Re: Adobe: Artifacts Problem - Rejected, but why?

Ricky336 · ‎Sep 01, 2017

As we are on this topic, I submit in English and get Polish emails. I'm guessing this has to do with the country you are located in, so the language gets defaulted to your country of residence. There isn't an option to change your language preference. Is it possible to change the language option independent of your country of residence??

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 31, 2017

Pretty much what Enio siad, also I notice there is a logo - RayBan- so you would need a property release - I think.

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 31, 2017

Maybe, possibly, could be, might be... if one were to nit-pick... the rose could be said to be a bit overexposed. I don't think the shadows are a problem, but the rose petals are a bit too bright and light, especially on the outer petals, so you could bring down the exposure on the roses. Bear in mind though, there are a lot of flower pictures in the data base, so the next rejection reason might be lack of esthetic and commercial value. Are you sure it's worth the effort?

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 30, 2017

Unfortunately, that is the way the cookie crumbles. Like all software, after a certain amount of time, the software is no longer supported. Hey, even if you have a slightly older Android type phone, after 2 years, it won't get the update OS - like now Orero, so unfortunately, unless Adobe have a change of heart - maybe like Microsoft with XP and the Ransomware - Wannacry- you, like others and me with 5.7 will be waiting to the end of the universe for an update or even Lightroom 7. So the only option is to change to another product and begin the whole story again, or put up with it, OR, upgrade to 6 OR subscribe to CC.

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 21, 2017

What was the rejection reason - exposure?? I think the bottom of the picture is a bit too dark. Try lightening it up a bit. You don't really want solid blacks in your pic. And yes, maybe the lens flare as well- clone that out if you can.

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 19, 2017

You can't delete rejected photos! Not until adobe gives that option anyway.

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 19, 2017

As it says on their website, Lightroom 5 is no longer supported. You stuck, as am I - with the flashing map module. Tough luck!

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 11, 2017

It can range from dust spots, too much saturation, white balance etc. Here, if you look closely enough, I can see dust spots - which is small bits of dust on the sensor. (You should always zoom in to 100% to check for such things, and even then it is possible to miss them). So, you need to go into Lightroom/Photoshop and heal or clone them out. I would advise to follow the link they gave with the rejection reason. It gives more detail of the issues involved.

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 10, 2017

Was the event a celebration - say Australia Day? If so, this may be the reason. (The other shot you gave as an example also looks to me as if the fireworks have been added, so wouldn't require a release??) I think the problem here are the fireworks. However, this is just a guess, and what I would conclude had I submitted such an image. It would be nice if the rejection came with more detail, but as the reviewers probably have to go through hundreds of pics, it would be rather tedious to give more detailed reasons - don't you think.

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 09, 2017

That might do the trick, - I don't think the dogs would need a model release - possibly a property release

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 09, 2017

You can see part of her face! (Her ears for example) That could be the problem!

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 09, 2017

As another contributor, I'd like to say that I agree with Szalam. The overall composition isn't very interesting.

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 08, 2017

If the cow is wearing ear tags, it has a number. This number can be identified. In fact, that is how the farmer can identify the cow - by its ear tag. So, this means it can be identified - therefore you need permission. I guess this is why it has been rejected for intellectual property. A cow is property in this respect! Property not only relates to buildings! (This is my guess though).

Ricky336 · ‎Aug 02, 2017

It looks in focus to me as well. (I too have had some images rejected due to out of focus, but the subject is in focus, however a shallow depth of field, which could explain the out of focus). Here I think it might due to the number on the plane! 067 - This can identify the plane, so needs a property release. The man is unrecognisable - but then if you blow it up like Szalam did, you could recognise him. So, maybe clone him out and clone out the 067 number and try again. I don't think the covers look unnatural - just bright sun reflecting off the covers. Was this taken around midday? Maybe depth of field is an issue?? Hence the background being out of focus. Who knows??

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 30, 2017

It could be due to being in black and white. Better to submit in colour!

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 26, 2017

Hi Ian, Probably rejected due to composition. I think it is a bit unbalanced. The waterfall makes it a bit too heavy. Not really enough interest to hold attention. So, it probably wouldn't sell. I guess you were on a boat or from a side of the Fjord? Don't worry about it. I have a few with lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal and generally I put it down to composition. Sometimes it can be very difficult or impossible to get the framing or lighting right if you happen to be there at the wrong time of day, or on a boat where you can't really move!

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 25, 2017

Hello, yes, don't include names or any watermarks on the photo. It will be rejected because of this. Also do minimal post processing. Don't add any special effects or filters. Just basic fixes - curves, exposure, noise if necessary etc. A rejection reason would have been given as well.

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 24, 2017

Also you have chromatic aberration on the gull's tail and fork - it's the purple fringing against the white - that would come under technical error!

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 24, 2017

Well, perhaps one could argue the photo is a bit flat, so maybe bring some brightness into it. To me, overall it looks a little underexposed, so you could increase the exposure just a little bit, make the picture a bit brighter and try submitting again.

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 24, 2017

The Lightroom app also work with The LG G5 - as this smartphone also does DNG - tried it out this weekend, and not too bad. Also the standard jpeg on the LG G5 are also oversharpened, so not really any good for here, but the DNG could be ok. Haven't tried submitting any of those pics yet. However, you do need to be signed in with your Adobe account to use the Lightoom app, but, you don't need to have a CC account, but then you can't sync your pics. (Better to edit on the computer, than mobile though)

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 20, 2017

Hi Akash, I am using the latest one - 5.7.1. The problem is what other users have mention with CC/6. This problem also affects 5.7/5.7.1 I am on win 10. The problem seems to be with adobe/google map service, as I have not had this problem before and only noticed it at the time of other users mentioning this. Haven't bothered too much about it before, but upon discovering other users having this problem, I wonder if there was a fix. There seems to be, but only for CC/6 users. Why is 5.7 having the same issue as it is old now. It is not an update issue. Can you advise? This may affect older versions as well, which would indicate there is a bug at Adobe's end. Hope you can help.

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 20, 2017

Not for users of lightroom 5.7 - why are we left in the cold WHEN 5.7 map module was working fine!!!!!!!! until recently. Please advise AND do not say upgrade to the lastest version because 5.7 was working fine until now!!!

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 19, 2017

It might be because of the logo on the life jacket and phone number on the paddle and kayak. Remove any identifying marks, logos etc and try again.

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 19, 2017

It also happens with Lightroom 5.7, so it might be google maps.

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 19, 2017

It can be 'part of the learning process'. So when you want to submit an image it can be helpful to know what was rejected and why, so you can use the rejected images as a reference for future uploads. In many ways it does actually help!

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 19, 2017

The other microstock sites don't seem to have very much of a high standard compared to Adobe. So when one image is accepted - let's say at Shutterstock, or iStock and then rejected here, the submitter feels mortally wounded! I think that irony is that, Adobe may reject a crap photo, and the submitter submits it to Shutterstock, it gets accepted and sells for .015c - or lower! At least here the lowest is .25c Adobe is about photography and is aimed at the photography market - I guess - not just a random place for a collection of pics and videos! Therefore the expectations are different and hence a higher standard. Adobe is not Flickr!!! It is not a social media site of sharing pics! (or maybe I have misunderstood and the internet is ONLY about sharing and social media these days)

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 19, 2017

As a new contributor - since around the beginning of this year, I would like to give my opinion if I may. I agree completely with Szalam in his above post. In other posts he has replied to make sense. Sometimes I might disagree - maybe in relation to colour, but I have found that he talks sense. I don't know why you are so upset. Maybe try submitting to other microstock sites if you don't already, but you probably do. Adobe is somewhat more critical in what they expect - to good reason actually!!! I'm afraid your above images say nothing, anyone can just take a pic of someone using a copy machine. The cup is DEFINITLY in the way of the hands, and the lighting is bad. You shouldn't be so critical of people who try to help. Why else are you posting this? Would you like the community to say that Adobe is wrong and that your images should be accepted - majority rules? AND in your other post about exposure problem, once again I agree with Szalam. The image is underexposed. Any decent photographer would say that!

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 13, 2017

From what I gather, when you upload here (or any other stock site), the photos/pictures you submit must be your own. So, if you got this photo from another site, the photo/picture isn't yours, even though you have may edited it. The photo will probably need a release as you are working from a base picture. The photo has to be 100% yours! (or you have a property release, a photo would count as property).

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 07, 2017

You won't see them. The view function has been removed due to it being inaccurate.

Ricky336 · ‎Jul 04, 2017

I think in a shot like this, (perhaps) both shoes should be in sharp focus. I have submitted a couple of shots where the focus has dropped off, and it wasn't accepted due to not being sharp. Using depth of field and focus points needs to be done carefully. Make sure all the important elements are in focus. In this case, I think the shoes are important and therefore should be sharp. (However, it could also be only due to the right shoe not being sharp as pointed out).(Getty/istock are not so critical it seems. They accept almost anything, whereas Adobe are a lot more careful about everything as per their reasons for rejection. This is what I actually like about Adobe).

Ricky336

Ricky336

Activity

Re: Adobe: Artifacts Problem - Rejected, but why?

Re: Why is my photo marked for lack of AESTHETIC O...

Re: What's wrong with this picture?

Re: Map module is blank for Road map and Hybrid, b...

Re: Need help seeing what is wrong with this one

Re: Delete Rejected

Re: Lightroom: Map module keeps flashing "map offl...

Re: Rejected for technical error

Re: Image rejected

Re: MODEL RELEASE MISSING

Re: MODEL RELEASE MISSING

Re: got declined why?

Re: Video of a cow rejected for violation of intel...

Re: Photo out of focus

Re: Profile Photo rejected

Re: Aesthetic or commercial appeal?

Re: Please let me know the reason of rejecting

Re: Technical error - New in forum

Re: Over or Underexposure?

Re: Rate and tell me what wrong

Re: Lightroom: Map module keeps flashing "map offl...

Re: Lightroom: Map module keeps flashing "map offl...

Re: intellectual refusal

Re: Maps going offline every few seconds

Re: remove rejected photos

Re: rejected image without objective reasons

Re: AESTHETIC OR COMMERCIAL APPEAL OF IMAGE Second...

Re: Whats wrong whit this picture?

Re: Views

Re: Doesn't the Adobe panel see wanted blur?