Author Topic: Images rejected get accepted after resubmission with no changes! Ugh (Read 7288 times)

spaceofgrace · « **on:** April 17, 2017, 05:36 »

I'm just getting a little frustrated with Adobe... I will submit a batch of images (this is happening only recently) and half of them will be rejected due to "lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal", and there's no way... they are good solid microstock images. So I wait a day and resubmit them with no changes made... accepted! I understand there are probably many reviewers with different tastes etc, but honestly, this has happened a few times now and I resent the waste of my time. Also when the images do go on sale, there have been sales almost immediately... anyone else experience this? It's like they feel they have to reject some to do their job or to keep the agency high-end. And the other agencies are accepting all of them with no issues.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2017, 05:57 »

Post your images here, and let see if there is some unanimity. Would they have been accepted by all...
Re-submitting could have other (less cool with much more frustration) effects too....

dpimborough · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2017, 07:41 »

Adobe don't want reality they want pretty pictures that's what I found.

So avoid subjects that are too gritty or mundane

RAW · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2017, 08:46 »

Same here: "lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal" - Very subjective.

Resubmit: Accepted.

It's a waste of time (and bandwidth) but you have to do it if you want to sell the stuff.

niktol · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2017, 08:59 »

If they were reviewed by a bot, they would be rejected every time. Human touch is a horrible thing. Very inconsistent.

pancaketom · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2017, 13:19 »

Welcome to microstock. (or I am guessing stock sites in general).

If the bot was changing via machine learning or they changed the algorithm it could still happen.

Chichikov · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2017, 11:22 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on April 17, 2017, 07:41

Adobe don't want reality they want pretty pictures that's what I found.

So avoid subjects that are too gritty or mundane

hmm… If you submit a tomato isolated on white they will accept it without any problem…

RAW · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2017, 20:32 »

Two days ago Fotolia/Adobe video clip refused: "lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal"

Today Pond5 same clip sold.

Need I say more?

Hildegarde · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2017, 13:35 »

90% of images that they reject from me for that reason sell with other agencies ---- many of them within 24 hrs of posted and keep selling.

I do not resubmit. Perhaps what sells well on one does not sell as well on another. What sells on Adobe tends to be different than what sells on others. That can be said for every agency. My best sellers vary for agency to agency.

It is frustrating. The reason is very subjective and I doubt any reviewer is infallible on that.

DigitalPro · « **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2017, 17:09 »

I get very frustrated and I am fed up with Adobe Stock/FOTOLIA rejections for lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal, intellectual property violation, artifacts problem or technical errors. The images they reject for those reasons are accepted and doing well on other agencies.
If Mat is listening in this forum I want to tell Adobe that:

I am knowledgeable about photography and related processing software. I am a contributor for several years now.

1. My photos contain no noise and/or artifacts of any sort, and they do have a model and Property releases when needed.
2. When my photos are shot all photographic composition and other image quality factors are taken in consideration
3. I post process all my images using the same techniques
4. In regard to intellectual property violation, Adobe Stock/Fotolia has already accepted many images shot in the same areas and under the same conditions with those rejected

I understand rejections may occasionally happen; however, those reviewing the image, should specify the exact reason the image was rejected for. Show me where the noise or artifact is, tell me why should I provide a property release for the image in question, tell me why the image lacks aesthetic and commercial appeal

Hope I get an answer.

lostintimeline · « **Reply #10 on:** May 16, 2017, 19:08 »

i tried ss 2 times now and i still cant get in as a contributor for the reasons you just wrote.i have a portfolio small or big in each agency and sales and only ss i cant have pictures approved.
and no i am not innexperienced in photography i did many shootings with models took part in photo expeditions so i know something about photography and what noise is.and its pathetic couse the reviewer with their constant rejections makes you feel that you suck in this thing and you lose hope
My guess is . its becouse these sites are compentative, they dont wanna sell the same pictures.so maybe the reviewer is checking if you have posted these images somewhere else, and maybe thats why he gives you the hard time.
And another reason which i am certain thats the main reason,is maybe the reviewer have a portfolio too and he doesnt want to compete with you for eg if you have similar images as him.or her ,and he gives you bogus reasons for rejections
dont try to reason with them they take thousants of pictures a day and in the end of the day they just dont care if they are gonna reject a big amount of photos
best is keep submiting and move one.you already have these files approved in other agencies so you are still may get some sales in the future.

cascoly · « **Reply #11 on:** May 17, 2017, 13:10 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on April 17, 2017, 07:41

Adobe don't want reality they want pretty pictures that's what I found.

So avoid subjects that are too gritty or mundane

otoh one of my better sellers on adobe is a traffic accident on an overcast day, so I wouldn't self-censor images and just accept the (annoying) LCVs

Pauws99 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2017, 11:23 »

"I understand rejections may occasionally happen; however, those reviewing the image, should specify the exact reason the image was rejected for. Show me where the noise or artifact is, tell me why should I provide a property release for the image in question, tell me why the image lacks aesthetic and commercial appeal" Why?
that would cost a fortune and in any event aesthetic and commercial appeal is just a subjective judgement. We all get frustrated with rejections but its just part of the low cost microstock model its unrealistic to expect sites receiving tens of thousands of pictures daily to give a detailed critique.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2017, 12:14 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on May 21, 2017, 11:23

"I understand rejections may occasionally happen; however, those reviewing the image, should specify the exact reason the image was rejected for. Show me where the noise or artifact is, tell me why should I provide a property release for the image in question, tell me why the image lacks aesthetic and commercial appeal" Why?
that would cost a fortune and in any event aesthetic and commercial appeal is just a subjective judgement. We all get frustrated with rejections but its just part of the low cost microstock model its unrealistic to expect sites receiving tens of thousands of pictures daily to give a detailed critique.

Agreed. A lot of people think it will just take a minute or so to provide this feedback, but you need to be a bit more diplomatic when delivering bad news, so it's going to take up a bit of time. Probably a lot more time than the actual review took. A standard rejection email is one thing, but a badly worded critique could cause more upset.

And I also see a lot of people complaining about the subjective nature of reviews. I really don't know how else they could do it. Maybe some kind of computer program, but I wouldn't want robots to review my stuff. They'll get trained on what they want and what they don't want, provided examples on what to accept and what to reject... but it's always going to be a subjective decision by the reviewer at the end of the day.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #14 on:** May 21, 2017, 13:09 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 21, 2017, 12:14

Quote from: Pauws99 on May 21, 2017, 11:23
"I understand rejections may occasionally happen; however, those reviewing the image, should specify the exact reason the image was rejected for. Show me where the noise or artifact is, tell me why should I provide a property release for the image in question, tell me why the image lacks aesthetic and commercial appeal" Why?
that would cost a fortune and in any event aesthetic and commercial appeal is just a subjective judgement. We all get frustrated with rejections but its just part of the low cost microstock model its unrealistic to expect sites receiving tens of thousands of pictures daily to give a detailed critique.

Agreed. A lot of people think it will just take a minute or so to provide this feedback, but you need to be a bit more diplomatic when delivering bad news, so it's going to take up a bit of time. Probably a lot more time than the actual review took. A standard rejection email is one thing, but a badly worded critique could cause more upset.

And I also see a lot of people complaining about the subjective nature of reviews. I really don't know how else they could do it. Maybe some kind of computer program, but I wouldn't want robots to review my stuff. They'll get trained on what they want and what they don't want, provided examples on what to accept and what to reject... but it's always going to be a subjective decision by the reviewer at the end of the day.

Yes I think the biggest overhead would be in managing the email exchanges that would result as contributors would start disputing the verdict.

zorba · « **Reply #15 on:** May 21, 2017, 14:01 »

Quote from: spaceofgrace on April 17, 2017, 05:36

I'm just getting a little frustrated with Adobe... I will submit a batch of images (this is happening only recently) and half of them will be rejected due to "lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal", and there's no way... they are good solid microstock images. So I wait a day and resubmit them with no changes made... accepted! I understand there are probably many reviewers with different tastes etc, but honestly, this has happened a few times now and I resent the waste of my time. Also when the images do go on sale, there have been sales almost immediately... anyone else experience this? It's like they feel they have to reject some to do their job or to keep the agency high-end. And the other agencies are accepting all of them with no issues.

of course: I see that: if you push agencies to solve this problem your files never get a second chance with a reviewer that's not tired. So I consider this a GOOD think, even if it sounds like people that don't know their work. If you find your file has not an actual problem, you simply have a second chance to upload it and have it passed.

cascoly · « **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2017, 16:27 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 21, 2017, 12:14

,,,,,

And I also see a lot of people complaining about the subjective nature of reviews. I really don't know how else they could do it. Maybe some kind of computer program, but I wouldn't want robots to review my stuff. They'll get trained on what they want and what they don't want, provided examples on what to accept and what to reject... but it's always going to be a subjective decision by the reviewer at the end of the day.

one simple improvement would be to ELIMINATE LCV and 'composition' as rejection reasons - reviewers can't really know the market value of all the images they review

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Images rejected get accepted after resubmission with no changes! Ugh (Read 7288 times)

spaceofgrace

DiscreetDuck

dpimborough

RAW

niktol

pancaketom

Chichikov

RAW

Hildegarde

DigitalPro

lostintimeline

cascoly

Pauws99

SpaceStockFootage

Pauws99

zorba

cascoly

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors