So I am wondering if there is something else I should have done (different way of submitting, turning in as Art instead of Photo, whatever) when I submitted this image to prevent it being rejected for an 'out of focus' issue.
It is marked as an abstract (both in the title and via keywords) so I thought that should have been enough. I actually selected this image as a good candidate after watching some Adobe sponsored training on what types of images sell well. The presenter of that training indicated that images with an area to post content, and images with bright colors seem to have good sales records. Additionally, in searching on Adobe Stock for accepted images that are similar, it would also seem like my image is similar to a number of these, at least as far as focus goes:
So I am wondering how they might have been considered as having acceptable focus. I understand that not all images are accepted, and I could potentially understand a rejection if based on another criteria, but in this case I find this a bit confusing. Anyone have any advice/insights?
Perhaps as an abstract it is still too easy to identify the physical subject and not the idea to the point that aesthetically it becomes a distraction. I suspect this might be a case of too identifiable. These types of photos are tough calls. In high art think abstract as a novel concept or viewpoint and different than "blur" or "obscuring".. Monet with his blur was "impressionist" - but not technically abstract. I have seen many crisp/clean abstract photos. How about a crisp photo of leaves in mid-air with all of the trees sliding away in the background as though the trees were falling from the leaves -not the other way around?
That is interesting - I had not thought of that. Perhaps you are correct. Thanks for the reply!
I looked at categories of a few of the photos from the link you included: Blur... Motion... Fall... Other... Graphic Resources.