Author Topic: Adobestock Review Time (Read 44463 times)

TortoiseProductions · « **Reply #350 on:** April 15, 2025, 10:37 »

Quote from: TortoiseProductions on November 19, 2024, 12:47

My current curiosity is why the groups of photos of one particular raptor in both my account and my husband's are sitting waiting after all the others were reviewed. My only thought is caption and keywords .... The raptor in question is a Harris Hawk. (Not applying conspiracy, I just find it curious)

Well... after waiting... hmmm... over 4 months these images were finally reviewed. The solution? Deleting them from the queue and resubmitting without the word "Harris" in the title or keywords. So now our "Hawk (Parabuteu unicinctus)" images can finally start selling. Hopefully people looking for images for the Harris Hawk will look it up by the latin name.

zeljkok · « **Reply #351 on:** April 15, 2025, 23:26 »

Quote from: TortoiseProductions on April 15, 2025, 10:37

Well... after waiting... hmmm... over 4 months these images were finally reviewed. The solution? Deleting them from the queue and resubmitting without the word "Harris" in the title or keywords. So now our "Hawk (Parabuteu unicinctus)" images can finally start selling. Hopefully people looking for images for the Harris Hawk will look it up by the latin name.

That might not be the reason. I have theory that Adobe AI preprocessing assigns "quality" checksum, that determines order in review queue. If file is simply re-submitted without any modifications, AI detects that, checksum remains unchanged and consequently file remains in black hole. By modifying some of your keywords you introduced brand new content, as far as (dumb) AI goes. It was word "Hawk" in your case, but it could have been something else.

We can only guess. Bottom line is - this is ridiculous game of cat and mouse. On the other side of the fence are developers thinking about algorithms that "will keep these pesky contributors that upload all kinds of trash" in control. On the other side are us, contributors, trying to figure counter measures to "fool dumb AI and stupid developer algorithms". IMHO this is senseless, and has nothing to do with quality or consistency.

Only thing that really bothers me is lack of transparency. "It might take up to 8 weeks". This is inaccurate bs. "Not accepted for quality reasons". Even bigger bs. Why don't they just say what is going on. We would grumble, but at least we'd know what to do and what not to do. It would save them some time too.

wordplanet · « **Reply #352 on:** April 16, 2025, 19:27 »

My approval rating is 85% - and I had bunches of files from the same shoot where all were approved but one which would then sit and wait for a month or so, then be approved, I've got one that's been there for three months. Again, the rest of the set was approved in a few days. It was a commercial image with a tax theme, so I deleted it since it'll be irrelevant for much of the next year. It was late enough three months ago. At least others from the set have licensed, even one today, a day late!

I feel discouraged from uploading when the wait is like this. Maybe I should get my Christmas photos ready now?

TortoiseProductions · « **Reply #353 on:** April 17, 2025, 09:18 »

Quote from: zeljkok on April 15, 2025, 23:26

Quote from: TortoiseProductions on April 15, 2025, 10:37

Well... after waiting... hmmm... over 4 months these images were finally reviewed. The solution? Deleting them from the queue and resubmitting without the word "Harris" in the title or keywords. So now our "Hawk (Parabuteu unicinctus)" images can finally start selling. Hopefully people looking for images for the Harris Hawk will look it up by the latin name.

That might not be the reason. I have theory that Adobe AI preprocessing assigns "quality" checksum, that determines order in review queue. If file is simply re-submitted without any modifications, AI detects that, checksum remains unchanged and consequently file remains in black hole. By modifying some of your keywords you introduced brand new content, as far as (dumb) AI goes. It was word "Hawk" in your case, but it could have been something else.

We can only guess. Bottom line is - this is ridiculous game of cat and mouse. On the other side of the fence are developers thinking about algorithms that "will keep these pesky contributors that upload all kinds of trash" in control. On the other side are us, contributors, trying to figure counter measures to "fool dumb AI and stupid developer algorithms". IMHO this is senseless, and has nothing to do with quality or consistency.

Only thing that really bothers me is lack of transparency. "It might take up to 8 weeks". This is inaccurate bs. "Not accepted for quality reasons". Even bigger bs. Why don't they just say what is going on. We would grumble, but at least we'd know what to do and what not to do. It would save them some time too.

