MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: f8 on December 28, 2022, 19:26
-
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
-
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
We would need to see some examples to provide you with valid feedback. If you are a Creative Cloud member, you can share your files by clicking the blue "Share" button in the upper right corner of Photoshop. From there, you can create a link to the image that we can all view and provide comments on how to improve your chances of success for future uploads. Viewers don't need to be CC members to participate.
-Mat Hayward
-
This issue often seems to be one reviewer (or if with AI, where AI uses sample) and it tends to rotate per agency. For seemingly forever, all images accepted then one batch gets unusual rejections. Images shot with tripod in same studio with same lighting, exposure, etc as others that have been accepted for years.
Unfortunately, this seems to happen on Adobe but it also happens at other agencies. The most annoying aspect is Adobe rejections just says "technical". I have to wonder if the reviewers there had to identify what technical issue there would be less of this random craziness. In any case, the vague reason does nothing to help contributors in future.
-
Resend again, if you think your photo good enough.
-
yes, I did find out that If your images are dark they often get rejected for quality issues so if I brighten it up and re-submit it then gets accepted. They even reject if they think the color balance is wrong but that is subjective at best.
-
yes, I did find out that If your images are dark they often get rejected for quality issues so if I brighten it up and re-submit it then gets accepted. They even reject if they think the color balance is wrong but that is subjective at best.
Blown out highlights are another certain fail for "Quality Issues", that's one I admit I've been guilty of sometimes when I'm using the overhead lights and they are too harsh or reflecting on the surface of the subjects.
-
It always seems to be rejections for quality issues nowadays and I am having to guess which but can sometimes find problems but not always. I don't go on adobe forums anymore because they ALWAYS side with adobe. The revewers are wrong on there sometimes because I had more than one image re-instated after rejection and it sold soon afterward. Also someone on the forum calls himself a hardware/soft engineer but why would that make him an expert? hell, I'm a trained G designer from the analog era before digital but adobe with their software & apple ruined it all for me I'm afraid.
-
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
We would need to see some examples to provide you with valid feedback. If you are a Creative Cloud member, you can share your files by clicking the blue "Share" button in the upper right corner of Photoshop. From there, you can create a link to the image that we can all view and provide comments on how to improve your chances of success for future uploads. Viewers don't need to be CC members to participate.
-Mat Hayward
Thanks for your reply and Happy New Year to you and yours.
I have decided that Hildegarde is the most accurate in response. This crazy rejection situation happened several months ago as well on Adobe and after re-submitting I had gone from 80%-100% rejection rate to the polar opposite of 90%-100% acceptance rate on the exact same images.
-
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
We would need to see some examples to provide you with valid feedback. If you are a Creative Cloud member, you can share your files by clicking the blue "Share" button in the upper right corner of Photoshop. From there, you can create a link to the image that we can all view and provide comments on how to improve your chances of success for future uploads. Viewers don't need to be CC members to participate.
-Mat Hayward
Thanks for your reply and Happy New Year to you and yours.
I have decided that Hildegarde is the most accurate in response. This crazy rejection situation happened several months ago as well on Adobe and after re-submitting I had gone from 80%-100% rejection rate to the polar opposite of 90%-100% acceptance rate on the exact same images.
Did you tic the box stating submitted previously?
-
Urghhhh
Rejected by adobe for ... generic quality issues.
Boring 😴 😴
Translucent objects on textured paper with an L macro lens. Back-lit so they light up. Focus was brutally sharp. So sharp I had to search through the 40 I did because I didn't see the dog hair on most until zoomed in 150%.
Poor quality or poor lighting issues. Yeah that's how they were Back-lit. Poorly lit from the front.
Do adobe even want photos any more lol. Oh well accepted at SS blah blah.
Guess I'll try the resubmit runaround game. It's like the bad old days at SS.
-
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm ??? No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it
-
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm ??? No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it
Yes a total waste of time for everyone. I did however resubmit and they all got accepted on second go. Usually a reject here or there does not bother me, but having total rejects or a stupid amount of rejects is an on the inspector not doing their job.
Why do something once when you can do it twice?
-
What is going on at Adobe. My entire last submission was rejected for "quality issues". Every single image.
Let it be noted that every single image was accepted at multiple other sites. This happened several months ago and after re-submission every single image got accepted on the second attempt.
Let it be noted my wife also shoots from a smartphone and all her images are accepted, I on the other hand shoot with a top end Canon camera with top end lenses and they are all rejected?
I have already 16 rejected in January, pretty unusual, they are accepted everywhere, couple is sold at same day in SS, one is Illustrative editorial issue but is not a problem with accepting same image as cut out. Hmm ??? No time for reseeding in this business, take it or leave it
Yes a total waste of time for everyone. I did however resubmit and they all got accepted on second go. Usually a reject here or there does not bother me, but having total rejects or a stupid amount of rejects is an on the inspector not doing their job.
Why do something once when you can do it twice?
Going back a few years I remember Rinder stating how much he would get paid. Then it was i think 15 cents per review he said. I'm sure it's less now. But if they know its fine they knownutll come back through so Adobe in this case will pay twice for the review.
Of course although Matt says they don't, they do use A.I. and you know that because for years SS claimed they didn't then they admitted they did. Like the SS A.I. it rejects artistic lighting such as underexposed for texture or selective focus. Smooth surfaces and reflections and translucent objects get rejected for poor quality and poor focus because it can't handle it. I remember SS's "chromatic luminance" or something wierd everyone had to look up. It wasn't aberration or something normal. We had weeks of that then it shifted onto something else.
A.I. May be cheaper than humans but it is extremely stupid. And as a result you'll be getting homogenised output. Andntradirionally homogenised products do not sell.
They did interesting experiments with clothes. All the same colour T shirt stacked together meant people could zoom in on their favourite colours. Then go through them to find a design they liked. Then they may pick one. The problem was that they then bypassed all the other colours where they may have chosen design. But they couldn't be bothered to go through all the colours. Sales dropped.
If all the trees have a generic form and colour and artificial lighting level that looks like a still from a PS5 game you'll be losing customers. The same with any subject.
SS have learnt. Or their A.I. has been given glasses. Or their reviewers have better eyesight lol.
-
Another week. 9 submitted to various agencies. 9 rejected by Adobe, 8 accepted by other agencies lol. Its a shame because I like Adobe but ... whateva 🙄
-
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.
Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.
Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.
-
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.
Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.
Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.
Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.
I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.
But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same price as entry to a public toilet.
The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.
-
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.
Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.
Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.
Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.
I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.
But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same price as entry to a public toilet.
The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.
If you feel it was a "machine" rejection, you may want to contact support and explain the situation if you feel it is worth the effort.
-
It's a mixed bag with Adobe. Most of my recent submissions have been accepted but I had a couple rejected for "quality" which had been previously accepted by the notoriously picky Shutterstock.
Part of the problem is that a "quality" rejection doesn't really tell you anything. My guess is that there are one or two reviewers who are overly strict and if you are unlucky enough to get them then you get rejections.
Anyway, never mind. The photos will probably sell over at Shutterstock.
Yeah. They are mostly all translucent subjects which are back-lit. Foreground is in shadow. Its hard to focus because its a canon L macro and they are opaque. But I place a brush bristle on them so make sure it's manually focused as perfectly as the equipment will allow and checked by others. Then remove the bristle. And it's close deliberately because I want shallow depth of field for context and composition. Ligting is daylight balanced lume cubes.
I have resubmitted being specific in the title which makes clear the intention. I've even searched the database and found bloody awful semi- similar shots that fail really quite badly. I take 30 to 40 shots a time and refocus after each because it does change slightly. I don't ram the colours up post processing and I only slightly touch sharpness whilst viewing at 100%. Which is stupid really because the photo isn't composed at 100% magnification but people pixel peep. Basically what should be in focus is.
But nope. All binned again. And again. Adobe will get first submission but I won't bother submitting again any images. It's not about pride in my photos I do what I can. It's the time I object to. And on the off chance it may sell. And for the same price as entry to a public toilet.
The review process has moved beyond what is easily achieved with modern equipment, and processing power and now relies on a computer to decide. One that clearly cannot interpret translucent objects that are back-lit.
If you feel it was a "machine" rejection, you may want to contact support and explain the situation if you feel it is worth the effort.
I'll just leave it. They don't take kindly to being pestered.
-
Curiously this time the reason is new for me. This one:
"Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the image. Unfortunately, we've found our review to be similar to another image or images you've already uploaded during, so we can't accept it into our collection."
Two images. One of them are in my portfolio and the other one is the matter rejected. No other related with one drop against leaf concept. Attach images. No need 100%. Just to see differences horizontal, vertical, shape concept... Well I'm not original I know. Would have accepted similar against all stock images not between those two.
-
(http://)http://
-
Yeah. I have a photo of a red leaf on the floor during autumn. I have some yellow leaves floating on water. 2 different images both accepted. Then I uploaded a photo of the red leaves on a tree against a bright blue sky. Nothing special so I wasn't bothered but it was rejected for similars lol. Oh noooo say it ain't so. A tree ... similar to ... a leaf on the floor. And you can find portfolios full of just water in a pool for pages and pages. It is mind numbing.
-
Pool water anyone. What magical properties allowed this port to slip through the net?
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204550982&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool&get_facets=0
-
Lot hungry of feed for AI ;) ;D ;D
-
There is never enough pool water or goldfish
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0
Too wet, how about some nice dry sand
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0
-
There is never enough pool water or goldfish
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0
Too wet, how about some nice dry sand
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0
70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? ;D
-
There is never enough pool water or goldfish
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0
Too wet, how about some nice dry sand
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0
70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? ;D
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0
You've got your head in the clouds Peter. The trick is to take 20 or so pictures and change them subtly and add a bit of lightening. Instant portfolio.
If that doesn't work well meh, just fall back on deconstructed
Stop motion and turn that into a port and to hell with the similars rule. Keep the props. Rotate a little. Light perfectly ... mike drop
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
-
There is never enough pool water or goldfish
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0
Too wet, how about some nice dry sand
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0
70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? ;D
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0
You've got your head in the clouds Peter. The trick is to take 20 or so pictures and change them subtly and add a bit of lightening. Instant portfolio.
If that doesn't work well meh, just fall back on deconstructed
Stop motion and turn that into a port and to hell with the similars rule. Keep the props. Rotate a little. Light perfectly ... mike drop
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
I don't think that 70 pages of sand is a good idea, any more than 70 pages of water ripples, clouds, or marijuana. Is there something in your translator that takes out any icons or smileys?
Sure thing, Romix has the tangyuan yuanxiao market covered. That and pink shopping cart with flowers. ;D
It's just a matter of how much someone wants to do, to fool the duplicate detector bot. (now everyone calls it AI, no difference) I remember back before the bots would review before images were passed on to humans, people would do a setting, move the sale and pepper, then move a knife, or move a fork or, change on item, and that was a "new" variation. As if some buyer would need to have the plate with salt and pepper, silverware, a napkin, and maybe a tea cup, placed in every possible configuration, then moved by an inch to make another new image.
Then the next step was upload the same 100 images, to 50 agencies. While my "master plan" is just the opposite? Everyone can make their own and agree or disagree, but less agencies and only upload best images. A big series for me might be three, but usually one is enough. That doesn't mean I never shoot the same subject again, just not 100 variations in one day.
That's why it's called micro stock right? Move the camera or zoom or flip in some micro way of changing the image and upload it again? ::)
-
There is never enough pool water or goldfish
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0
Too wet, how about some nice dry sand
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0
70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? ;D
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0
You've got your head in the clouds Peter. The trick is to take 20 or so pictures and change them subtly and add a bit of lightening. Instant portfolio.
