pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Anyone having defocused images by Adobe Stock being rejected?  (Read 801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 22, 2019, 02:45 »
0
It seems Adobe Stock does not like defocused images. I've had a number of images being rejected with some of them being really good sellers elsewhere https://www.istockphoto.com/za/photo/blurred-photo-of-fans-cheering-during-cricket-match-gm1141350038-305737204

Does anybody know if they just reject it altogether or are there any keywords i need to add other than blur, defocused?


Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2019, 09:18 »
+4
Not sure about their policy on that, but I don't see much value in a blurred image, so I understand their rejection. Any buyer can take a sharp image and blur it themselves if they want.


« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2019, 12:12 »
+1
It is obvious that mistakes are made. In Adobe they rejected an image for not giving permission of the model. It was an image of peas. The system did not accept it again without the signature of the pea. Therefore, I deleted it and when uploading it again, it was accepted without the corresponding permission of the pea.

Congratulations sincerely. Your words, you speak like people. It will seem normal, but we are dealing with other agencies, and your words are not from this world. They look like gods of the universe.

Thank you very much for your human words.

Tenebroso

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2019, 12:26 »
0
I defer to anything that Dennis or Mat say but I've made some unusual images over my time and a time exposure at night, to show motion is one. As an art image, not specific subject at least one has been accepted. As art concept another rejected. As a time exposure showing lights and work, rejected. I'd guess if I had a better explanation with the last, maybe it could have had a chance?

In general at Adobe, creative, in focus, but long exposures have been rejected for being blurred. Yeah, I know that, I did it on purpose. LOL  :)

And maybe the shots are a little too far out and the review is perfectly within the Adobe wishes and guidelines. I don't have a problem with that, I'm just saying, everything is not cut and dried for de-focused or creative images. One might pass, another might not.



Harvesting Corn at Night is a fail for focus and lighting.


OM

« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2019, 06:34 »
0
Had an interesting rejection at Adobe recently whilst the shot was already accepted at SS. Grounds were copyright infringement on a coin with QEII head.....so I thought 'what the........?'

Turns out that Adobe were right (sort of) because when I checked with the SS disallowed list I saw that British coins are OK but coins of China, Macao and Hong Kong are not and this is an old HK dollar coin (pre-1997 when HK was still a UK Crown Colony). Silly me, I put HK dollar coin in the keywords and description.
Dunno whether the copyright claim by China is recent (in which case they can't really claim copyright on a coin made by the Brits?) but the coin is still legal tender apparently. Unusual to find SS accepting something that Adobe rejects.

« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2019, 06:42 »
0
Hi Dennis thanks for your response. I always get the sense that the moderators just blindly reject any blurred (even when it's intentional) i've had a couple of blurred ones that are excellent backgrounds rejected. This image of mine is a constant seller on other platforms but was rejected on Adobe https://www.istockphoto.com/za/photo/blurred-photo-of-fans-cheering-during-cricket-match-gm1141350038-305737204 and yes i understand that certain agencies chooses certain images so the expectation cant be the same for all.

As always, it depends on the image or video clip and what story (if any) it is telling.  And, to be honest, moderators are looking at thousands of assets every day and so like any agency we don't always get it 100% correct all of the time.  Wish I could say otherwise, but that's the truth.

For video, I have challenges in trying to get moderators to differentiate between a good rack focus and being out of focus.  And some wandering focus can be okay if it's done well.  Sigh, there's never any perfect method, but we're working on improving guidelines and continually train our moderators on what's appropriate to accept.

Dennis

« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2019, 07:34 »
+1
Adobe's criteria for blurred images:

"Motion blur can be used to convey speed and motion in an image or video. When you use motion blur, ensure that the main subject is sharp and in focus."

« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2019, 09:45 »
+1
Had an interesting rejection at Adobe recently whilst the shot was already accepted at SS. Grounds were copyright infringement on a coin with QEII head.....so I thought 'what the........?'

Turns out that Adobe were right (sort of) because when I checked with the SS disallowed list I saw that British coins are OK but coins of China, Macao and Hong Kong are not and this is an old HK dollar coin (pre-1997 when HK was still a UK Crown Colony). Silly me, I put HK dollar coin in the keywords and description.
Dunno whether the copyright claim by China is recent (in which case they can't really claim copyright on a coin made by the Brits?) but the coin is still legal tender apparently. Unusual to find SS accepting something that Adobe rejects.

QEII is probably the only person in the world that managed to copyright herself, so any image or representation of her isn't allowed for commercial use  :-X

« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2019, 10:12 »
+1
As always, it depends on the image or video clip and what story (if any) it is telling.  And, to be honest, moderators are looking at thousands of assets every day and so like any agency we don't always get it 100% correct all of the time.  Wish I could say otherwise, but that's the truth.

For video, I have challenges in trying to get moderators to differentiate between a good rack focus and being out of focus.  And some wandering focus can be okay if it's done well.  Sigh, there's never any perfect method, but we're working on improving guidelines and continually train our moderators on what's appropriate to accept.

Dennis

Transparency :)

Kudos to Adobe for actively speaking to the stock community.

Crickets from ss.

Which is one of the reasons Adobe will over take the top spot in sales soon.

OM

« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2019, 20:42 »
0
Had an interesting rejection at Adobe recently whilst the shot was already accepted at SS. Grounds were copyright infringement on a coin with QEII head.....so I thought 'what the........?'

Turns out that Adobe were right (sort of) because when I checked with the SS disallowed list I saw that British coins are OK but coins of China, Macao and Hong Kong are not and this is an old HK dollar coin (pre-1997 when HK was still a UK Crown Colony). Silly me, I put HK dollar coin in the keywords and description.
Dunno whether the copyright claim by China is recent (in which case they can't really claim copyright on a coin made by the Brits?) but the coin is still legal tender apparently. Unusual to find SS accepting something that Adobe rejects.

QEII is probably the only person in the world that managed to copyright herself, so any image or representation of her isn't allowed for commercial use  :-X

Absolutely untrue! QE2 coins of UK are no problem for commercial stock...Only Canada and China (HK & Macao included) have copyrighted their coins whilst China has no right to copyright the head of the UK sovereign but has done so anyway!
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 20:44 by OM »

« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2019, 09:46 »
0
I defer to anything that Dennis or Mat say but I've made some unusual images over my time and a time exposure at night, to show motion is one. As an art image, not specific subject at least one has been accepted. As art concept another rejected. As a time exposure showing lights and work, rejected. I'd guess if I had a better explanation with the last, maybe it could have had a chance?

In general at Adobe, creative, in focus, but long exposures have been rejected for being blurred. Yeah, I know that, I did it on purpose. LOL  :)

And maybe the shots are a little too far out and the review is perfectly within the Adobe wishes and guidelines. I don't have a problem with that, I'm just saying, everything is not cut and dried for de-focused or creative images. One might pass, another might not.



Harvesting Corn at Night is a fail for focus and lighting.

Even including uncleaned dots... yes, total fail.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3923 Views
Last post May 11, 2014, 23:22
by ARTPUPPY
3 Replies
2958 Views
Last post December 29, 2016, 21:03
by Jo Ann Snover
22 Replies
7169 Views
Last post January 31, 2017, 14:42
by Minsc
3 Replies
3564 Views
Last post March 02, 2017, 21:43
by michaeldb
4 Replies
311 Views
Last post December 02, 2019, 13:38
by daveh900

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results