I'd say you might be right on the checksum if we hadn't tested with a resubmit removing only "harris" from the keywords. They didn't get reviewed until both "harris" and "harris hawk" were removed from keywords and title - all done within the submit page. The original images still have those intact and the other 3 sites we submit to accepted them in November without delay.

And yeah, the transparency is killing me. If they're going to threaten account disabling for submitting the wrong things too many times, at least let us clearly know was is wrong with an image. Looking back at my rejects I appreciated knowing what they considered artifacts or noise or out of focus. Now it's just "quality issues".

zeljkok · « **Reply #354 on:** April 17, 2025, 10:24 »

Quote from: TortoiseProductions on April 17, 2025, 09:18

I'd say you might be right on the checksum if we hadn't tested with a resubmit removing only "harris" from the keywords. They didn't get reviewed until both "harris" and "harris hawk" were removed from keywords and title - all done within the submit page. The original images still have those intact and the other 3 sites we submit to accepted them in November without delay.

And yeah, the transparency is killing me. If they're going to threaten account disabling for submitting the wrong things too many times, at least let us clearly know was is wrong with an image. Looking back at my rejects I appreciated knowing what they considered artifacts or noise or out of focus. Now it's just "quality issues".

Right. They could have database of "We have too many of these" keywords. (I.e "food", "flower", ..... "hawk"). Then AI cross-referencing pushes you to bottom of the pile. Bottom line - we don't know, and it's likely changing from day to day.

btw - now that Photo is finally in, you can always go and edit keywords and stick "Hawk" back in ;=)

TortoiseProductions · « **Reply #355 on:** April 17, 2025, 14:20 »

Quote from: zeljkok on April 17, 2025, 10:24

Quote from: TortoiseProductions on April 17, 2025, 09:18

I'd say you might be right on the checksum if we hadn't tested with a resubmit removing only "harris" from the keywords. They didn't get reviewed until both "harris" and "harris hawk" were removed from keywords and title - all done within the submit page. The original images still have those intact and the other 3 sites we submit to accepted them in November without delay.

And yeah, the transparency is killing me. If they're going to threaten account disabling for submitting the wrong things too many times, at least let us clearly know was is wrong with an image. Looking back at my rejects I appreciated knowing what they considered artifacts or noise or out of focus. Now it's just "quality issues".

Right. They could have database of "We have too many of these" keywords. (I.e "food", "flower", ..... "hawk"). Then AI cross-referencing pushes you to bottom of the pile. Bottom line - we don't know, and it's likely changing from day to day.

btw - now that Photo is finally in, you can always go and edit keywords and stick "Hawk" back in ;=)

"Hawk" wasn't the issue. "Harris" was. How do I know? The regular hawk images were approved right away.

zeljkok · « **Reply #356 on:** April 17, 2025, 23:28 »

I believe there was already discussion about all this last yr, maybe withing this thread - and Uncle Pete said something to the effect "This might as well all be random".

I'll share something, perhaps I shouldn't, but here it is:

~2yrs ago I had image rejected several times, for - you guessed it - "Quality Reasons". It pissed me off. It was a good image, Full-Frame Canon SLR, L Lens, perfectly exposed and focused. Zoom at 200%, still good. I had it as single submission to Alamy, to make sure someone looks at it - no problem. What is the "Quality Problem"

? So I overlay Text Box over the image (Photoshop), and write something like: "Dear reviewer. Why do you constantly reject perfect image? I take pride in my work and have high standards from technical perspective. Rejecting for "Quality" is not true. Please tell me what is wrong"

I upload both - original image that was rejected, and image with text box. Guess what? Next day original image was accepted. Make of this what you want.

Bauman · « **Reply #357 on:** April 18, 2025, 02:50 »

I have stopped uploading to Adobe Stock, we'll see what happens in the next few weeks.

This way it's a joke. I'm a photographer and I see photos rejected for similar images or poor quality. But this is absurd.

I've always had an approval rate very close to 100%.

(about "poor quality") I shoot on a tripod with a latest generation full frame ... and then I see AI images approved with fake landscapes and very low quality. This is very funny and sad.

(about "similar images") I've had images rejected of unique locations, that I had never submitted (a village, a unique tree, a country road). Rejected for similar image. But similar to what?! I have never shot that tree or that village before!

It's disrespectful to people like me who get up early to photograph the sunrise, drive hundreds of km to reach the locations and then walk along a path to reach the perfect spot. And then spend more hours retouching.