If that doesn't work well meh, just fall back on deconstructed
Stop motion and turn that into a port and to hell with the similars rule. Keep the props. Rotate a little. Light perfectly ... mike drop
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
I don't think that 70 pages of sand is a good idea, any more than 70 pages of water ripples, clouds, or marijuana. Is there something in your translator that takes out any icons or smileys?
Sure thing, Romix has the tangyuan yuanxiao market covered. That and pink shopping cart with flowers. ;D
It's just a matter of how much someone wants to do, to fool the duplicate detector bot. (now everyone calls it AI, no difference) I remember back before the bots would review before images were passed on to humans, people would do a setting, move the sale and pepper, then move a knife, or move a fork or, change on item, and that was a "new" variation. As if some buyer would need to have the plate with salt and pepper, silverware, a napkin, and maybe a tea cup, placed in every possible configuration, then moved by an inch to make another new image.
Then the next step was upload the same 100 images, to 50 agencies. While my "master plan" is just the opposite? Everyone can make their own and agree or disagree, but less agencies and only upload best images. A big series for me might be three, but usually one is enough. That doesn't mean I never shoot the same subject again, just not 100 variations in one day.
That's why it's called micro stock right? Move the camera or zoom or flip in some micro way of changing the image and upload it again? ::)
I know right lol. I mean you buy cheap props but adobe is getting silly. A packet of wooden scrabble pieces can create huge amounts. Lit adventurously and you can add and change even more context. But no sadly not lol. I had some cool plans but I can't be arsed with Adobe now. I'll wait till they stop being silly.
-
There is never enough pool water or goldfish
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0 (https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=204243756&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Pool+water&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Pool+water&get_facets=0)
Too wet, how about some nice dry sand
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0 (https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=206735541&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Sand&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&acp=&aco=Sand&get_facets=0)
70 pages of sand, there someone with a desire to cover a niche? ;D
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0 (https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=202007694&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bfetch_excluded_assets%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&order=relevance&safe_search=1&k=Clouds&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=pagination&acp=&aco=Clouds&load_type=page&get_facets=0)
You've got your head in the clouds Peter. The trick is to take 20 or so pictures and change them subtly and add a bit of lightening. Instant portfolio.
If that doesn't work well meh, just fall back on deconstructed
Stop motion and turn that into a port and to hell with the similars rule. Keep the props. Rotate a little. Light perfectly ... mike drop
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail (https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/204101481/romiximage?load_type=author&prev_url=detail)
That's why it's called micro stock right? Move the camera or zoom or flip in some micro way of changing the image and upload it again? ::)
Apparently you don't need to move it very far lol
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/majo1122331 (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/majo1122331)
-
i've had same experience -100% rejection on 23 lots of 25 submitted a week apart - and i had selected only images that had been taken at other sites
-
I've only had 2 image rejections over the last 4-6 months out of about 500 or more images. The two I've had recently I'll take a look and if there's an issue, I'll see if I can correct it and resubmit. If not, I just move on.
Like anywhere though, they can make the odd mistake but as a rule I've found them very good.
-
That's why it's called micro stock right? Move the camera or zoom or flip in some micro way of changing the image and upload it again? ::)
Apparently you don't need to move it very far lol
[url]https://www.shutterstock.com/g/majo1122331[/url] ([url]https://www.shutterstock.com/g/majo1122331[/url])
I've seen some worse, like, make them B&W, flip, point at the sky, now point at the sky + look at the camera...
https://www.shutterstock.com/search/full-length-portrait-of-young-pinup-woman-cycling-in-fields?image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/search/full-length-portrait-of-young-pinup-woman-cycling-in-fields?image_type=photo)
Change the description, post 24 more? https://www.shutterstock.com/search/young-beautiful-brunette-pinup-woman-in-red-shirt-cycling?image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/search/young-beautiful-brunette-pinup-woman-in-red-shirt-cycling?image_type=photo)
But I suppose, you have a bicycle and a model and she has the red outfit? Maybe I'd do 100 photos of the same setup if I did that kind of thing.
Guilty, I found some of my old Easter Eggs photos, same eggs six images, and one with the same cheeseburger used three times! 3/4 above, side view and close up. Some day I'm revisiting this one, the triple cheeseburger with fries project. ;D
www.shutterstock.com/g/peteklinger/sets/128860411?rid=111418 (http://www.shutterstock.com/g/peteklinger/sets/128860411?rid=111418)
Back to the original question? How does sand, water, waves or clouds qualify as not similar or not too many already uploaded that are similar? But something I've uploaded that's different colors, different designs and not at all the same, get rejected for being to similar?
Yeah guilty of this one too (https://i.postimg.cc/CLxs22Vg/beatdeadhorse.gif)
-
when i did a search for 'recent pizza' there were 13 very similar images on the top, and many more similars after that - why do these get accepted when others of us are told no more than 3 from a SERIES? -- doesnt matter if they are actually different images from one shoot - different composition, different # of animals in shot, different actions, - a selection that in no way would be similar other than the subject -- not slight differences like the pizzas) and can be blocked w/o any chance of appeal of a very subjective review.
the argument against rejections for similars is if 1 submit 5-10 on the same subject, the images selected will vary for each agency, with some even taking most of what AS would consider similar
-
when i did a search for 'recent pizza' there were 13 very similar images on the top, and many more similars after that - why do these get accepted when others of us are told no more than 3 from a SERIES? -- doesnt matter if they are actually different images from one shoot - different composition, different # of animals in shot, different actions, - a selection that in no way would be similar other than the subject -- not slight differences like the pizzas) and can be blocked w/o any chance of appeal of a very subjective review.
the argument against rejections for similars is if 1 submit 5-10 on the same subject, the images selected will vary for each agency, with some even taking most of what AS would consider similar
ok, here's an example that today would have been rejected for 'similars' but was accepted under previous more sensible rules - these 5 sold together
(https://cascoly.com/_temp/similars.jpg)
-
i've had same experience -100% rejection on 23 lots of 25 submitted a week apart - and i had selected only images that had been taken at other sites
update - next batch had about 50% accepted, latest was 100% accepted, including a dozen Dall-e images. content from same shoots
-
i've had same experience -100% rejection on 23 lots of 25 submitted a week apart - and i had selected only images that had been taken at other sites
update - next batch had about 50% accepted, latest was 100% accepted, including a dozen Dall-e images. content from same shoots
How do you get Dall-e images accepted? All of mine are rejected for quality.
-
i've had same experience -100% rejection on 23 lots of 25 submitted a week apart - and i had selected only images that had been taken at other sites
update - next batch had about 50% accepted, latest was 100% accepted, including a dozen Dall-e images. content from same shoots
How do you get Dall-e images accepted? All of mine are rejected for quality.
Well at least Adobe is trying to avoid flooding the database with poor quality images. Hurray to Adobe, I guess :)
-
i've had same experience -100% rejection on 23 lots of 25 submitted a week apart - and i had selected only images that had been taken at other sites
update - next batch had about 50% accepted, latest was 100% accepted, including a dozen Dall-e images. content from same shoots
How do you get Dall-e images accepted? All of mine are rejected for quality.
did you check them at 100%? did you follow the AS submission rueles?
most images need post=processing
without seeing your portfolio we can't see where the problem may be
-
i've had same experience -100% rejection on 23 lots of 25 submitted a week apart - and i had selected only images that had been taken at other sites
update - next batch had about 50% accepted, latest was 100% accepted, including a dozen Dall-e images. content from same shoots
How do you get Dall-e images accepted? All of mine are rejected for quality.
Well at least Adobe is trying to avoid flooding the database with poor quality images. Hurray to Adobe, I guess :)
How dare you insult my catalog of 52,000 photos of the same tomato.
