We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
Adobe needs to respect their contributors. It is easy for them to have multiple choices on rejection such as focus issues, etc., but they choose not to. That tells me all I need to know - that an the skimpy commissions. Without photographers they would have no stock service... 50/50 would be more equitable split. Then it would make sense for us to spend time trying to figure out why Adobe is rejecting an image. I won't spend time for .33!
Hi @Jon5C6B ,
Most of the technical issues that I come across are white balance, or chromatic aberration. There is where I look first. As time goes on, you will understand what each reason means, except if changes are made without notifying us. There is where the lack of respect would come in.
However in many establishments (generally speaking) I observe that fields personnel tend to be ranked below white-collar workers, which should not be so since fields personnel makes up the engine of the relevant companies. If the products are not coming in there is nothing to market. If the product is not marketed, there's no money to come in. In any establishment everyone is equal in bringing success to the company - even the floor sweeper. They keep the place keep so that customers will feel comfortable coming in to buy the items the sales person promoted, that the producers/suppliers produced, and so on up the ladder according to how the business is organized. The point is everyone is equally important for a successful organization.
I have no problem with an actual technical rejection. The issue is Adobe is rejecting photos for all kinds of reasons (artistic, not commercially viable, no model release are a few that I've read) and just lumping it all under "technical issues". Totally NOT useful for contributors.
(I'm not talking about my images, I'm talking about Adobe's approach to this whole thing).
"The issue is Adobe is rejecting photos for all kinds of reasons (artistic, not commercially viable, no model release are a few that I've read) and just lumping it all under "technical issues". "
Obviously, you're not speaking from first hand experience. When an image is rejected by Stock, the reviewer marks off 1 of the primary reasons out of 4:
Despite what you say, they are NOT all lumped together. Although Technical Quality is often the #1 reason for rejection, it may not be the only reason.
The point is this. Don't condemn the system until you've actually tried it. Talented artists who put the time into developing a sustaining portfolio do very well on Stock. Maybe you can too.
I have tried it. Get real.
I took a look today when I saw this post. The page was updated recently, and the options have changed, and unfortunately reduced. For example, it used to include Noise/Grain. From my brief look, that is missing. That seem to be grouped under Quality and Technical Issues". So from that perspective, it could be agreed upon that with the exception of numbers 1 to 3, of @Nancy OShea list and for MR, "they are all jumbled up under Quality and Technical Issues". As it was before "Technical Issue" was wide, now it is even wider and requires more searching to fine the problem.
The moderation notification options have not changed. The description in the Learn and Support page is a general guideline. If there are multiple reasons for an individual rejection, or if the problem is not covered in a rejection reason specifically listed as an option available to the moderation team, they select the Technical rejection reason.
The best strategy I have found is to look at the rejected file with impartial eyes. It can be hard to do but if you are able to, you will almost always find something.
that an the skimpy commissions. Without photographers they would have no stock service... 50/50 would be more equitable split.
The commission is the best compared to the stock sellers I'm contributing to. The times of the big commissions are gone. Sorry about that... (I'm literally sorry about that)...