Ridiculous

[elib21972364]

Sorry but I find it ridiculous that so many of my uploaded images are rejected for exposure or excessive post-processing or noise problems. This may be a problem if using the picture to print a 24 x 36" photo, but it not a problem for any web site use or even printing under 11 x 14". The effort needed to keyword all the images and upload them is not paying off when the rejection rates are so high.

This is a great way to frustrate photographers and get them to quit. My time is not worth $.05 per hour, which is what I'm getting from Adobe for all of this nonsense.

Shutterstock is a nightmare too - even worse.

[MatHayward · Accepted solution]

Thanks for the feedback. Rejection is a part of the process for sure. If you choose to look at the rejections as a learning opportunity you have the potential to evolve and grow as a stock contributor and with time you will see the gap close in your rejection ratio. We do have strict quality standards in place to ensure that our customers know we offer high quality content for them to purchase. If there are images you truly can't see why they were rejected I recommend you post them in the critique forum to solicity feedback from other contributors. It takes time and effort to succeed in stock. If you are willing to put in the work, the potential is limitless.

I wish you the best of luck,

Mat Hayward

[joanH · Accepted solution]

Hi elib21972364, I do understand your frustration - I am a stock contributor as you are.

As Mat stated in his reply, this is a learning process. Adobe has guidelines and regulations it adheres to worldwide. If you want some of our comments here on the forum, please upload a recent rejection that you do not understand and we will tell you what we think the problem is.

Meanwhile, do go study the rejection reasons and guideline information Adobe has posted free of charge for contributors. Kind regards, JH

To learn more about the type of content we're looking for, please visit this page: https://www.adobe.com/go/stock-contributor-help

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

elib21972364  wrote

Shutterstock is a nightmare too - even worse.

I found that Shutterstock is much more permissive.

Without seeing your pictures but knowing both moderation processes, the one from Adobe and the one from Shutterstock, I fear that there is really a problem with your pictures. It’s not always very much, but learning the stock requirements will help a lot to lower the refusal rate.

Please feel free to post some of your pictures in Stock Contributor Critique​ with the refusal reason and at a size big enough to be able to appreciate the pictures and other contributors will have a look at them and help you getting better results.

When I started, my refusal rate was about 50%. Understanding where to look lowered my rate down to a small percentage, mostly when I didn’t pay attention to a detail.

[jacquelingphoto2017 · Accepted solution]

Hi elib,

I understand your frustration. When I started I had a rejection rate of about 99%. Now I have an approval rate of about 99%. To improve your approval rate you need to learn a few things including how to inspect your images, and make corrections, and a mental picture of the exposure that is accepted.

Open one of the files rejected for noise and zoom it to about 200%.

Look in the darker areas. Do you see very small spots? Do you see what appears to be water mark in the black areas?

Those are noise. Noise shows up in the skin areas of models, and the sky tend to be grainy when noisy.

Most of the time those images rejected for exposure, appear to be underexposed for one reason or another. Is it that you cannot see details in the shadowy areas? In this case black and shadow might need to be adjusted. Did you take the photo in low light,? Exposure need to be adjusted. Or are there areas of your image so bright that the details are blown out?

Rejection can be very good training tools along with help from Critique Forum if you upload some of these rejected images with reasons for rejection.

In the mean time, along with the link from Joan, read up on Create better photos for Adobe Stock with 7 tips for success | . Pay attention to the illustrations and their details.

In case you haven't been doing so, post processing is absolutely necessary. This is made easier if your images are taken in RAW.

Sutterstock and Adobe are not the only ones that are looking for high quality images. There are others.

Best wishes

JG

[joshuab49902705]

Wow!! That is ridiculous!!

[Abambo]

Could you please be more elaborate with the answer?