-
i've had same experience -100% rejection on 23 lots of 25 submitted a week apart - and i had selected only images that had been taken at other sites
update - next batch had about 50% accepted, latest was 100% accepted, including a dozen Dall-e images. content from same shoots
How do you get Dall-e images accepted? All of mine are rejected for quality.
Well at least Adobe is trying to avoid flooding the database with poor quality images. Hurray to Adobe, I guess :)
How dare you insult my catalog of 52,000 photos of the same tomato.
And it didn't wilt under the lights? Tell us your secret!
SS = 983,678 sliced tomato stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.
AS = 745,250 results for sliced tomato in all
DT = 144,603 sliced tomato stock images and stock footage are available royalty-free.
According to some theories, you should be uploading your slice tomato images to DT for better sales? ???
-
How dare you insult my catalog of 52,000 photos of the same tomato.
You should consider investing in a second tomato.
-
And it didn't wilt under the lights? Tell us your secret!
SS = 983,678 sliced tomato stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.
AS = 745,250 results for sliced tomato in all
DT = 144,603 sliced tomato stock images and stock footage are available royalty-free.
According to some theories, you should be uploading your slice tomato images to DT for better sales? ???
I do not doubt that the field of sliced tomatos is very competitive. It should be noted, though, that only a very small percentage of the nearly one million images at Shutterstock show sliced tomatos as the main subject.
If you switch the sorting to Fresh Content, you will see that most of the images coming in show things like pizza with tomatos, or even just tomato sauce or other stuff that contain tomatos or one of it's products as ingredient and some sort of slice (for example pizza slices).
Shutterstock obviously does a good job of presenting the user with the best (or at least most popular) images within the minority of real tomato slices when the sorting is set to Popular.
-
And it didn't wilt under the lights? Tell us your secret!
SS = 983,678 sliced tomato stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.
AS = 745,250 results for sliced tomato in all
DT = 144,603 sliced tomato stock images and stock footage are available royalty-free.
According to some theories, you should be uploading your slice tomato images to DT for better sales? ???
I do not doubt that the field of sliced tomatos is very competitive. It should be noted, though, that only a very small percentage of the nearly one million images at Shutterstock show sliced tomatos as the main subject.
If you switch the sorting to Fresh Content, you will see that most of the images coming in show things like pizza with tomatos, or even just tomato sauce or other stuff that contain tomatos or one of it's products as ingredient and some sort of slice (for example pizza slices).
Shutterstock obviously does a good job of presenting the user with the best (or at least most popular) images within the minority of real tomato slices when the sorting is set to Popular.
Yes of course I know that, any simple search is going to be terribly flawed. Yes, anything with "sliced tomatoes" salads, pizza, casserole and many more, will come up. It's just an entertaining search. I could have followed something more useful, but I didn't, so there we very well are, deep in the salsa di pomodoro.
Here's the other one I like to watch. There's no useful purpose and I have a number on the first page (that still don't sell very often) 512 triple cheeseburger stock photos - and guess what? Roughly 20% are not "Triple Cheeseburgers" some are fries and chicken. Some of three of something and a cheeseburger. And 261 are this one spammed up set of cheeseburgers with various flags. https://www.shutterstock.com/search/triple-cheeseburger-flag?image_type=photo (https://www.shutterstock.com/search/triple-cheeseburger-flag?image_type=photo) Talk about similar?
In other words, there are only about 200 triple cheeseburger photos, and the demand is an even smaller number.
Make a note and lets check this in 2024? ;) 184,414 sliced tomatoes isolated on white stock photos There are some new uploads on the first page.
-
In the past, I found reviews on Adobe Stock to be more harsh. I used to get a fair few rejections but also a fair few accepted images as well. Can't recall if it was close to a 50 / 50 split or not. In more recent times, Ive found the AS reviewers are a lot more generous. Currently, I only have the occasional issue with illustrative editorial images. Some of my images are accepted as IE and some aren't (it seems pretty random.) Most of the photos I submit as IE have similar kinds of subjects with no recognisable people but apparently, some just don't qualify as IE.