As mentioned above you have a slopping horizon so you should correct this in your editing software. Have a read of these tips for getting photos accepted. Perhaps also upload in the original format - the buyer can crop accordingly. Create better photos for Adobe Stock with 7 tips for success ... View more

Hi Mitch, Glad I could be of some help! ... View more

Glad I could be of some help Alan. ... View more

As I was typing my answer other people have responded before I could. ... View more

I am familiar with DPP as I have used it myself - but not the recent versions as I have been using Lightroom since version 4. I have also looked at the recent versions and I don't like it as Lightroom can do so much more! DPP doesn't use a catalogue system at all - not like Lightroom. Therefore you don't 'import' anything. Once you open up DPP, you just direct DPP to the relevant folder that is stored on your computer. It opens up the file and you edit accordingly. So, this means you won't be able to use the Lightroom catalogues with DPP. So, this means all the edits you made in Lightroom, stored in the catalogue, won't be read by DPP - so you have to start again - bummer! DPP is a different workflow. If you use DNG files, DPP won't recognise them, so you have to use the CR2 files. Lightroom won't recognize the changes DPP made and the changes you made in Lightroom won't be recognised by DPP. Lightroom and DPP are mutually exclusive. They are totally different ways of working. It is kind of like a camera system. If you have a Canon camera and lenses, or lenses with Canon mounts, you can't change cameras. You are locked into a system. If you want to change to Nikon etc, you basically have to start all over again. Same with Lightroom and any other raw processor. You get locked into a system. Quite honestly, Lightroom is much better at editing and organising than DPP. DPP is a good option if you don't have another option. If you want to experiment with DPP, I think it would be a good idea to make a copy of your files that you use with Lightroom - your raw files -  and store them in a different folder - say DPP Pictures and then direct DPP to this picture folder. Yes, you would have two different folders, one for DPP and one for Lightroom, but I do not think it is good practice to try and combine them both. Give DPP a go - have a play with it to see how it can fit into your workflow. Does this answer you query? ... View more

Could post the pictures here rather than a link. It makes it easier to see. ... View more

Composition comes under aesthetics, so the composition of your photo is not so good. You should give room around the flower, take it from a different angle - try to make it an interesting shot. As Oleschwander has said, your picture has other issues. And, unfortunately, it is also not very sharp. Bear in mind, there may be more than one issue when reviewers check the images. In this case, they chose lack of appeal, as I also think it is not a compelling image. You should really have a read of the guides - the links can be found on the Adobe Stock Contributors forum page at the top. ... View more

If I understand you correctly, you want to add keywords for all the images at the same time?  On the upload page you can add the same keywords for all the images, by selecting them all - CMD or CTRL and just add your keywords accordingly. ... View more

You may have underexposed them on purpose, but if uploading to Adobe Stock, then it is better to keep an average exposure, not too under or overexposed. In your first picture, you have some rather dark areas - windows of the buildings with not much detail. Also a point to consider is this may come under IP rights due to the signs on the buildings. For instance, I now know that Skanska is the developer that is doing the construction. Your second shot is underexposed in the foreground/midground. Also this picture may come under IP rights. ... View more

Just a thought, but can you click on the actual file that the photo is stored in outside of Lightroom, and right click to get to the properties of the file and see if the attributes check box is marked as is read-only. Perhaps, this may be the reason why. It would be worth a look. Maybe it got checked accidently. ... View more

The reviewers thought probably thought that the cube image wasn't very useful. Perhaps not a lot can be done to it. Composition is also not very compelling, whereas your other two images are more interesting therefore they were accepted. ... View more

Probably because the cougar/lion? belongs to a zoo? (I don't suppose it is yours)? or a park, or is it taxidermy? In this case it would belong to the owner of the display/property etc, ( a bit hard to tell from this image) so you would need a release or something like that. Where did you take this? ... View more

I don't know if they can be done. I guess so! In your first image the sky is blown out, so you have exposure problems. (This would come under technical problems). As far as 'image outside the rules', you need to read carefully what the requirements are! I am not sure, as I haven't uploaded these types/kinds of photos! ... View more

Adobe do look quite carefully at the image, and if it is out of focus just a little bit they will reject it. If you blow this a bit, you can see the eyes (but not only) are not quite sharp. You really need to examine your photo before uploading and look carefully at the most important part of the picture - in this case the head. The wings being blurred I think is ok, as it is connected with motion, but the face isn't! ... View more

When zoomed in your image shows artifacts/noise: You can try to reduce the noise a bit, maybe use a mask as well to mask out the sky. You also have a small halo along the building edge. You can see this in the sky. As for the second shot, yes, it is too dark, therefore underexposed. You should take note of the histogram in Lightroom/Adobe Photoshop, or any other raw editing programme, as it is too much on the left. You need to bring the exposure up. ... View more

Adding to what v.poth said: Which is why when zooming in these defects begin to show: and therefore rejected based on this! ... View more

Have you fill out a Property Release form? You need to show that you are the owner of this work. Be careful you are not using any trade names etc in you key words as well. ... View more

Hi, Adobe may well be picky, but for good reason! I had look, and I think they do know what to look for! (I trust that they do)! For example, your pebble image does show signs of what may be regarded as artifacts/noise. This was however blown up to 200%. I would play around in Photoshop with sharpness and noise a bit and see if you can improve it. Not too sure about focus though, that could also be another issue! As for your helicopter: I think it show signs of artifacts/noise as well. Take note along the rotor! This is a bit more noticeable than in the pebbles image. Sometimes, one only notices these things when it is pointed out. However, regarding artifacts rejection can be hard. Sometimes for me it's 50/50. Sometimes it can be fixed, and you can resubmit, other times it gets rejected again and sometimes it is just not worth the effort! Hope this helps. ... View more

You can resubmit. You can try with your photo, see what happens. IT can be hard at times to know what will pass and what will not. You are not losing anything in trying - apart from time for some people! The only thing I will mention, is the writing on the comp screen. It just might come under IP rights, ( I don't know) BUT, it is out of focus, so it should be ok! ... View more