I just received rejections for technical issues but that could be anything. When did they stop being specific as to what the issues are? The images were checked at 100% magnification for light, focus, noise, white balance , sensor dust, and anything else that could get a reaction , and they were technically perfect, and accepted by three other agencies. Is this a new tactic? General rejection and they keep you in the dark? Has this happened to anyone else?
Without seeing your image(s), it's impossible to comment except to say that Adobe Stock has very high standards. Maybe the other image houses were not as discerning.
Reasons for Rejection
Quality & Technical Reasons
Good luck with your next submission!
I don't know anyone more picky about technical issues than Istock/Getty or shutterstock so that's curious. My point was that telling a contributor technical issues without identifying the issues is unhelpful. They need to identify the issue. I once had an image rejected because they said it had no commercial value, yet it is my most downloaded image on shutterstock, so the rejection may be subjective.
As long as human beings are involved, of course the review process is subjective but the standards are not arbitrarily set. To be accepted, an image must meet certain criteria. Evidently, the reviewer didn't feel yours checked all the boxes. It's not personal. They don't know you, you don't know them. It's a business decision. That's all.
The thing is with Adobe Stock, is that it is not a Photography course. They just accept or reject, with a guideline on which area they think it does not meet their standards. By the way, Istock has lower standards than Adobe Stock - generally speaking. (At least for my own observation! They accept a lot of low quality photos and subject material.)
If you want help with the more nuanced rejection reason, then there are a number of people on this forum who are happy to help out!
Being 'useless' feedback, I think is debatable.
You're expecting too much from reviewers. If you're unable to critique your own images, post them here and fellow users will give you feedback. Or take some online classes to learn more about your craft.
Adobe Stock reviewers must wade through hundreds of submissions per week. They simply don't have spare time & resources to give detailed feedback to each contributor.
I expect no more from these reviewers then I do from reviewers on other sites. The technology here must be rudimentary if it takes considerable time to do what other agencies do routinely. I scrutinize every image I upload so it would be interesting to see what they see that I and other reviewers don't. It's curious, but hardly worth spending more time investigating.
The rejection reasons have essentially been the same for years. The moderation team is under pressure to review a high volume of content as quickly as possible. To do this, they have to be quick during the acceptance/rejection process. They are not able to provide detailed rejection reasons. While the "technical reasons" rejection is the most vague and can be frustrating, there are other common rejection reasons they can provide you with if the file fits...out of focus, white balance issues, exposure issues. Anything beyond that falls into the "technical" bucket. You can post examples here to receive impartial feedback from other artists if that helps.