In order to get a better grip on the light situation, a tripod should be used to reduce the ISO number in order to avoid possible image noise and to close the aperture further for a greater depth of field. Greets, v.poth ... View more

Hi, I think you are right here that image processing here has little possibility to correct the exposure. An exposure series would certainly be one way to get a grip on the backlight problem. In terms of image design, it is basically correct to have a foreground, middle and background, especially for landscape shots. The branches in the foreground are a popular means for many people to use as foreground, but they are too dominant in the image in terms of the area in the image, the brightness value and the image sharpness. The sharpness of the image should certainly be in the middle to possibly to the background. Here, as I already mentioned in your other thread, I can only advise you to use a rather wide-angle lens for such shots in order to be able to do this better. A 100mm macro lens is not a good choice here. I think if the image hadn't been rejected because of exposure, it would have been rejected because of wrong focus. This would be different if the branches were the main motif of the picture, but there is too little of it in the picture. Greets, v.poth ... View more

Hi, according to the IPTC data, the image was taken with an aperture of 5.6 and a 100 mm macro lens. The sharpness range is too small for a landscape image. In your picture only a narrow strip of the meadow is sharply depicted. I think that it is also generally unusual and not meaningful to use such a lens for landscape pictures. Here, one actually moves rather in the wide-angle range. Greets, v.poth ... View more