And then the guy comes from his desk, types a prompt, gets hundreds of low quality and fake images and his are approved and mine are not.

And even if he gets rejections, it's not a problem for him, he has 5000 more in reserve on the Hard Drive ... for me even just 1 rejection is a huge problem. Because that rejection is hours of hard work.

It's a world for crafty people, for the thieves of ideas and for the copycats. Not for the people who work hard to get the highest quality in their work. How sad!

You may ask yourself: "Why don't you also make AI images?" No, because for me it's an insult to my skills and an injustice towards the original creators of the images with which the AIs were trained.

cobalt · « **Reply #358 on:** April 18, 2025, 03:18 »

The disrespect is hurting the most. The ghosting silence.

They have unleashed a completely untrained algo on producers and nobody is babysitting it.

It seems to inspect only on visual similarity and colors. It cannot distinguish between subject matters. I had a wedding cake declined that I was sure was unique because I used the adobe similar tool to see what else was out there.

No similar cakes in sight. But...lots of images with butter, aromatheraphy oils, towels and spa with similar flowers, composition and colors. Got my file declined for similarity.

But other cakes were accepted, that have much less sales value because they lack copy space.

I had other experiences like this, images with lots of copy space declined the one without space accepted.

I make greeting cards. Basically elaborate frames.

Full frame images sell very little, they are the add on the client might download 1-5 times a year.

But a good greeting card can have 20-100 dl a year.

So I have stopped uploading, which is very damaging to my business.

The current system is rewarding the spammers, wether ai or camera, that upload gigantic quantities a day.

Whereas the creators who edit very strongly and upload 5-20 files a day are severly punished and basically cannot grow their ports.

The easiest thing to do if Adobe really felt too many similars where entering the system: Upload limits.

Then adjust that dynamically to match review capacity.

Adobe is one of the largest software companies on the planet.

The way they look down. on the puny ant creators is eye opening.

Bauman · « **Reply #359 on:** April 18, 2025, 03:42 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 18, 2025, 03:18

The current system is rewarding the spammers, wether ai or camera, that upload gigantic quantities a day.

Whereas the creators who edit very strongly and upload 5-20 files a day are severly punished and basically cannot grow their ports.

Yes, I agree. This system harms those who do high-quality work and favors those who work in quantity.

Even in the past there were photographers who uploaded thousands of useless and unsellable snapshots. Or illustrators who produced thousands of horrible 3D images.

The problem is that AI (with its production speed) has multiplied this type of contributors (the spammers) infinitely.

The world is moving towards an algorithm-driven society that rewards quantity over quality. We are seeing it everywhere. This has always been my biggest fear about AI and unfortunately it is happening.

The challenge of the future will be to be able to bring out the best, most original and creative content. Today, platforms are not succeeding, just look at social media. "AI slop" is a consequence of all this.

zeljkok · « **Reply #360 on:** April 18, 2025, 12:21 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 18, 2025, 03:18

The disrespect is hurting the most. The ghosting silence.

The way they look down. on the puny ant creators is eye opening.

That reflects my sentiment 100%. I believe most "puny ant creators" take pride in their work, and are largest critics of their own work. Whole "it might take 8 weeks" and "quality reasons" is simply disrespectful. Nobody wants freebies, just professionalism and transparency.

mike123 · « **Reply #361 on:** April 19, 2025, 12:15 »

Adobe's growing disrespect towards quality contributors was clear when they announced the limits for the 2024 bonus code for their software - rewarding AI spammers instead of quality content providers. I think no one should expect to be treated with respect by Adobe and thus you should act accordingly. Make plans what you will do when it's time to leave Adobe (or when you will be let go by Adobe) and work towards it.

f8 · « **Reply #362 on:** April 20, 2025, 13:06 »

Quote from: zeljkok on April 18, 2025, 12:21

Quote from: cobalt on April 18, 2025, 03:18
The disrespect is hurting the most. The ghosting silence.

The way they look down. on the puny ant creators is eye opening.

That reflects my sentiment 100%. I believe most "puny ant creators" take pride in their work, and are largest critics of their own work. Whole "it might take 8 weeks" and "quality reasons" is simply disrespectful. Nobody wants freebies, just professionalism and transparency.

8 weeks? I have hundreds that are in the 4-5 month range. Simply ridiculous and no way to reach out to try and get the content online for sales.

zeljkok · « **Reply #363 on:** April 25, 2025, 14:08 »

Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week. You guessed - "Quality Reasons".

It is very sharp, specially main subject - these vases in the middle - very focused and sharp, even at 200%. Colour is not embellished. There is no chromatic aberration. Image is not crooked. I removed bit of noise in the shadows lower right. Keywords are accurate:

Title: Iron Fence Window with Arabic Flower Pot Vases, White House Wall Exterior, Traditional Andalucian Home Trendy Albaicin Neighborhood, Granada Spain

Keywords: fence, window, house, flower pots, wall, white, andalusia, albaicin, granada, arabic, flower pot, spanish, symmetry, trendy, spain, europe, home, oriental, medieval, traditional, architecture, iron, glass, building, exterior, facade, structure, cage, metal, flowers, stylish, elegant, residence, residential, old, vintage, archival, culture, ornament, decor, decoration, vase, pottery, symmetric, pattern, style, ornate

Category: Travel

Can someone please tell me if you see problem with this Image? I am honestly asking, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I could have included "Neighbourhood" (euro version of the word), but this can't be "quality" problem. We can debate need for this type of image, but IMHO it has some potential as it is trendy old Spanish house front. I've sold images of this type from other parts of the world.

Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.

Roscoe · « **Reply #364 on:** April 25, 2025, 16:16 »

Quote from: DaLiu on December 18, 2024, 09:28

Still have 120 files in pending for 4 months already, none AI files, what's with the up to 8 weeks, I just doubled that.

Same here, some images are stuck in the queue for weeks or months, others get reviewed in less than two days.

gnirtS · « **Reply #365 on:** April 25, 2025, 22:04 »

Quote from: zeljkok on April 25, 2025, 14:08

Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week. You guessed - "Quality Reasons".

It is very sharp, specially main subject - these vases in the middle - very focused and sharp, even at 200%. Colour is not embellished. There is no chromatic aberration. Image is not crooked. I removed bit of noise in the shadows lower right. Keywords are accurate:

Title: Iron Fence Window with Arabic Flower Pot Vases, White House Wall Exterior, Traditional Andalucian Home Trendy Albaicin Neighborhood, Granada Spain

Keywords: fence, window, house, flower pots, wall, white, andalusia, albaicin, granada, arabic, flower pot, spanish, symmetry, trendy, spain, europe, home, oriental, medieval, traditional, architecture, iron, glass, building, exterior, facade, structure, cage, metal, flowers, stylish, elegant, residence, residential, old, vintage, archival, culture, ornament, decor, decoration, vase, pottery, symmetric, pattern, style, ornate

Category: Travel

Can someone please tell me if you see problem with this Image? I am honestly asking, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I could have included "Neighbourhood" (euro version of the word), but this can't be "quality" problem. We can debate need for this type of image, but IMHO it has some potential as it is trendy old Spanish house front. I've sold images of this type from other parts of the world.

Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.

If I was going back a decade where stock had standards I'd argue the highlights on the wall are bright, possibly burnt out.
Distracting marks and hooks on the way.
A little lacking in contrast and saturation.

But these days you're right, normally those all get accepted.

zeljkok · « **Reply #366 on:** April 25, 2025, 23:01 »

Quote from: gnirtS on April 25, 2025, 22:04

If I was going back a decade where stock had standards I'd argue the highlights on the wall are bright, possibly burnt out.
Distracting marks and hooks on the way.
A little lacking in contrast and saturation.

But these days you're right, normally those all get accepted.

Thank you for comment. Wall is not burnt out (histogram) - just very white. This is how they do houses in Albaicin. I thought about removing marks and hooks, but left them as I didn't feel they harm the image. Saturation - on purpose not touched, I remember Matt saying once that saturation is one of key reasons images get rejected, so I left it as it came out of camera.

But you make good points; if this is reaction of experienced microstocker, reviewer could have thought the same. However reviewer has access to full size image and could see highlights is not an issue. But they likely didn't even bother.

Btw - image accepted everywhere else. Granted, Dreamstime and iStock have zero technical criteria, but still

gnirtS · « **Reply #367 on:** April 26, 2025, 04:24 »

Problem is "as it came out of the camera" is a software engineer you've never met deciding how he thinks it should look. That still doesnt mean its "real" at all.

Ultimately dull stock images dont grab as much as bright/saturated (not over). Distractions tend to be a problem for RF as opposed to editorial. Its a different mindset.

I seriously doubt AS has any human in your review chain now anyway. Under modern MS standards i cant see why its rejected. Under 10 year old standards i can see why.

AS are currently on a rejection binge in general though.

danielvisuals · « **Reply #368 on:** April 26, 2025, 04:31 »

Quote from: zeljkok on April 25, 2025, 14:08

Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week. You guessed - "Quality Reasons".

It is very sharp, specially main subject - these vases in the middle - very focused and sharp, even at 200%. Colour is not embellished. There is no chromatic aberration. Image is not crooked. I removed bit of noise in the shadows lower right. Keywords are accurate:

Title: Iron Fence Window with Arabic Flower Pot Vases, White House Wall Exterior, Traditional Andalucian Home Trendy Albaicin Neighborhood, Granada Spain

Keywords: fence, window, house, flower pots, wall, white, andalusia, albaicin, granada, arabic, flower pot, spanish, symmetry, trendy, spain, europe, home, oriental, medieval, traditional, architecture, iron, glass, building, exterior, facade, structure, cage, metal, flowers, stylish, elegant, residence, residential, old, vintage, archival, culture, ornament, decor, decoration, vase, pottery, symmetric, pattern, style, ornate

Category: Travel

Can someone please tell me if you see problem with this Image? I am honestly asking, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I could have included "Neighbourhood" (euro version of the word), but this can't be "quality" problem. We can debate need for this type of image, but IMHO it has some potential as it is trendy old Spanish house front. I've sold images of this type from other parts of the world.

Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.

This image would likely be rejected due to harsh lighting, overexposure, and a cluttered composition that lacks clear visual focus.

zeljkok · « **Reply #369 on:** April 26, 2025, 15:09 »

Quote from: gnirtS on April 26, 2025, 04:24

I seriously doubt AS has any human in your review chain now anyway.

That is interesting observation, and thought has crossed my mind. It just accents how ridiculous this game of cat and mouse has become.

But, I think there might be humans in review chain. Reason: Review always happens between 9am and 10am central European time, and Adobe contracts company from there for reviews. Only questions is do they just run AI scripts when they come to work, or real person actually looks at something.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #370 on:** April 27, 2025, 14:16 »

Quote from: danielvisuals on April 26, 2025, 04:31

Quote from: zeljkok on April 25, 2025, 14:08
Here's interesting example, now rejected twice this week. You guessed - "Quality Reasons".

Otherwise "quality" rejection is not just silly but disrespectful.

This image would likely be rejected due to harsh lighting, overexposure, and a cluttered composition that lacks clear visual focus.

While I have no problems with the quality of the image that was rejected, the AI intake review might have seen shadows. I remember when any shadows were a kiss of death to anything uploaded to SS and some other agencies.

I have had images rejected for focus and artifacts, before they went to, one stupid rejection fits all "quality". The problems were leaves on the ground, a sandy beach, and more recently, a cloudy river, that has reflections of clouds and muddy water.

I still believe AS, when they say every image is reviewed by a human. The catch to that is, some images are rejected, before they are seen by a human. In other words, if it passes the intake review, by the computer and AI, then it's seen by a human. The fast rejections are the computers, no one sees those.

Quote from: mike123 on April 19, 2025, 12:15

Adobe's growing disrespect towards quality contributors was clear when they announced the limits for the 2024 bonus code for their software - rewarding AI spammers instead of quality content providers. I think no one should expect to be treated with respect by Adobe and thus you should act accordingly. Make plans what you will do when it's time to leave Adobe (or when you will be let go by Adobe) and work towards it.

I agree with your viewpoint, except the part about making a choice to leave. As long as they keep selling and sending me money, I'll leave my images. The other two, the current disrespect and the possibility that they could let some people go, are to be watched.

zeljkok · « **Reply #371 on:** April 27, 2025, 23:40 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 27, 2025, 14:16

I still believe AS, when they say every image is reviewed by a human. The catch to that is, some images are rejected, before they are seen by a human. In other words, if it passes the intake review, by the computer and AI, then it's seen by a human. The fast rejections are the computers, no one sees those.

This is very good point & really the bottom line. And why I find "quality" rejection reason disrespectful, without further elaborating what was real issue. I think most contributors are not trying to squeeze half-baked substandard content in; so if you reject it, at least have enough decency to say what was the issue.

This is also why I posted this image, as there are many contributors here with tons of experience. Consensus seems to be that, at least under current microstock standard, it is acceptable. And while human reviewers eventually pull red/green light trigger, red light was likely pulled by AI that analyzed digital blueprint and found something it didn't like - most likely excess whites, which is just very white wall, typical Albaicin house.

For curiosity, here's another image from the area I submitted today.

Note very white wall. It is not washed out, it is white. I am almost certain there will be "Quality" Issues.

wordplanet · « **Reply #372 on:** April 28, 2025, 11:09 »

It's interesting, I mentioned earlier that I had a batch accepted quickly where one languished for over two months, and I removed it as it was not longer timely (tax day concept).

Yesterday afternoon (Sunday US time), I uploaded two iPhone illustrative editorial images and they were online before noon today (Monday). So, illustrative editorial seem to be in another queue.

I get some frustrating quality rejections too and agree it would be helpful if they gave a more specific reason, so you could fix it and resubmit. I hate to be critical of anyone's work and I think those window and housefront images are charming, but since you've asked here, I find them to be a little off white balance-wise - a tad too blue, and despite the dark shadows, I think they could pop more and have a bit more vibrant color, given that the bright hues are a big part of the images' charm.

It looks like they were taken close to mid-day - which makes it harder - so I'd start with using your camera's neutral/ muted color profile in RAW. In the housefront image, I'd try shifting the white balance toward the warmer side, a tad toward the yellow, and also move the tint toward pink. I'd also lift the shadows (if this adds noise, the AI noise reduction works well - and it doesn't tag your image as AI - though watch your keywords - it might add two keywords - denoise and something else - there's something you can uncheck in preferences to avoid this). Then I'd experiment with lowering the contrast slightly while adding a little sharpening, clarity and vibrance, maybe a little saturation, to make it "pop." I use the Nik filters a lot for this but LR/RAW work too.

Good luck. Those colorful houses can sell well.

zeljkok · « **Reply #373 on:** April 28, 2025, 13:19 »

Quote from: wordplanet on April 28, 2025, 11:09

It looks like they were taken close to mid-day - which makes it harder - so I'd start with using your camera's neutral/ muted color profile in RAW. In the housefront image, I'd try shifting the white balance toward the warmer side, a tad toward the yellow, and also move the tint toward pink. I'd also lift the shadows (if this adds noise, the AI noise reduction works well - and it doesn't tag your image as AI - though watch your keywords - it might add two keywords - denoise and something else - there's something you can uncheck in preferences to avoid this). Then I'd experiment with lowering the contrast slightly while adding a little sharpening, clarity and vibrance, maybe a little saturation, to make it "pop." I use the Nik filters a lot for this but LR/RAW work too.

Good luck. Those colorful houses can sell well.

These are all good suggestions of course; and yes it was midday. It is classic travel photo, not photo shoot - snap and go. But I felt it was still acceptable. And - now it's been accepted

Maybe (human) reviewers are coming to MSG, so this was pity LOL. But other shot (vertical) is rejected, intellectual property refusal which does make sense as it is famous "Casa La Sevillana" (now a hostel). http://granadaoldtownhostel.com/showcase/2160/ (Note how white the wall is; again, this is how they do houses there. Very typical of the area).

I'll submit as illustrative editorial, but have no clue whatsoever does it qualify as Illustrative Editorial under Adobe criteria which I simply can't get hold on. This one got accepted last night as Illustrative editorial, famous Flamenco House

So if Casa La Sevillana doesn't qualify as Illustrative Editorial but Flamenco House did, I really don't get it. Sorry, hijacked the thread, but feel there is benefit for everyone in these couple of examples.

wordplanet · « **Reply #374 on:** April 28, 2025, 19:08 »

Glad it was accepted.

Illustrative editorial surely goes through faster. Looks like a beautiful trip! Spanish architecture is wonderful.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Adobestock Review Time (Read 44463 times)

TortoiseProductions

zeljkok

wordplanet

TortoiseProductions

zeljkok

TortoiseProductions

zeljkok

Bauman

cobalt

Bauman

zeljkok

mike123

f8

zeljkok

Roscoe

gnirtS

zeljkok

gnirtS

danielvisuals

zeljkok

Uncle Pete

zeljkok

wordplanet

zeljkok

wordplanet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors