Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I am not a very experienced photographer. Therefore, I take the deviations for granted. But this photograph is interesting to me as an example of the coexistence of nature and man. I would like to fix it and repeat the download.
I see (because you tell me) the story here, but Adobe will just see a muddled composition. Tree blocking fence or fence too close to tree; a train half in the background, part of a kerb. Unfortunately, art photography is not what they are looking for. Even for art, I would not expect the right hand tree to just be cut off like that.
A stock photo can tell a story and is all the better for it. But in doing that it still has to be an esthetically pleasing and clean composition. This is, indeed a
...Composition is actually a technical aspect! And besides, you also have a burnt-out lamp, chromatic aberration on the edges of fence and tree - notice the purple fringing, and unfortunately, artifacts when you zoom to 100% you can begin to see them.
Have a read of this. It's a brief guide on image quality:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
I also think the composition isn't good, I wouldn't have thought about 'nature and man'. It's not obvious!
...
Chromatic aberration and blown-out whites. The reviewer only gives one reason for rejection, usually the most obvious one that jumps out at in the very short time that they take to review an image.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I see (because you tell me) the story here, but Adobe will just see a muddled composition. Tree blocking fence or fence too close to tree; a train half in the background, part of a kerb. Unfortunately, art photography is not what they are looking for. Even for art, I would not expect the right hand tree to just be cut off like that.
A stock photo can tell a story and is all the better for it. But in doing that it still has to be an esthetically pleasing and clean composition. This is, indeed a real challenge. But keep telling stories, if you can find a way to balance the other requirements for world class commercial photography!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Your opinion is valuable to me. Thank you. Moreover, you see the flaws in the composition, and not the technical ones, as I expected. I agree. But it's interesting to work on.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Retake the picture and get rid of the technical faults, and it may be that it gets accepted.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thank you. The picture was accepted by the moderator upon re-sending. Loose processing. Almost naturally.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Composition is actually a technical aspect! And besides, you also have a burnt-out lamp, chromatic aberration on the edges of fence and tree - notice the purple fringing, and unfortunately, artifacts when you zoom to 100% you can begin to see them.
Have a read of this. It's a brief guide on image quality:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
I also think the composition isn't good, I wouldn't have thought about 'nature and man'. It's not obvious!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The photo was really not accepted due to technical problems. The composition did not play a role. I have some very unaesthetic photos that Adobe took.
I didn’t do much photography, but I wrote many articles for sites supplying them with photographs. It is very difficult to buy what you need. There are millions of photographs of exquisite dining sets, but it is difficult to find common man's crockery. Sometimes you need a photo of an old smoked saucepan, a cracked plate. This has nothing to do with Art. They are just objects and scenes from everyday life.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@Stas5E2B wrote:
The photo was really not accepted due to technical problems.
what is the refusal reason then?
Adobe accepts pictures of the daily life, but they need to be technically perfect.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Chromatic aberration and blown-out whites. The reviewer only gives one reason for rejection, usually the most obvious one that jumps out at in the very short time that they take to review an image.