Apart from what has been already mentioned, in your first photo, I think they are referring to this: Notice the noise. As for your second photo - it seems you used a flash. This has resulted in harsh uneven lighting. Notice the shadow areas! Therefore this would come under exposure issues. I wouldn't try to fix these in Photoshop. Better to retake them. And be careful of lighting and focusing. ... View more

Does this mean Adobe deems it as acceptable without a release, or is it my responsibility to make that decision? Actually, Adobe will tell you if you need a release. If they accept the image, but needs a release, it will go into the 'reminders' section. (Especially if a model release is required). For property rights, probably just rejected under IP rights. If they accepted it, which in your post you say they have, then I wouldn't worry about it. There are no identifying marks, so this picture could have been taken anywhere. The key thing is being identifiable! Although, if there are identifying marks etc, and you want to upload, then of course you would need a release. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes not! So, I think sjlocke is correct! As for the other agency, well each agency has their own requirements! Here, we are talking about Adobe. My understanding up to now is that if all identifying logos, writing, and other proprietary marks were removed from a product, and it wasn't otherwise identifiable as a specific brand or a specific object, then a release was not needed. This is how I understand it as well, and so far, I haven't had an issue. And, if there is an issue, it gets rejected under IP rights. No problem. Sometimes, I just don't know, so I submit, and let them decide. Again, the key point is BEING IDENTIFIABLE. As for deleting an image, yes, you can delete yourself! You don't have to get Adobe to delete for you! Go to your portfolio, click on an image, and you have the option to change keywords, title and DELETE. I don't think you can delete everything, but should leave around 10% of your images. Adobe gives a lot of individual control over your images! ... View more

Most likely rejected because of being in B&W. Always submit in colour! ... View more

is it possible that Lightroom IS displaying a RAW file even though half or more of the image data isn't there anymore?      - I think this is the case and because of the file compression my "RAW" files just look like poop because data is missing To my knowledge - no. JPEG is JPEG and raw is raw. They are mutually exclusive. If you import as JPEG, then the develop module will display JPEG. As for the colour difference- it would depend on your default settings when using Lightroom or Photoshop. ... View more

Technical issues can mean white balance - but I don't think this is major problem. However, you have shadow areas under the hair and by the face which are clipped - no detail in these areas. If you look at your histogram and have clipping showing, you will see this - e.g. in Lightroom. Or, if you use camera raw filter in Photoshop. This could be a problem. The eyes also don't seem to be very sharp and you would definitely want them sharp! ... View more

It seems that the Adobe plug-in is experiencing issues, as I am having this issue as of today. So, you're not alone! I guess it will be fixed soon. ... View more

Perhaps you could post a few examples, then others here may be able to give an opinion. I don't know how they review them. I think it might be rather a random draw! The aesthetic rejection can be rather subjective. Keep in mind however, Adobe do seem to have a high standard. They don't just accept anything like most microstock sites - Shutterstock, iStock for example. ... View more

This is one of the reasons that camera manufactures should adopt the DNG concept. If they did, then we/you wouldn't have this problem! So, it is not actually Adobe's fault. Why do camera manufactures insist on having their own particular format? DNG should be as ubiquitous as JPEG! ... View more

Hi Jakub, Have you verified your email address with them? Sent any Govt ID to confirm your identity? These can be reasons why nothing has been reviewed. ... View more

I must be lucky as well as my computer is old with 8GB RAM (Although there is no such thing as luck!) So, this is a mystery to be solved. (Where are you Nancy Drew? ) I can't make head nor tail of this ... View more

Hi, Have you read this? https://helpx.adobe.com/content/dam/help/en/stock/contributor/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Guide.pdf It says this about noncompliance: Check for noncompliance. Noncompliant means your content is not in line with our Contributor Agreement, possibly due to inappropriate or irrelevant keywords or titles, or questionable or defamatory content. We may also reject content as noncompliant if you do not supply a model or property release after it is requested, or otherwise do not resolve a known issue. Have a look at your keywords! ... View more

The top of the grill is out of focus - that may be a problem with the reviewers, and I think you have introduced some noise/grain with the sharpening - so it may get rejected for artifacts; even in your first shot there is some noise. Looking at your Camera specifics, you've shot this at ISO 1250, which is really too high for stock photos. So, that explains your noise issues. Always remember to view photos at 100% as these kinds of details become a lot more noticeable with this magnification. I don't know how this camera handles noise, but you should try to keep your ISO as low as possible. ... View more

You're welcome! ... View more

More than likely!! ... View more

It is most probably due to the fact that the entire photo is of this palace - which probably is privately owned. I've looked up this palace and you have to buy a ticket to enter €12 -so this means you need a property release or some kind of written permission to use for commercial purposes being the key word! As for the other photos I can only guess that Adobe are being a lot more careful with such images now (Unless they have releases). Especially that uploading images to stock sites now is so easy! Therefore these micro stock sites now have to be so much more careful in accepting images. This link is from the Palais des Pope with info about a press release. This would come under commercial purposes!! Service presse | Palais des Papes - Avignon You really have to do your research these days! ... View more

Can you upload some examples. ... View more

You seem to have issues with noise - both colour and luminance: Noise comes under the artifacts rejection. However, I think you have other issues as well. For example, I think it is a bit underexposed; white balance - there is a yellow cast  - t-shirt should be white and contrast etc. The best and easiest way is to use auto tone, colour or contrast in Photoshop if you have it, or any auto function in your photo editing software and then adjust if necessary. ... View more