pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: AS rejections  (Read 5313 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2022, 04:29 »
0
Don't be surprised. The agencies have too many pictures. They are saturated.
Even Pond5 is rejecting photos as of this year. On the grounds that they now have more than 10 million images ...
https://www.microstockgroup.com/pond5/pond5-image-rejections/


« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2022, 04:50 »
0
after I read here it turns out that I am not alone, usually almost 90% of photos are accepted but this week nothing was received at all. and the reason for refusal is also a quality problem.  :'(

« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2022, 20:10 »
0
Same here. Usually 95% accepted. Personally I don't see any quality problem with the photos that were rejected this week.

blvdone

    This user is banned.
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2022, 22:34 »
0
Same here for photos.  Suddenly mostly rejected for "QUALITY ISSUES".

Maybe new Adobe Stock wants to reject all similar photos they already have to save data storage expense to squeeze profit in this uncertain economy when many are predicting recession going deeper later this year and into next year?  Or maybe simply they adopted Shutterstock AI.

« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2022, 02:32 »
0
I personally can't say that rejections at AS are higher than in the past. From my experience, AS goes rather easy on their reviews, and the few ones that get rejected for quality issues don't feel unfair for me.

I've been shooting vintage lenses recently, and as many of you know, those lenses have their quality issues. Soft focus on the edges, vignetting, background swirls and sun flares which I try to use as a creative feature rather as an issue. All of my submissions (except one, where I slightly missed focus) were accepted by AS, where SS only accepted three out of 10.

The weirdest rejection I've seen is one of a macro flower shot a few weeks back which was rejected due to intellectual property issues. Probably the AI misinterpreted the (latin?) name of the flower as intellectual property. Which is kind of weird, even for an AI, as I used AI to identify the name of the flower.
No harm done though, as the shot was part of my manual focusing exercise on my macro lens and I don't expect flower shots to do well anyhow.

Other rejections I don't really can get hold of are the Illustrative Editorial rejections. I think to know what illustrative editorial is, but sometimes regular editorials like architecture seem to be accepted too, and sometimes not. Again: no harm done here. If it doesn't fit Adobe's policy then it doesn't, and I'm fine with that.


« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2022, 02:32 »
0
I really don't want to rant about Adobe. But I've also been getting an unusually high number of rejections lately. Some batches are rejected completely. Something has changed here. ::)

« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2022, 11:42 »
0
I really don't want to rant about Adobe. But I've also been getting an unusually high number of rejections lately. Some batches are rejected completely. Something has changed here. ::)

Strange how experiences can vary across contributors. I'm actually not seeing that at all. And I'm the first to admit that not all of my submitted images are top notch quality neither unique. So for the few that AS rejects I think "fair enough". I can't recall being flabbergasted by a quality issue rejection. At Shutterstock yes, but Adobe? Not really.

That said, with many people complaining, there must be something going on indeed. When was your latest upload Ralf? Mine dates back from last weekend.

« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2022, 14:10 »
+1
Hahaha rejection for similar. Sigh how pathetic.

I have about 3 or four images that have autumnal and jave autumn leaves. A lake with trees in colour. Bright yellow leafs, red leafs and another. Different trees compositions entirely. I uploaded some gorgeous autumnal tree shots last year ... rejected for similar in my port. NSS but then I have landscape photos that have a sky in it ... should we stop. Careful ... you have a person on a path and a person on a beach. It's a nonsense.
Rejecting similars is not a fault or a crime or an offence. What it actually is, is this:
1. Poor search algorithms and criteria that cannot bring back a decent collection. So you get pages and pages of generic qualifying images that cannot be whittled down enough.

2. Concern over data bloat. Well guess what, when you have a photo of a tree that's a tree. Want an oak well here's an oak. An oaks an oak isn't it?

No of course not. Like faces, hands, sunsets, clothes, events, clouds and water and expressions and colours.

Adobe we take probably 20 to 30 photos of each thing. Typically I'll select one from that I'm happy with or maybe two. And ill submit 1. It's already been through a review process.  But I've stepped away from submitting because I jave new ideas or interpretations of similar objects, landscapes etc but why bother. Set it all up, take the shots, self review, process and upload for 'similar' ...  good grief. If it ain't on the shelf it can't sell Adobe. You need bigger shelves, and a better search tool else why would you reject various angles of the same thing, dog, tree, house, subject ....

... oh that's right. You don't. Until you do for a bit.

« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2022, 12:32 »
0
I really don't want to rant about Adobe. But I've also been getting an unusually high number of rejections lately. Some batches are rejected completely. Something has changed here. ::)

Strange how experiences can vary across contributors. I'm actually not seeing that at all. And I'm the first to admit that not all of my submitted images are top notch quality neither unique. So for the few that AS rejects I think "fair enough". I can't recall being flabbergasted by a quality issue rejection. At Shutterstock yes, but Adobe? Not really.

That said, with many people complaining, there must be something going on indeed. When was your latest upload Ralf? Mine dates back from last weekend.

Roscoe, as far as looking at rejections in general, I'm right there with you and wouldn't even bring that up here.  And sometimes you need someone to tell you that you have produced crap  :P

I upload here regularly, several images per week. Last week various close-ups of trees with ripe fruit and onion field.
All images so far completely rejected because of quality problems. I haven't changed anything myself and this high rejection rate is new to me - it's been going on for weeks now.
The complete series, on the other hand, was completely accepted by Shutterstock. So it can't be due to focus and image noise  ;)



« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2022, 18:04 »
+1
they simply looking the theme of the photos you are sending.if its not some AI doin the dirty work
you said it your shelf close up of trees and onions and stuff like that? they either  dont have a big market for it or they have too many of these images so they reject them. so instead of tellin the photographer that they give a bogus rejection reason and have the photographer scratching his head  :D
just say it dammit
we only want pics with people in it.period

« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2022, 11:13 »
0
Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this  :-X

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2022, 12:59 »
0
Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this  :-X

On Adobe? I generally take a rejection as, pretty sure that someone looked and I'd expect the next review on AS to be the same. Not so on SS of course where the bots do the reviews.

Should I be sending things in a second time to AS?

« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2022, 13:28 »
0
Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this  :-X

On Adobe? I generally take a rejection as, pretty sure that someone looked and I'd expect the next review on AS to be the same. Not so on SS of course where the bots do the reviews.

Should I be sending things in a second time to AS?

Pete, in my experience, it has always made sense to try a second submission with Adobe as well.
For me, most of the images go through after all. If not, they are really crap  ;)
The same is true for editorials. The reviewers seem to have some leeway here.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2022, 13:37 »
0
Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this  :-X

On Adobe? I generally take a rejection as, pretty sure that someone looked and I'd expect the next review on AS to be the same. Not so on SS of course where the bots do the reviews.

Should I be sending things in a second time to AS?

Pete, in my experience, it has always made sense to try a second submission with Adobe as well.
For me, most of the images go through after all. If not, they are really crap  ;)
The same is true for editorials. The reviewers seem to have some leeway here.

Thanks, I guess I was giving up too easily.

« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2022, 13:39 »
0
I upload here regularly, several images per week. Last week various close-ups of trees with ripe fruit and onion field.
All images so far completely rejected because of quality problems. I haven't changed anything myself and this high rejection rate is new to me - it's been going on for weeks now.
The complete series, on the other hand, was completely accepted by Shutterstock. So it can't be due to focus and image noise  ;)
I never had a complete batch rejected. A single image every now and then? Yes. But at acceptable terms for me. Editorial issues? Also yes. Multiple. 
But maybe I was just lucky the past few weeks.

Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

I took apart my Helios 44M yesterday to fix the stiff focusing ring, and went out for a nature shoot later that day to test it. It's nature galore with foliage, grass and dirt/dust all over the place. Did some close-up shots at f/2 because I was hunting for the signature swirly bokeh this lens produces, and also took wider more general landscape shots. It's an old lens, and it does has the reputation of being difficult to get tack-sharp. Center is okay-ish if you get the focus right, but the corners are soft, certainly wide open.

It's the perfect recipe for rejections I would say, and also rejections I would accept as I see those kind of shots rather being on the artistic or experimental side at best than really suitable for stock. Let me upload them and report back how that went.

« Reply #40 on: August 16, 2022, 13:49 »
+1
I upload here regularly, several images per week. Last week various close-ups of trees with ripe fruit and onion field.
All images so far completely rejected because of quality problems. I haven't changed anything myself and this high rejection rate is new to me - it's been going on for weeks now.
The complete series, on the other hand, was completely accepted by Shutterstock. So it can't be due to focus and image noise  ;)
I never had a complete batch rejected. A single image every now and then? Yes. But at acceptable terms for me. Editorial issues? Also yes. Multiple. 
But maybe I was just lucky the past few weeks.


These complete batch rejections are new to me and unfortunately are happening more often lately.
It is interesting that these rejections of all images occur in one go. With the second submission, the review is then usually done in batches, sometimes over several days, and the images then go through.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #41 on: August 18, 2022, 10:22 »
0
Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

While the answer might be the keywords were the reason for the rejection, it's still interesting that nature can get an Intellectual Property rejection. Maybe you could send the image and everything to Mat and get a real answer, WHY?

I can understand pre-qualifying images, using computers, before review, and in the past the answer has been, a human looks at every image that is reviewed, I wonder if Mat can confirm this?

Are all image reviews still viewed by a human? I suppose a way around that would be, the Bots do the reviews and a human takes a look to see if they got it right, which isn't really Human Review.

« Reply #42 on: August 18, 2022, 10:26 »
+2
Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

While the answer might be the keywords were the reason for the rejection, it's still interesting that nature can get an Intellectual Property rejection. Maybe you could send the image and everything to Mat and get a real answer, WHY?

I can understand pre-qualifying images, using computers, before review, and in the past the answer has been, a human looks at every image that is reviewed, I wonder if Mat can confirm this?

Are all image reviews still viewed by a human? I suppose a way around that would be, the Bots do the reviews and a human takes a look to see if they got it right, which isn't really Human Review.

Content is (still) reviewed by actual human beings.

thanks,

Mat Hayward


« Reply #43 on: August 18, 2022, 22:26 »
+1
Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

While the answer might be the keywords were the reason for the rejection, it's still interesting that nature can get an Intellectual Property rejection. Maybe you could send the image and everything to Mat and get a real answer, WHY?

I can understand pre-qualifying images, using computers, before review, and in the past the answer has been, a human looks at every image that is reviewed, I wonder if Mat can confirm this?

Are all image reviews still viewed by a human? I suppose a way around that would be, the Bots do the reviews and a human takes a look to see if they got it right, which isn't really Human Review.

Content is (still) reviewed by actual human beings.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Still getting rejections. I doubt that "only" humans are reviewing the files.

« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2022, 02:44 »
0
Reviews are definitely done by bots. That's what I learn from the intellectual property rejection of a simple nature shot.
Title or keywords probably goofed the system.

While the answer might be the keywords were the reason for the rejection, it's still interesting that nature can get an Intellectual Property rejection. Maybe you could send the image and everything to Mat and get a real answer, WHY?

I can understand pre-qualifying images, using computers, before review, and in the past the answer has been, a human looks at every image that is reviewed, I wonder if Mat can confirm this?

Are all image reviews still viewed by a human? I suppose a way around that would be, the Bots do the reviews and a human takes a look to see if they got it right, which isn't really Human Review.

Content is (still) reviewed by actual human beings.

thanks,

Mat Hayward

Thanks for stepping in and correcting my statement Mat. 
Human errors can happen too of course.

@Pete, it was just a simple nature shot which I didn't necessarily took to upload to stock agencies. I was testing/practicing my skills. I don't want to waste anyone's time to look further into the topic as I consider it as an anecdotal mistake rather than a structural issue (as mentioned earlier, I don't seem to experience a lot of unfair rejections by Adobe). And the shot itself has low commercial value.

But of course, if @Mat wants to chase it, I'm happy to provide him the details.


« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2022, 11:16 »
0
Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while were working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

And this, dear other agencies than Adobe, is how you do your PR.
Well done Mat!

Came here to provide feedback about my little experiment where I uploaded 10 rather rejection sensitive images.
Three of them were abstract deliberate out of focus shots, bokeh balls to be used as background or in layered compositions.
The other ones were a mixture of selective focus close-up shots and wide angle landscape shots with and without a clear subject.

Shutterstock rejected 4 out of 10. Bokeh balls were accepted, but landscape shots with foliage were rejected due to so-called focus issues.
Adobe Stock accepted 10 out of 10.

SVH

« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2022, 11:55 »
+2
Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while were working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

And this, dear other agencies than Adobe, is how you do your PR.
Well done Mat!

Came here to provide feedback about my little experiment where I uploaded 10 rather rejection sensitive images.
Three of them were abstract deliberate out of focus shots, bokeh balls to be used as background or in layered compositions.
The other ones were a mixture of selective focus close-up shots and wide angle landscape shots with and without a clear subject.

Shutterstock rejected 4 out of 10. Bokeh balls were accepted, but landscape shots with foliage were rejected due to so-called focus issues.
Adobe Stock accepted 10 out of 10.

What would really help is being more clear as an agency why they reject something. Not the vague and useless reasons they use now. It will cost more effort on their side but it will prevent rejecting again in the future and therefore cost saving in the end. And us, contributors, will be more happy. Even if it is a potential insulting reason. At least you will learn from your misstakes and know what to change in your submissions. And that goes for all agencies, including Adobe.

wds

« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2022, 13:46 »
0
Hi everyone,

This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.

To avoid this while were working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.

For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.

thanks again,

Mat Hayward

Mat. I have been submitting images to AS for quite some time without any real issues.
My question is: What the heck is an "Art Board"?

« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2022, 14:32 »
+2
The comment from Mat relates to recent vector rejections.
The "Art Board" size (also called canva size) is the area that defines the space around your vector.
Recommendation: Aim at a ~10MP area, with the vector taking most of the place in it.

Disclosure: I'm a Product Manager working on Adobe Stock. My name is Morgan David de Lossy, I used to be a stock photo contributor, now fighting from inside the machine ;). Mat taking some well deserved time off, I'm jumping in to avoid having him looking at his phone again! I'll do my best to help out until he comes back.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
7073 Views
Last post September 28, 2007, 08:46
by PaulieWalnuts
154 Replies
43647 Views
Last post August 26, 2008, 01:24
by Peter
7 Replies
4998 Views
Last post March 26, 2011, 10:25
by tab62
1 Replies
1662 Views
Last post January 20, 2017, 08:31
by sgoodwin4813
4 Replies
2886 Views
Last post March 16, 2022, 15:21
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle