MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: TonyD on March 14, 2023, 06:22
-
Why does adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent? I spend time cloning out people in the picture and I think I've done a really good job. I'm actually a former designer trained in the 80s so I am mainly self-taught at editing. Is there anyone from adobe on here? The photo rejected is too big to attach here.
I had a 12 rejected last time and about 6 accepted. I never had this rate of rejection before so you would think I must be getting worse at this but I know that I'm not. I have less than 500 photos on there due to the rejections but they seem to be selling well for such a small number, especially this year
-
Why does adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent? I spend time cloning out people in the picture and I think I've done a really good job. I'm actually a former designer trained in the 80s so I am mainly self-taught at editing. Is there anyone from adobe on here? The photo rejected is too big to attach here.
I had a 12 rejected last time and about 6 accepted. I never had this rate of rejection before so you would think I must be getting worse at this but I know that I'm not. I have less than 500 photos on there due to the rejections but they seem to be selling well for such a small number, especially this year
If you go to their discord chat server there is a channel for rejection explained
-
All photo's of my last batch where rejected for quality issues
I dont understand is, the are sharp, the lightning is good
Frustrating!
-
All photo's of my last batch where rejected for quality issues
I dont understand is, the are sharp, the lightning is good
Frustrating!
Yes, they are getting to be time wasters like SS.
-
Probably the best thing to do is downsize your photos so they look better at 100%, then re-submit, that works for me on SS. and i think I did that for adobe too and they were accepted.
-
Many of you do pixel peeping and says the image is OK. Because that is wat you were used to at Shutterstock. Maybe the reviewer though: "No way this image will ever sell" or "We have a zillion better images on that topic already".
-
Many of you do pixel peeping and says the image is OK. Because that is wat you were used to at Shutterstock. Maybe the reviewer though: "No way this image will ever sell" or "We have a zillion better images on that topic already".
But this photo was taken in Skegness UK & there was nothing like it on adobe and was rejected on a quality issue. The reviewers are also a bad judge of what sells because I directly complained about another rejected photo which they then accepted
and guess what, the photo sold soon afterward.
This link goes to the DT version of the photo which sold on there https://www.dreamstime.com/english-seaside-beach-scene-sunny-summers-day-concrete-sea-defence-along-leading-to-pier-people-distance-skegness-image254457609. (https://www.dreamstime.com/english-seaside-beach-scene-sunny-summers-day-concrete-sea-defence-along-leading-to-pier-people-distance-skegness-image254457609.) Oviously I had to clone out some people out of the adobe version
-
Sorry the DT links not working Heres another
https://www.alamy.com/concrete-sea-defence-along-the-beach-leading-to-the-pier-and-people-in-the-distance-image479837224.html?imageid=9D3B512B-A9AF-40F8-919C-22D612455A26&p=1142504&pn=1&searchId=4d85d4fd5a99f68cb2d5c5afa3610992&searchtype=0 (https://www.alamy.com/concrete-sea-defence-along-the-beach-leading-to-the-pier-and-people-in-the-distance-image479837224.html?imageid=9D3B512B-A9AF-40F8-919C-22D612455A26&p=1142504&pn=1&searchId=4d85d4fd5a99f68cb2d5c5afa3610992&searchtype=0)
-
Many of you do pixel peeping and says the image is OK. Because that is wat you were used to at Shutterstock. Maybe the reviewer though: "No way this image will ever sell" or "We have a zillion better images on that topic already".
I hate pixel-peeping but that's what these stock sites have forced us to do. I don't know how adobe review but people on their forum say you can examine photos at 200% if that's not pixel peeping I don't know what is
-
Many of you do pixel peeping and says the image is OK. Because that is wat you were used to at Shutterstock. Maybe the reviewer though: "No way this image will ever sell" or "We have a zillion better images on that topic already".
But this photo was taken in Skegness UK & there was nothing like it on adobe and was rejected on a quality issue. The reviewers are also a bad judge of what sells because I directly complained about another rejected photo which they then accepted
and guess what, the photo sold soon afterward.
This link goes to the DT version of the photo which sold on there https://www.dreamstime.com/english-seaside-beach-scene-sunny-summers-day-concrete-sea-defence-along-leading-to-pier-people-distance-skegness-image254457609. (https://www.dreamstime.com/english-seaside-beach-scene-sunny-summers-day-concrete-sea-defence-along-leading-to-pier-people-distance-skegness-image254457609.) Oviously I had to clone out some people out of the adobe version
Tony, spontaneously in the image size I actually also see no quality problems. The people are not recognizable, so should not be a problem.
However, something has definitely changed in the review.
I have lately again and again rejections of complete batches, partly 30 - 40 images. If I submit them again, usually all images go through completely. This can not be understood.
Also, I can't imagine a reviewer deciding whether a picture is good for sale. Your picture is more about the place than about beach promenades in general.
However, with Shutterstock, I've actually had recent rejections from the Sacre Coeur in Paris, but then also with the reasoning that this content is no longer accepted.
-
Sorry the DT links not working Heres another
https://www.alamy.com/concrete-sea-defence-along-the-beach-leading-to-the-pier-and-people-in-the-distance-image479837224.html?imageid=9D3B512B-A9AF-40F8-919C-22D612455A26&p=1142504&pn=1&searchId=4d85d4fd5a99f68cb2d5c5afa3610992&searchtype=0 (https://www.alamy.com/concrete-sea-defence-along-the-beach-leading-to-the-pier-and-people-in-the-distance-image479837224.html?imageid=9D3B512B-A9AF-40F8-919C-22D612455A26&p=1142504&pn=1&searchId=4d85d4fd5a99f68cb2d5c5afa3610992&searchtype=0)
I'd guess that cloning out people in that one would be really tough with so many overlapping the intricate pier, if that's what you did. Also, when people are in the photo, they are often an essential part of the scene and the reason you shot it that way. When you clone them out, it may change the entire feeling of the shot.
How are you doing with images where you don't have to clone people out?
Are you working on a large monitor or are you on a laptop with a Retina screen? On a retina screen, you need to look at images at 200% to be sure of sharpness and to check for noise.
Although I haven't had a "quality issues" rejection there in over a year, I went through a stretch where every other file felt like it was being rejected. It was very inconsistent. I'd upload a batch taken at the same time, and they'd accept most, but always reject a few. No discernible difference among them.
This year, nearly everything is sailing through, although I did have two rejections out of a batch of 12 "illustrative editorial" images at the beginning of the year: "Unfortunately, during our review we found that this file does not meet the Adobe Stock’s Illustrative Editorial Guidelines.") They were all of brownstone houses and storefronts in a small US city, so why those two? They weren't as interesting as the others. In retrospect, the reviewer did me a favor, keeping boring images out.
I just move on when it happens and work on finding a different batch, even when I disagree with the decision. Though, as suggested, for quality issues, downsizing the files could also solve your problem. Give it a try.
Honestly, though, with the file you referred to, I wouldn't take the time to clone out all those people. If you're shooting for Adobe, work on finding angles where there are no people in the shot. And remember that the reviewers are not highly trained, they're going to make mistakes. But sometimes they're right.
Adobe has been doing great for me this year. With about 700 files, I've had over 100 downloads already, averaging over a dozen a week. I doubt the few rejected files would make a difference.
Stock is different that other types of photography - pixel peeping, leaving copy space, and having a strong concept are what's important. Beautiful travel images sell, but so do strong concepts even if they have very little artistic merit. Think about why a buyer would want to use the image, preferably before you hit the shutter. And if you want more to be accepted on Adobe, shoot with Adobe in mind - find a way to show the scene to advantage without people.
Good luck.
-
I've found some other photos that I took similar to this but shot away from the sun (so the sky is bluer) and people are further away. Below the attachment is the cloned-out people file at 100%. Maybe the pier isn't that straight but it could be a heat haze. I think I'll go back to the original RAW file & leave the people in.
-
recent submissions have been either 100% accepted or 100% rejected! very strange (# submitted varies between 5 and 30)
-
recent submissions have been either 100% accepted or 100% rejected! very strange (# submitted varies between 5 and 30)
I've had exactly the same problem but adobe has paid much better than SS so far this year:
adobe = DOWNLOADS 12 EARNINGS $8.21 Lifetime downloads 39
SS = DOWNLOADS 25 EARNINGS $8.84 Lifetime downloads 322
Update: I have $3.95 for the last 5 DLs so far this month on SS (much better)
I asked adobe in the past and they said some photos were rejected because of too many similar subjects in my port & if I deleted some unsold I could re-submit, which I did & they got accepted.
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/209228662/Tony
-
Sorry the DT links not working Heres another
https://www.alamy.com/concrete-sea-defence-along-the-beach-leading-to-the-pier-and-people-in-the-distance-image479837224.html?imageid=9D3B512B-A9AF-40F8-919C-22D612455A26&p=1142504&pn=1&searchId=4d85d4fd5a99f68cb2d5c5afa3610992&searchtype=0 (https://www.alamy.com/concrete-sea-defence-along-the-beach-leading-to-the-pier-and-people-in-the-distance-image479837224.html?imageid=9D3B512B-A9AF-40F8-919C-22D612455A26&p=1142504&pn=1&searchId=4d85d4fd5a99f68cb2d5c5afa3610992&searchtype=0)
I'd guess that cloning out people in that one would be really tough with so many overlapping the intricate pier, if that's what you did. Also, when people are in the photo, they are often an essential part of the scene and the reason you shot it that way. When you clone them out, it may change the entire feeling of the shot.
How are you doing with images where you don't have to clone people out?
There are people in the distance in very few of my photos but when they were rejected, it was for something else. I queried it with adobe and they were accepted like this one:
Atachment is a 100% clip
Link to full photo on adobe with signs cloned out but with people far away:
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=209228662&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&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&k=lincoln&acp=&aco=lincoln&get_facets=0&asset_id=433123659 (https://stock.adobe.com/uk/search?creator_id=209228662&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&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=usertyped&k=lincoln&acp=&aco=lincoln&get_facets=0&asset_id=433123659)
-
Update: adobe just accepted the original image at the seaside with people together with a similar photo shot away from the sun. But I also had a NON-COMPLIANT IMAGE rejection which I've never had before and don't know what it means.
I also got an intellectual property rejection. It's an elephant in a zoo but no one would know which zoo unless it's in the title and it actually sold on ss: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-wearing-plant-hat-under-palm-1812668992 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-wearing-plant-hat-under-palm-1812668992)
I cannot ask on the adobe forum because they blocked me don't know why. I asked support but they didn't know.
-
Update: adobe just accepted the original image at the seaside with people together with a similar photo shot away from the sun. But I also had a NON-COMPLIANT IMAGE rejection which I've never had before and don't know what it means.
I also got an intellectual property rejection. It's an elephant in a zoo but no one would know which zoo unless it's in the title and it actually sold on ss: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-wearing-plant-hat-under-palm-1812668992 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-wearing-plant-hat-under-palm-1812668992)
I cannot ask on the adobe forum because they blocked me don't know why. I asked support but they didn't know.
You can't submit images that are created at a private property like a zoo. Especially if you pay for a ticket for entry. If it's a free zoo or public zoo, you would probably need permission and a release. It depends on the policies of the zoo at which your photos were taken.
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html#other (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html#other)
You would have to link to the non-compliant image for any of us to make a guess.
"Content may be non-compliant due to watermarks, inappropriate or irrelevant keywords or image titles, or questionable, or defamatory content. Your file is also rejected as non-compliant if you receive a reminder to submit a model or property release, or resolve a problem with a release, and you resubmit the file without addressing the issue"
https://helpx.adobe.com/mena_ar/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html#:~:text=Non-compliant%20file%20This%20reason%20means%20that%20your%20content,or%20image%20titles%2C%20or%20questionable%2C%20or%20defamatory%20content. (https://helpx.adobe.com/mena_ar/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html#:~:text=Non-compliant%20file%20This%20reason%20means%20that%20your%20content,or%20image%20titles%2C%20or%20questionable%2C%20or%20defamatory%20content.)
-
Agree completely with Pete.
It's also amazing that Shutterstock accepted the image.
The buildings in the background clearly identify the zoo. Doesn't work as editorial from my point of view either.
-
It only took me a couple minutes to figure out which zoo it was, so I'm sure the Manila Zoo would easily recognize the mural behind the elephant. (also your description on Dreamstime really gives it away).
-
It only took me a couple minutes to figure out which zoo it was, so I'm sure the Manila Zoo would easily recognize the mural behind the elephant. (also your description on Dreamstime really gives it away).
Mural? it's a good camouflage because I thought they were real leaves, and pretty unusual for a zoo so people will recognize it even if SS (or their A.I.) didn't. It even sold on there but I think I should take it off or resubmit as editorial (there are other photos on there of manila zoo). I've now deleted the name & place in the photo on DT.
The non-compliant photo below may need to be editorial so should have been marked as intellectual property which I don't qualify for on adobe. It's an entrance to a public space in the city.
https://www.dreamstime.com/plate-glass-windowed-building-purpose-unknown-gold-white-monument-foreground-entrance-to-striking-modern-building-image196771116 (https://www.dreamstime.com/plate-glass-windowed-building-purpose-unknown-gold-white-monument-foreground-entrance-to-striking-modern-building-image196771116)
-
It only took me a couple minutes to figure out which zoo it was, so I'm sure the Manila Zoo would easily recognize the mural behind the elephant. (also your description on Dreamstime really gives it away).
Mural? it's a good camouflage because I thought they were real leaves, and pretty unusual for a zoo so people will recognize it even if SS (or their A.I.) didn't. It even sold on there but I think I should take it off or resubmit as editorial (there are other photos on there of manila zoo). I've now deleted the name & place in the photo on DT.
The non-compliant photo below may need to be editorial so should have been marked as intellectual property which I don't qualify for on adobe. It's an entrance to a public space in the city.
https://www.dreamstime.com/plate-glass-windowed-building-purpose-unknown-gold-white-monument-foreground-entrance-to-striking-modern-building-image196771116 (https://www.dreamstime.com/plate-glass-windowed-building-purpose-unknown-gold-white-monument-foreground-entrance-to-striking-modern-building-image196771116)
Statues and also unique architecture, not allowed. (just my guess)
These Require a release:
A ticketed location like an amusement park, museum, palace, or estate
Distinctive homes or parts of homes (including interiors) that are easily recognized, either by their design or by their owner, like Gaudi’s Casa Batlló in Barcelona
Private property that’s recognized as a landmark or business and that’s central to the photograph, film, or illustration, like the Burj Al Arab in Dubai
As for the zoo, if SS takes it, why change? Maybe what you can do is write to the Manila Zoo and ask if you can use images you took, while visiting. If they say yes, then leave it, If they say no, then change them to editorial. After that it's up to the user to determine how they wish to proceed.
If DT accepts something, take a look and see if they switched it to Editorial. That happens sometimes, their decision. If so, leave the name of the zoo in the description as it could be something specific, that location, a buyer wants.
-
...
The non-compliant photo below may need to be editorial so should have been marked as intellectual property which I don't qualify for on adobe. It's an entrance to a public space in the city.
https://www.dreamstime.com/plate-glass-windowed-building-purpose-unknown-gold-white-monument-foreground-entrance-to-striking-modern-building-image196771116 (https://www.dreamstime.com/plate-glass-windowed-building-purpose-unknown-gold-white-monument-foreground-entrance-to-striking-modern-building-image196771116)
Statues are potentially an issue even when uploaded as editorial. Alamy had me take down some images taken inside a large building - maybe it was a theater lobby - not sure - but the statues were similar in feel to what you're showing (not that I think it's the same building - ironically, one statue in mine was a white elephant). Anyway, despite having uploaded them as editorial only, the building owner and/or artist complained to Alamy & I took the 2 photos down. Neither had sold.
Art, especially in a private setting, is tricky. Arguably, since the statues are photographed in the context of a larger building, they should be fine as editorial, but if someone complains, it's not worth a lawsuit.
When I went to the Columbus Zoo Christmas light show in 2019, I read their rules, and enjoyed taking photos of my grandson and family. I was trying out a programed night setting that I'd never used on my camera, so learning something new for future shoots, with no pressure to find salable images. It's such a joy to shoot without thinking about how will this sell? And even if you can't sell the photos, you are improving your craft, learning something new.
So, just move on. Lesson learned. There's a whole big world out there.
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
I'm only mildly psychic and can't see your rejected images, so anything I'd say is a total guess. Could you post some examples for people here to see and try to help you figure out why they are being rejected?
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
I am also getting lots of "quality" rejections lately, for perfectly technically sound images. Educated guess: AI based QA pre-processing; if AI says Ok, only then it ends in human QA basket.
Anything with water drops/waterfalls, wind in treetops, etc fails.
https://www.alamy.com/big-block-letter-text-panorama-at-entrance-to-plaza-independencia-famous-tourist-landmark-in-mendoza-argentina-city-park-center-image544143330.html?imageid=6E470E45-00CE-43A9-9517-15CFC16CC962 (https://www.alamy.com/big-block-letter-text-panorama-at-entrance-to-plaza-independencia-famous-tourist-landmark-in-mendoza-argentina-city-park-center-image544143330.html?imageid=6E470E45-00CE-43A9-9517-15CFC16CC962)
[Super sharp 3x2 stack stitched together, wind in top left treetop. Rejected for "Quality"]
https://www.alamy.com/giant-block-cracked-ice-floating-in-lake-world-famous-perito-moreno-glacier-scenic-los-glaciares-national-park-unesco-world-heritage-site-patagonia-image543494945.html?imageid=AFC85DB7-D242-4021-9EAF-47865302C933&p=373373&pn=1&searchId=69207723c8d15f63ef8b8859082eb557&searchtype=0 (https://www.alamy.com/giant-block-cracked-ice-floating-in-lake-world-famous-perito-moreno-glacier-scenic-los-glaciares-national-park-unesco-world-heritage-site-patagonia-image543494945.html?imageid=AFC85DB7-D242-4021-9EAF-47865302C933&p=373373&pn=1&searchId=69207723c8d15f63ef8b8859082eb557&searchtype=0)
[Glacier ice Texture mistaken for grain/noise. Rejected for "Quality", accepted on 2nd try]
This was also behaviour when SS switched to AI. Adobe probably did AI pre-processing before, but lately for whatever reason tweaked the algorithm and these are the consequences.
-
It's called Roulette Stock by Adobe. The odds of winning are 48.65%.
I too get these tres bizarre rejections. A while back I had an entire batch rejected. They were all accepted at the other agencies I submit to. On two of those agencies the files sell almost daily. I resubmitted to Roulette Stock by Adobe and they all got accepted after waiting it out for an unusually long time. Now they are active and selling with frequency.
Unfortunately all one can do is waste everybody's time and resubmit the content again. Why do something once when you can do it twice.
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
I'm only mildly psychic and can't see your rejected images, so anything I'd say is a total guess. Could you post some examples for people here to see and try to help you figure out why they are being rejected?
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0)
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
I'm only mildly psychic and can't see your rejected images, so anything I'd say is a total guess. Could you post some examples for people here to see and try to help you figure out why they are being rejected?
Here are links from Dropbox:
Thanks for trying. I must be doing something wrong as I only see MY Dropbox files. None of yours.
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
I'm only mildly psychic and can't see your rejected images, so anything I'd say is a total guess. Could you post some examples for people here to see and try to help you figure out why they are being rejected?
Here are links from Dropbox:
Thanks for trying. I must be doing something wrong as I only see MY Dropbox files. None of yours.
same here - looks like they didnt mark the dropbox for sharing
-
It's not just you. That's not a sharable dropbox link. You can see instructions here
https://help.dropbox.com/share/create-and-share-link (https://help.dropbox.com/share/create-and-share-link)
You'll want to create a view-only link (scroll down a bit)
This is what a sharable link looks like:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lyss812ksfy9dzl/Ilex-trees-path.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lyss812ksfy9dzl/Ilex-trees-path.jpg?dl=0)
-
It's called Roulette Stock by Adobe. The odds of winning are 48.65%.
I too get these tres bizarre rejections. A while back I had an entire batch rejected. They were all accepted at the other agencies I submit to. On two of those agencies the files sell almost daily. I resubmitted to Roulette Stock by Adobe and they all got accepted after waiting it out for an unusually long time. Now they are active and selling with frequency.
Unfortunately all one can do is waste everybody's time and resubmit the content again. Why do something once when you can do it twice.
i'm havng same problem - images w no problems (accepted at SS & DT)
in response to my email to contributor 'relations' they answered:
Thank you for your query. Our moderation team works independently from contributor relations, and due to the need for timely reviews they are not able to provide specific feedback on individual content rejections.
and then referred me to FAQ about quality - not addressing the actual problem, and closing the case w/o waiting for my reply
-
I shared photos before on here but that was with Photobucket & they deactivated my account.
-
It's not just you. That's not a sharable dropbox link. You can see instructions here
https://help.dropbox.com/share/create-and-share-link (https://help.dropbox.com/share/create-and-share-link)
You'll want to create a view-only link (scroll down a bit)
This is what a sharable link looks like:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lyss812ksfy9dzl/Ilex-trees-path.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lyss812ksfy9dzl/Ilex-trees-path.jpg?dl=0)
My computer won't get to that link it says 'Hm can't reach that page' connection reset. it even does stat for the Dropbox help center. UPDATE: your links are OK now my antivirus was stopping me reading pages from the links.
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
I'm only mildly psychic and can't see your rejected images, so anything I'd say is a total guess. Could you post some examples for people here to see and try to help you figure out why they are being rejected?
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0)
Yes it works! Rejected for?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpCBGNFp/happy-sales-200.gif)
-
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0)
I can see this - thanks for sorting out the problem.
I suspect that the "Quality Issues" translates to "we don't want this subject matter" rather than technical flaws, but I thought I'd point out something in the details of the shot I noticed that don't look great. It may be that this is just how the camera is - it looks like it's a Sony NEX-5N from the metadata - but could be how you're processing it.
This was pixel peeping, and probably doesn't mean much for most real-world uses of this image, but I saw some "wormy" looking artifacts in some of the tree trunks and leaves that reminded me of what my Fuji RAW files look like when Lightroom processes them (I use Capture One to avoid that). To make it easier to see what I'm referring to, I've put an example together. Click on the thumbnail to view the example at full size.
(https://digitalbristles.com/temp/Wormy%20details%20comparison-TN.jpg) (https://digitalbristles.com/temp/Wormy%20details%20comparison.jpg)
Sometimes these "wormy" artifacts are made more noticeable by sharpening in Lightroom/ACR. You can turn off sharpening in RAW processing and use Photoshop's high pass sharpening instead which is much cleaner. If you're shooting JPEG, perhaps turn off/down the sharpening in camera?
FWIW, I wish Adobe had a different rejection for images they don't want because of subject matter - when they say "quality" it suggests if you'd just done it "better" it would be accepted. Then save the quality rejection for technical flaws.
Hope this is helpful.
-
https://www.alamy.com/big-block-letter-text-panorama-at-entrance-to-plaza-independencia-famous-tourist-landmark-in-mendoza-argentina-city-park-center-image544143330.html?imageid=6E470E45-00CE-43A9-9517-15CFC16CC962 (https://www.alamy.com/big-block-letter-text-panorama-at-entrance-to-plaza-independencia-famous-tourist-landmark-in-mendoza-argentina-city-park-center-image544143330.html?imageid=6E470E45-00CE-43A9-9517-15CFC16CC962)
[Super sharp 3x2 stack stitched together, wind in top left treetop. Rejected for "Quality"]
Check the tiles in the foreground.
The stitching failed. You can clearly see the misalignment even on that low res photo.
Sorry, but that rejection is justified.
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
Looks like they switched their reviewing process with Shutterstock.
-
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0)
I can see this - thanks for sorting out the problem.
I suspect that the "Quality Issues" translates to "we don't want this subject matter" rather than technical flaws, but I thought I'd point out something in the details of the shot I noticed that don't look great. It may be that this is just how the camera is - it looks like it's a Sony NEX-5N from the metadata - but could be how you're processing it.
This was pixel peeping, and probably doesn't mean much for most real-world uses of this image, but I saw some "wormy" looking artifacts in some of the tree trunks and leaves that reminded me of what my Fuji RAW files look like when Lightroom processes them (I use Capture One to avoid that). To make it easier to see what I'm referring to, I've put an example together. Click on the thumbnail to view the example at full size.
(https://digitalbristles.com/temp/Wormy%20details%20comparison-TN.jpg) (https://digitalbristles.com/temp/Wormy%20details%20comparison.jpg)
Sometimes these "wormy" artifacts are made more noticeable by sharpening in Lightroom/ACR. You can turn off sharpening in RAW processing and use Photoshop's high pass sharpening instead which is much cleaner. If you're shooting JPEG, perhaps turn off/down the sharpening in camera?
FWIW, I wish Adobe had a different rejection for images they don't want because of subject matter - when they say "quality" it suggests if you'd just done it "better" it would be accepted. Then save the quality rejection for technical flaws.
Hope this is helpful.
Yes, it's Sony NEX 5n. The trees didn't look clear enough so I probably sharpened the RAW photo too much. I also saw some telegraph lines in this photo that looked like chains when viewed at about 125% after conversion to JPEG in GIMP - an alternative to Photoshop. This crop should show here:
-
...
Sometimes these "wormy" artifacts are made more noticeable by sharpening in Lightroom/ACR. You can turn off sharpening in RAW processing and use Photoshop's high pass sharpening instead which is much cleaner. If you're shooting JPEG, perhaps turn off/down the sharpening in camera?.
.
yes - i usually have sharpening turned off in camera, but those artifacts sometimes show up topaz AI sharpen or denoise. denoise also will sometimes change faces into weird, flattened masks when the faces are not a large part of the image.
those topaz tools still give great results for most batches i process
AS does need better error messages, but they're still not as silly as alamy rejecting entire batches when 1 image fails. at least they give a reason now for a rejection - before it was "one of your images in this batch failed because of something we didn't like -- guess which one?"
most recently, had an batch rejected because 1 image was "unsuitable"
-
Maybe Adobe has got like Alamy & rejecting the whole batch if they find something wrong with the 1st photo.
-
When you say that you checked your image and it is technically perfect, what did you actually check?
oooh, focus, as you are used to at Shutterstock? It seems to me that a reasonable unsharpness is acceptable at Adobe, while they rather go nuts over burned highlights, even if only a few pixels. That is something Shutterstock does not seen to have so much attention on. That is also something that is easy to check in an automated process.
That something got accepted on DT does not warrant any quality. They seem to accept everything as long as it is an image file of some sort.
I have also noticed that these quality rejections from a batch come quite fast, while those images that survive the bot get reviewed by a human at a later time.
-
I normally check for sharpness at 100% but Adobe seems to find other things wrong, they even reject for color balance which can be subjective. Shutterstock now seems to accept nearly everything including my river landscape shown here so they've changed their reviewing process recently.
Adobe also rejected the two below taken on the same day.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0)
-
You posted the same link twice, so I can only comment on one :)
As I mentioned for the earlier image, it's likely the quality rejection had more to do with "we don't want this subject matter", but I could also find some technical flaws they might be referring to.
The image looks really over-sharpened - crunchy - and for an apparently overcast day, has much more contrast that I'd expect. If you were concerned about softness, I'd back off on the processing and downsize to try and improve sharpness. If it was a cloudy day with relatively flat light, let it be that rather than trying to amp it up too much.
-
I normally check for sharpness at 100% but Adobe seems to find other things wrong, they even reject for color balance which can be subjective. Shutterstock now seems to accept nearly everything including my river landscape shown here so they've changed their reviewing process recently.
Adobe also rejected the two below taken on the same day.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0)
On one hand, I can see very soft, smushy trees, and on the other hand, sparkling oversharpening HDR like artifacts.
Attached is a 100% zoomed piece of the left side of the 1st photo, but the same is also valid for the 2nd.
-
You posted the same link twice, so I can only comment on one :)
As I mentioned for the earlier image, it's likely the quality rejection had more to do with "we don't want this subject matter", but I could also find some technical flaws they might be referring to.
The image looks really over-sharpened - crunchy - and for an apparently overcast day, has much more contrast that I'd expect. If you were concerned about softness, I'd back off on the processing and downsize to try and improve sharpness. If it was a cloudy day with relatively flat light, let it be that rather than trying to amp it up too much.
yes, I see what you mean. I reduced sharpness & increased the D. range to reduce contrast in the RAW files. I corrected the 2nd link but the same will apply to that as it was taken about the same time.
-
I normally check for sharpness at 100% but Adobe seems to find other things wrong, they even reject for color balance which can be subjective. Shutterstock now seems to accept nearly everything including my river landscape shown here so they've changed their reviewing process recently.
Adobe also rejected the two below taken on the same day.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctxupk0ybyw6bbt/DSC04736.jpg?dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0)
On one hand, I can see very soft, smushy trees, and on the other hand, sparkling oversharpening HDR like artifacts.
Attached is a 100% zoomed piece of the left side of the 1st photo, but the same is also valid for the 2nd.
I've now turned down the noise reduction in RAW & removed a lot of (but not all) the smudging in trees but there's some mist or pollution. Also, I had to shoot at f11 or f16 to get the most D.O.F as I could but it seems to reduce overall sharpness.
below is a 100% crop from the latest image.
NOTE: I submitted the below version of the photo & adobe accepted it along with the other 2.
-
Lets see if I can learn how to share with DropBox? Both sharing sites were down for 502 bad gateway today.
(https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AB5qZGRIuXq9nLu3j5FcqPrbSnBrRlwQgCImvN0h7PjV_AchxbwVY8N08Ui7evTzzqyDG1H42O9z4mFlMz0PZanXn-qtUo4nnTnvqtD7fYbNLbb8zhmMfWZ2VO-AL6SyPW5dzCbU85eM1U8Pim-SEkmdVZaHAMMoAjUOPmcfDbQQvQfBsBkko13hVKhJ3_syevBIJkzhuRNsg9i35D6uWnB-_G1Fr6tkwp1Ploip0TKpcJOyWLMouP0iMJXUzbVmBSWjOEJf4IY_G2k05szb0nRHyO9L2UFPp1Q-A2oMvQKVZofJoSN1oKJDwW2Erl1XqnmphT0_TORnapcKfdRHw8gQWG6sMVNOTxUmBLYGOL2f3hzgYEkVeKMtj-B2jmKSnBg/p.jpeg)
Something strange going on in the trees? The sky has noise. Maybe instead of sharpen, you should blur the sky?
Are you exposing for the shadows and then bringing the photo down? I suggest that vs making a exposure for the foreground and sky, for example, then bringing up the shadows. Making the shadows lighter makes more noise and artifacts, while over exposure, + 1/3rd is usual, means you can bring down the shadows and it has the apparent effect of reducing noise.
Shoot to the right = ETTR (I'm a user, my cameras are set +1/3rd and advocate) https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained
I don't know about the size and the camera you have, very much, but 16MP image, you have room and size to reduce the images in the final version = save the original, and upload 10MP images. That also helps reduce artifacts.
This is a 100% crop.
(https://i.ibb.co/ccdMcsT/tonyd-landscape.jpg)
-
Lets see if I can learn how to share with DropBox? Both sharing sites were down for 502 bad gateway today.
(https://previews.dropbox.com/p/thumb/AB5qZGRIuXq9nLu3j5FcqPrbSnBrRlwQgCImvN0h7PjV_AchxbwVY8N08Ui7evTzzqyDG1H42O9z4mFlMz0PZanXn-qtUo4nnTnvqtD7fYbNLbb8zhmMfWZ2VO-AL6SyPW5dzCbU85eM1U8Pim-SEkmdVZaHAMMoAjUOPmcfDbQQvQfBsBkko13hVKhJ3_syevBIJkzhuRNsg9i35D6uWnB-_G1Fr6tkwp1Ploip0TKpcJOyWLMouP0iMJXUzbVmBSWjOEJf4IY_G2k05szb0nRHyO9L2UFPp1Q-A2oMvQKVZofJoSN1oKJDwW2Erl1XqnmphT0_TORnapcKfdRHw8gQWG6sMVNOTxUmBLYGOL2f3hzgYEkVeKMtj-B2jmKSnBg/p.jpeg)
Something strange going on in the trees? The sky has noise. Maybe instead of sharpen, you should blur the sky?
Are you exposing for the shadows and then bringing the photo down? I suggest that vs making a exposure for the foreground and sky, for example, then bringing up the shadows. Making the shadows lighter makes more noise and artifacts, while over exposure, + 1/3rd is usual, means you can bring down the shadows and it has the apparent effect of reducing noise.
Shoot to the right = ETTR (I'm a user, my cameras are set +1/3rd and advocate) https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained
I don't know about the size and the camera you have, very much, but 16MP image, you have room and size to reduce the images in the final version = save the original, and upload 10MP images. That also helps reduce artifacts.
This is a 100% crop.
(https://i.ibb.co/ccdMcsT/tonyd-landscape.jpg)
I used HDR in the raw photo to try to equalize the exposure which raised the darker areas of the photo. The way the sun shines on the trees is though is showing mist or pollution yet the right side of the photo is much clearer.
These are the full images made a lot smaller to upload here Uncle Pete. The camera I used is a Sony NEX 5n
-
I am getting a lot more photo rejections than usual. I keep reading that people use topaz to denoise files especially for Adobe.
Might try that.
-
I am getting a lot more photo rejections than usual. I keep reading that people use topaz to denoise files especially for Adobe.
Might try that.
Same here. With AI images they accept "every crap" that I throw at them. They would probably approve a dog with 5 legs. But real photos?
This for example was rejected for "quality issues":
(https://i.postimg.cc/kG3dG3HS/248partyplates-copy.jpg)
This is a 100% crop:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5drzywf/248partyplates-copy.jpg)
I know this image is not a masterpiece, but there is absolutely no issue with focus, exposure or noise, so I really do not know what to fix about this.
Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe. 10.000+ images passed quality control without problems and now I suddenly forgot how to photograph? But medicore AI images are all no problem? Adobe keeps disappointing me more and more and I have less motivation to bother with real photos and all the work that comes with them compared to AI images. :-\
-
Just had 4 shots rejected for 'quality issues'. A bit surprising really as I rarely have photos rejected by Adobe.
But Shutterstock accepted all four so Adobe's loss I guess. I won't bother resubmitting.
-
I am getting a lot more photo rejections than usual. I keep reading that people use topaz to denoise files especially for Adobe...
I don't think noise is the issue (although obviously I haven't seen other people's photos except for a few posted here). Firn's rejection doesn't look like a quality issue to me either.
I've lost patience with the randomness of what's accepted at Adobe Stock and what's not - and with the total lack of information about why.
I'm going to take an uploading break for a bit. Life's too short...
-
Everything Adobe declines gets accepted elsewhere.
So I will put more effort into the other places that like my photos a little more. The acceptance changes seem very inconsistent and random, so it is frustrating.
And then having to wait 28 days for gen ai content to be inspected.
I like Adobe a lot, but I tend to fall in love with a place and things like these are useful to take a step back and focus attention elsewhere.
I will still upload, but the last few months Adobe had priority.
Time to do more video and photos for themes that sell well but Adobe doesn't like.
-
I used HDR in the raw photo to try to equalize the exposure which raised the darker areas of the photo. The way the sun shines on the trees is though is showing mist or pollution yet the right side of the photo is much clearer.
These are the full images made a lot smaller to upload here Uncle Pete. The camera I used is a Sony NEX 5n
I can't really say why, I was just looking at what jumped out at me. If I had to make my guess, it would be "Over Processed". The noise reduction, the HDR, and whatever else, are creating artifacts. I'm just going to point out that I shoot JPG in camera, and don't do much else (usually ;) some need more help) than Levels and lighting. I generally unsharpen the last step and save at 10MP instead of full size.
Everyone has to do what works best for themself. This works for me: Shoot to the right = ETTR when the shadows are important. https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained
I have also gotten rejections for stitching, where I didn't see that mismatched area or a place where things didn't line up and it was wrong.
-
They do catch a lot small mistakes. And many times when I look at it again I see that there was something wrong, often some detail I didn't notice.
But a lot of people around me run all their files for Adobe through Topaz, to make the files extremely clean.
I often downsize files for Adobe, just in case there was some artifacting. but to put every file through topaz seem slike overkill.
But at the moment, it feels pretty random.
I just hope they take the gen ai files, because to learn after nearly 30 days that something was wrong, would be very depressing.
-
Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe.
Same here. They changed review process, not necessarily criteria. I am certain they reject whole group (batch) without even looking at the rest if single photo is flagged. In other words like Alamy. I also believe AI does pre-processing and if it flags a file, human QA doesn't even look at anything.
Try to submit rejected photo as single. Just upload 1 photo, keyword, submit, before uploading another. I had rejected photos approved this way.
(btw I also never fully understood their Editorial criteria. I don't think most of their QA reviewers do either, so rejections are random, depending who you run into)
-
It's the Shutterstock weird rejection policy all over again.
I understand that people start pixel peeping on images, and once you start doing that, chances are high you will find some artifacts or minor quality issues.
Fact is: these kind of images were accepted in the past, other agencies are accepting them, and if you get them accepted they sell.
I also understand that we start interpreting the quality rejections as a "we already have enough of this subject in our database so we reject it" argument.
Fact is: they are still accepting images which cover an already overly saturated subject. I tested it with uploading some shots of daisy flowers, and got them accepted.
I think the only conclusion is: Adobe's reviewing process is problematic nowadays. Images with no clear issues are randomly rejected for no clear reason.
They probably do this on purpose to either throttle their influx of new content or to save on reviewing costs by letting wonky AI's doing reviewing.
Anyhow: don't get obsessed over it.
It's Adobe. Not you.
-
I think the only conclusion is: Adobe's reviewing process is problematic nowadays.
I agree. They are obviously overburdened with the load of AI image submissions. I have 1000+ images waiting to be reviewed, the oldest waiting for a full month by now. ::)
At the same time Mat claims that they do not need any new reviewers. So, what is happening at Adobe? Either the same amount of reviewers has a 10x higher workload than usual, so they are stressed out and doing their job hastly and therefore poorly, or Adobe is trying to rely more on AI reviewing and the AI is messing up. Maybe they moved all their human reviewers to the illustration - and therefore AI image - review queue and the real photos are all left to AI review.
Would be one possible explanation for the sudden increase of very random rejections.
-
Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe.
Same here. They changed review process, not necessarily criteria. I am certain they reject whole group (batch) without even looking at the rest if single photo is flagged. In other words like Alamy. I also believe AI does pre-processing and if it flags a file, human QA doesn't even look at anything.
Try to submit rejected photo as single. Just upload 1 photo, keyword, submit, before uploading another. I had rejected photos approved this way.
(btw I also never fully understood their Editorial criteria. I don't think most of their QA reviewers do either, so rejections are random, depending who you run into)
I'm going to try resubmitting with one of the four. We'll see what happens.
-
Please, vote for my post!
-
I strongly believe that it's an uploading glitch or glitch of the reviewing AI. Today I had a full batch of vectors rejected. Nothing is wrong with them, absolutely nothing. Some of them are a part of the series, so they were exported from the same source within the same operation and keyworded along with the similar files, which was perfectly accepted earlier.
It's a glitch, end of story. The question is why don't they pay attention to it? It started at the same time as the AI images storm, so I think it's a consequences of some kind of reviewing department overload
-
Oh yes
-
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
-
I am getting a lot more photo rejections than usual. I keep reading that people use topaz to denoise files especially for Adobe...
I don't think noise is the issue (although obviously I haven't seen other people's photos except for a few posted here). Firn's rejection doesn't look like a quality issue to me either.
I've lost patience with the randomness of what's accepted at Adobe Stock and what's not - and with the total lack of information about why.
I'm going to take an uploading break for a bit. Life's too short...
I too will give it a break. The rejections lately are insane.
-
So this morning I had files accepted, that got declined later in the day.
If I look at the declined files, I see the real world. The accepted files are usually very colorful and extremely clean.
I will have to learn to process files differently for Adobe. But the declined files will all earn money elsewhere, so it is ok.
-
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock. I think this would be a much more impactful thread if you would share some examples of content being rejected that you feel was done so in error. It's certainly possible as the moderation team is made up of human beings, but in my experience, it's pretty rare.
If you don't want to share examples publicly here in MSG, simply post the file number of the rejected image and I'll be glad to take a look..as long as you are OK with me giving a public answer with my feedback.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
-
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock. I think this would be a much more impactful thread if you would share some examples of content being rejected that you feel was done so in error. It's certainly possible as the moderation team is made up of human beings, but in my experience, it's pretty rare.
If you don't want to share examples publicly here in MSG, simply post the file number of the rejected image and I'll be glad to take a look..as long as you are OK with me giving a public answer with my feedback.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
Mat, I've shared an example here:
Same here. With AI images they accept "every crap" that I throw at them. They would probably approve a dog with 5 legs. But real photos?
This for example was rejected for "quality issues":
(https://i.postimg.cc/kG3dG3HS/248partyplates-copy.jpg)
This is a 100% crop:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5drzywf/248partyplates-copy.jpg)
I know this image is not a masterpiece, but there is absolutely no issue with focus, exposure or noise, so I really do not know what to fix about this.
Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe. 10.000+ images passed quality control without problems and now I suddenly forgot how to photograph? But medicore AI images are all no problem? Adobe keeps disappointing me more and more and I have less motivation to bother with real photos and all the work that comes with them compared to AI images. :-\
When a lot of people come out at the same time and say they suddenly start to have lots of random rejections when they did not have this issue for years, don't you think that maybe it is worth to at least look into the overal issue, instead of just single examples? :(
It seems more likely that the issue is with Adobe, especially since it started right when Adobe started accepting AI content and review time grew to a whole month, than that we all suddenly forgot how to take decent photographs.
-
While people rant a lot about rejections, I agree that there is an abrupt rise in complaints over various stock groups. Mostly that inspections are inconsistent.
Personally I will try to be more careful and take a step back. I will still upload daily, but perhaps I need a visual break. Will do more video for new work.
Still have loads of ai to process, so there is that.
-
[/quote]
When a lot of people come out at the same time and say they suddenly start to have lots of random rejections when they did not have this issue for years, don't you think that maybe it is worth to at least look into the overal issue, instead of just single examples? :(
It seems more likely that the issue is with Adobe, especially since it started right when Adobe started accepting AI content and review time grew to a whole month, than that we all suddenly forgot how to take decent photographs.
[/quote]
EXACTLY!
There is definitely something broken at Adobe. I can totally accept the odd rejection, but to suddenly be an incompetent photographer is baffling. If one or two other platforms were rejecting my work en masse then it would be fairly certain it is my quality, but this is not the case at all. All of the other platforms accept 95%-100% of my content which is the polar opposite of Adobe these days.
-
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock. I think this would be a much more impactful thread if you would share some examples of content being rejected that you feel was done so in error. It's certainly possible as the moderation team is made up of human beings, but in my experience, it's pretty rare.
If you don't want to share examples publicly here in MSG, simply post the file number of the rejected image and I'll be glad to take a look..as long as you are OK with me giving a public answer with my feedback.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
Thanks for the reply. If Adobe is doing one thing right it is having a spokesperson who engages. It is appreciated.
That said, I have been in the game for a very very long time and can see when something is broken. To suddenly have extremely high rejections from only one platform when this is not the case on multiple other platforms is concerning. I am not concerned about one or two image rejections as I just move on and that is par for the course. What I am concerned about is abnormally high amount of rejections that suddenly appear to be the new norm on Adobe specific.
I can see by this particular thread that I am not alone in expressing my concerns as many others are expressing the very same problem that I have.
-
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock. I think this would be a much more impactful thread if you would share some examples of content being rejected that you feel was done so in error. It's certainly possible as the moderation team is made up of human beings, but in my experience, it's pretty rare.
If you don't want to share examples publicly here in MSG, simply post the file number of the rejected image and I'll be glad to take a look..as long as you are OK with me giving a public answer with my feedback.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
Mat, I've shared an example here:
Same here. With AI images they accept "every crap" that I throw at them. They would probably approve a dog with 5 legs. But real photos?
This for example was rejected for "quality issues":
(https://i.postimg.cc/kG3dG3HS/248partyplates-copy.jpg)
This is a 100% crop:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5drzywf/248partyplates-copy.jpg)
I know this image is not a masterpiece, but there is absolutely no issue with focus, exposure or noise, so I really do not know what to fix about this.
Other than editorial images, where I simply could never really understand Adobe's rules, and photos with objects isolated on white I never had any issues with rejections on Adobe. 10.000+ images passed quality control without problems and now I suddenly forgot how to photograph? But medicore AI images are all no problem? Adobe keeps disappointing me more and more and I have less motivation to bother with real photos and all the work that comes with them compared to AI images. :-\
When a lot of people come out at the same time and say they suddenly start to have lots of random rejections when they did not have this issue for years, don't you think that maybe it is worth to at least look into the overal issue, instead of just single examples? :(
It seems more likely that the issue is with Adobe, especially since it started right when Adobe started accepting AI content and review time grew to a whole month, than that we all suddenly forgot how to take decent photographs.
I appreciate you sharing the example. In my opinion, the image is "OK" or "fine". Maybe a bit hot on exposure, but within range which explains why you didn't get the "technical" rejection. My perception of the "quality" rejection reason is that it's just "fine". It's a subjective process and we definitely won't all agree on everything. My personal opinion is that this one could have gone either way. What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. Having hosted more than my share of childrens birthday parties, the plates always match. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
It's easy to focus on the rejections, and I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be. That said, it's part of the process and we've all experienced it. My suggestion is to avoid taking it personal and look at is as a challenge to do better the next time. We approve a heck of a lot more than we reject at Adobe Stock and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Good luck!
Mat Hayward
-
Matt... If you are out there can you please look into this.
The rejections as of late are insane. It appears that no photo is good enough for Adobe lately. It's very time consuming to have entire batches or 95% of batches rejected when multiple other platforms accept them.
Somthing is broken and please fix it.
Thanks.
PS My wife just had an insanely high rejection on her last submission.
After many thousands of successful uploads to Adobe and multiple other platforms we are both suddenly producing inferior quality. Imagine that.
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock. I think this would be a much more impactful thread if you would share some examples of content being rejected that you feel was done so in error. It's certainly possible as the moderation team is made up of human beings, but in my experience, it's pretty rare.
If you don't want to share examples publicly here in MSG, simply post the file number of the rejected image and I'll be glad to take a look..as long as you are OK with me giving a public answer with my feedback.
Thanks,
Mat Hayward
We all accept the occasional rejection, though Adobe's reason is usually "there's something wrong here - guess what it is"
but the numerous reports here are about complete rejections of entire batches. i now only submit images that have been approved elsewhere
meanwhile i did send a complete list of a batch rejected en masse but all in got in response was boilerplate repeating the rejection reason - didnt look like a human had actually investigated.
-
As I'm sure most are aware, we don't have an appeal process on rejected content. The reality is, if we were constantly re-reviewing each rejected file, that's all we would be doing. The review time would be much longer than it already is.
I appreciate the feedback. It all gets read by members of our team.
Thanks,
Mat
-
Same here.
Normally few rejections with Adobe (and then mostly acceptable when they do reject).
Now, with a batch of 70 photo's 40 were rejected. From the ones that were accepted, I can't really see the difference in quality with the ones that were not accepted (not similarity reason).
I have expensive gear, use Adobe products like Lightroom and Photoshop and did not change my way of shooting.
The only reason they gave was quality issues. The other big two (Shutterstock and Istock) accepted nearly all photos (one all, the other one just a handfull of rejections). They did what they always do and are in line with other submissions. It is Adobe's reviewing that suddenly changed for the worse. I can't believe with so many people complaining this is just a coincidence.
I am also very dissapointed that we asked many times here to be more specific in the reasons for rejection. Now, instead of a few reasons, we only get one reason for all rejected content.
Maybe the updates of Lightroom and Photoshop made their programs ruin your photo that all touched photos have quality issues without me seeing it. That could be a reason as well. But why don't the other Microstock sites notice it then?
I think there is more to it then Mat wants to share with us or he is just not getting it.
Edit:
The files were however reviewed within one week. In two or three parts. The rejections were mostly in the first part. Just FYI. The other parts (later) did nearly not have any rejections.
-
As I'm sure most are aware, we don't have an appeal process on rejected content. The reality is, if we were constantly re-reviewing each rejected file, that's all we would be doing. The review time would be much longer than it already is.
I appreciate the feedback. It all gets read by members of our team.
Thanks,
Mat
Do you also have any idea how long it takes to:
* select the proper photos of a shoot
* adjust the photos with your expensive programs
* come up with correct titles and key words
And then Adobe just randomly rejects a file without telling exactly why (while other companies do accept them).
Do you know how much time we have lost with those files that Adobe just tossed away?
We are not even able to learn from our misstakes (if any were made). What does quality issues mean? What happened to all other rejection categories?
-
As I'm sure most are aware, we don't have an appeal process on rejected content. The reality is, if we were constantly re-reviewing each rejected file, that's all we would be doing. The review time would be much longer than it already is.
I appreciate the feedback. It all gets read by members of our team.
Thanks,
Mat
Do you also have any idea how long it takes to:
* select the proper photos of a shoot
* adjust the photos with your expensive programs
* come up with correct titles and key words
And then Adobe just randomly rejects a file without telling exactly why (while other companies do accept them).
Do you know how much time we have lost with those files that Adobe just tossed away?
We are not even able to learn from our misstakes (if any were made). What does quality issues mean? What happened to all other rejection categories?
Answers to your questions in blue...
Do you also have any idea how long it takes to:
* select the proper photos of a shoot: YES
* adjust the photos with your expensive programs: YES (though I would like to call out that Adobe provides the software for free to productive contributors annually through our bonus program).
* come up with correct titles and key words: YES
What does quality issues mean? What happened to all other rejection categories?
Quality issues is just like it sounds..the quality does not meet the standards of approval at Adobe Stock. The rejection reasons have not changed. "Quality" has been a rejection reason for years. It's a bit of a catch-all as opposed to "exposure issues" or "out of focus" and since the technical components of the image are fine, the "technical" rejection reason wouldn't apply.
Thanks for the questions,
Mat Hayward
-
Thank you for your patience Mat.
It is a frustrating process. When an agency takes my files I love them, when my little babies get declined it hurts.
We are trying to understand what we can improve and perhaps there is some way that declines can be improved to make it easier for us to understand the problem and fix what is wrong.
I am now trying to run files, especially files from older cameras, through Topaz. Maybe that helps.
-
As I'm sure most are aware, we don't have an appeal process on rejected content. The reality is, if we were constantly re-reviewing each rejected file, that's all we would be doing. The review time would be much longer than it already is.
I appreciate the feedback. It all gets read by members of our team.
Thanks,
Mat
Do you also have any idea how long it takes to:
* select the proper photos of a shoot
* adjust the photos with your expensive programs
* come up with correct titles and key words
And then Adobe just randomly rejects a file without telling exactly why (while other companies do accept them).
Do you know how much time we have lost with those files that Adobe just tossed away?
We are not even able to learn from our misstakes (if any were made). What does quality issues mean? What happened to all other rejection categories?
Answers to your questions in blue...
Do you also have any idea how long it takes to:
* select the proper photos of a shoot: YES
* adjust the photos with your expensive programs: YES (though I would like to call out that Adobe provides the software for free to productive contributors annually through our bonus program).
* come up with correct titles and key words: YES
What does quality issues mean? What happened to all other rejection categories?
Quality issues is just like it sounds..the quality does not meet the standards of approval at Adobe Stock. The rejection reasons have not changed. "Quality" has been a rejection reason for years. It's a bit of a catch-all as opposed to "exposure issues" or "out of focus" and since the technical components of the image are fine, the "technical" rejection reason wouldn't apply.
Thanks for the questions,
Mat Hayward
Hi Mat,
thanks for your quick answers. I can't say it really helped but still appreciated.
I used to get more specific reasons (on the few rejections I had). Now it's just all quality issues. I still don't understand when in Adobe's review proces one part get mostly rejected while another review part get's mostly accepted while there is no differene in quality as far as I can notice. I also don't get why Adobe rejects something that is approved by other companies while a rejection at other companies (with a clear explanation) is approved by Adobe. I also don't get why a photo that was rejected by Adobe immediately sells at another company.
But I guess asking for more clearance or arguing here is senseless. I'll try re-submitting the rejected photos and otherwise try my luck with the other companies. If the high rejection rate persists with Adobe I will just leave them behind. Not worth the effort in the end when it maintains an almost 60% rejection rate versus less then 5% before.
Cheers :)
-
The rejection examples provided in this thread were justified, in my opinion.
I don't see a problem with Adobe, overall.
SS, on the other hand, with their initial Artificial Stupidy algorithm is a totaly different story. >:(
-
Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.
Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.
-
Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.
Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.
Hey Kubeslaw, getting images rejected does not equate to being "an idiot". What is your account number? I'll be happy to take a look and offer you my opinion.
-Mat
-
Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.
Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.
Hey Kubeslaw, getting images rejected does not equate to being "an idiot". What is your account number? I'll be happy to take a look and offer you my opinion.
-Mat
Hey Mat, I appreciate your kind offer, but based on previous feedback provided I don't expect your look at my rejected photos to be helpful, therefore I'd rather not share the number of my account.
And I surely didn't state that getting images rejected equate to being an idiot - you have to try very hard to take my words that way.
-
What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
The plates being different is your "quality issue" ?! ???
A party store that would for example want a banner or header image for a plate category for their store would not care much whether the images would show the exact products they carry - because the products they carry change by the week, as products get sold out and new products enter the shop. Do you think they hire a photographer to make new banners with up to date products each week?
I have so so so many of my photos used in various shops all over the internet, mostly for dog products like collars, leashes or coats, where I can guarantee you the shop does not carry these items, because most of them were handmade by a friend of mine. We are actually constantly shocked by how frequently shops advertise their products by using photos of completely different products they do not sell.
Not even talking about other potential usages, like for example an article about the damage caused by disposable dinnerwear.
I strongly disagree that "different plates" is a quality issue. But it does not matter, because in the end it is not up to me to decide what your review team finds acceptable and what not. But it doesn't change that they did not have problems with the quality of like 10.000 of my photos, of witch, I can assure you, a lot were much worse and less usefull. Especially in the beginning of my microstock career where I had no clue what I was doing and still had to figure out what had sale potential and what hadn't. And suddenly they have issues where there were none before. This is not my first photo with "different plates". Was not an issue with Adobe reviewers in the past.
So, have my photography skills and my judgement of sale potential in photos suddenly drastically declined? Has the usability of photos of differenet plates suddenly declined? Or has something changed about Adobe's review process of real photos?
But I am afraid there is no point in arguing any further. I think you are so set on denying that there might even be a chance that the issue was with Adobe (Have you even ckecked back with them? Have you asked them about the rejection rate of real photos now compared to a year ago?), that you will grasp at straws to justify any rejection.
-
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock.
How recent is your information about the approval ratio? It seems like the massive complaints about rejections are mostly very recent. Could you perhaps inquire how the approval ratio was in the last two weeks and compare this with previous values?
Also, is the approval ratio perhaps different for different media types (photos, illustrations, ai, video)? An overall high approval rate may then still not mean that there could not be areas where the rejection rate is unusually high.
-
I think that in some cases, approval ratio is just perfect! Massive satisfaction about acceptations of gen AI here, just an exemple:
https://stock.adobe.com/search/images?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&k=eiffel+paris+generative+AI&order=relevance&safe_search=1&limit=100&search_page=1&search_type=asset-type-change&acp=&aco=eiffel+paris+generative+AI&price%5B%24%5D=1&get_facets=0
But here are the guidelines:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html :
Don’t: Submit works depicting real places, identifiable property (e.g., famous characters or logos), or notable people (whether photorealistic or - even caricatures).
Lost in the rules at Adobe Stock, but human reviewers may know them well.
Not sure that - So old-fashioned - real photographies will still be accept in a near future.
-
Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.
Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.
"the quality does not meet the standards of approval at Adobe Stock." - Mat
I too have close to 8000 photos on Adobe, well over 10,000 on Istock from the excslusive days, 2000 on Getty Images, 9000 on SS and the list goes on, and just like that I don't meet the standards of approval at Adobe Stock. What a crock.
-
What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
The plates being different is your "quality issue" ?! ???
A party store that would for example want a banner or header image for a plate category for their store would not care much whether the images would show the exact products they carry - because the products they carry change by the week, as products get sold out and new products enter the shop. Do you think they hire a photographer to make new banners with up to date products each week?
I have so so so many of my photos used in various shops all over the internet, mostly for dog products like collars, leashes or coats, where I can guarantee you the shop does not carry these items, because most of them were handmade by a friend of mine. We are actually constantly shocked by how frequently shops advertise their products by using photos of completely different products they do not sell.
Not even talking about other potential usages, like for example an article about the damage caused by disposable dinnerwear.
I strongly disagree that "different plates" is a quality issue. But it does not matter, because in the end it is not up to me to decide what your review team finds acceptable and what not. But it doesn't change that they did not have problems with the quality of like 10.000 of my photos, of witch, I can assure you, a lot were much worse and less usefull. Especially in the beginning of my microstock career where I had no clue what I was doing and still had to figure out what had sale potential and what hadn't. And suddenly they have issues where there were none before. This is not my first photo with "different plates". Was not an issue with Adobe reviewers in the past.
So, have my photography skills and my judgement of sale potential in photos suddenly drastically declined? Has the usability of photos of differenet plates suddenly declined? Or has something changed about Adobe's review process of real photos?
But I am afraid there is no point in arguing any further. I think you are so set on denying that there might even be a chance that the issue was with Adobe (Have you even ckecked back with them? Have you asked them about the rejection rate of real photos now compared to a year ago?), that you will grasp at straws to justify any rejection.
Firn... never ever think Mat is you friend. He is a paid employee of Adobe Corp and will tow the company line at all costs, after all it is his job. No point arguing with him, your work does not meet the standard of Adobe just like mine and many others. The fact this is a new and sudden development has nothing to do with it.
That said, I am thankful Adobe Corp does have a contributor service representative reaching out as it has proven informative in the past.
-
Quality issues is just like it sounds..the quality does not meet the standards of approval at Adobe Stock. The rejection reasons have not changed. "Quality" has been a rejection reason for years. It's a bit of a catch-all as opposed to "exposure issues" or "out of focus" and since the technical components of the image are fine, the "technical" rejection reason wouldn't apply.
what does quality mean if it doesn't include technical reasons? unfortunately your explanation doesn't agree with what we're told when rejected for quality:
"Common issues that can impact the technical quality of images include exposure issues, soft focus, excessive filtering or artifacts/noise. Learn more about our technical requirements here."
it might be acceptable if it were used that way (tho still being opaque to an actual reason - surely the reviewer had a specific reason to reject), but as many have documented it's now being used EXCLUSIVELY to reject entire batches that other agencies have approved. in the past AS & SS acceptance were mostly in sync - now nothing we send is accepted?
something serious has changed and if the review team does read all these msgs (but wont answer emails) they should explain what's happening
-
I appreciate you sharing the example. In my opinion, the image is "OK" or "fine". Maybe a bit hot on exposure, but within range which explains why you didn't get the "technical" rejection. My perception of the "quality" rejection reason is that it's just "fine". It's a subjective process and we definitely won't all agree on everything. My personal opinion is that this one could have gone either way. What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. Having hosted more than my share of childrens birthday parties, the plates always match. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
It's easy to focus on the rejections, and I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be. That said, it's part of the process and we've all experienced it. My suggestion is to avoid taking it personal and look at is as a challenge to do better the next time. We approve a heck of a lot more than we reject at Adobe Stock and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Good luck!
Mat Hayward
Sorry Mat, but I really had to laugh out loud when I read your (hair-pulling) reasoning for Firn's rejection.
According to my imagination NOW, a review team of well-paid experts from business, art and technology sits there in a cozy Adobe office and discusses on a scientific basis the sales prospects of every picture that is projected on a large screen - quite democratically, everyone then presses the quality buzzer or not. But in this particular case, an international kids birthday paper plate expert had to be consulted. That is laudable and of course takes time.
At least that explains the long review times. Qualitatively good review takes time ;)
Thanks for explanation ;D
-
I appreciate you sharing the example. In my opinion, the image is "OK" or "fine". Maybe a bit hot on exposure, but within range which explains why you didn't get the "technical" rejection. My perception of the "quality" rejection reason is that it's just "fine". It's a subjective process and we definitely won't all agree on everything. My personal opinion is that this one could have gone either way. What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. Having hosted more than my share of childrens birthday parties, the plates always match. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
It's easy to focus on the rejections, and I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be. That said, it's part of the process and we've all experienced it. My suggestion is to avoid taking it personal and look at is as a challenge to do better the next time. We approve a heck of a lot more than we reject at Adobe Stock and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Good luck!
Mat Hayward
Sorry Mat, but I really had to laugh out loud when I read your (hair-pulling) reasoning for Firn's rejection.
According to my imagination NOW, a review team of well-paid experts from business, art and technology sits there in a cozy Adobe office and discusses on a scientific basis the sales prospects of every picture that is projected on a large screen - quite democratically, everyone then presses the quality buzzer or not. But in this particular case, an international kids birthday paper plate expert had to be consulted. That is laudable and of course takes time.
At least that explains the long review times. Qualitatively good review takes time ;)
Thanks for explanation ;D
You're welcome Ralf. I'm always happy to provide comic relief :)
Actually, your post hits the proverbial nail on the head. As you know, I'm not on the moderation team. I don't review content, so what I did was scrutinized the image in question, gave it some consideration and decided after looking for a while that if I were forced to guess why the image was rejected for "quality" it would be for the reason I described. It's just my opinion, and in truth, I could be convinced otherwise without much objection.
The moderation team on the other hand, does not have the luxury of time when it comes to analyzing content. As has been noted in countless posts here and elsewhere, the wait time for review is taking an unprecedented amount of time. There is tremendous pressure to get this wait-time down to a more reasonable amount. Even without that added pressure, the mandate has always been for fast reviews. The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video. They do this all day, every day, 365 days a year.
There are more than 500,000 images online at Adobe Stock with the keywords "party plates" right now. It's safe to assume that most on the moderation team have seen their fair share and then some of photos of party plates. Some of the photos are awesome, others are "ok". The image in question here falls into the latter category in my opinion.
Complaints about rejection reasons, the lack of clarity in the reasons provided and disputes on the rejections have been ongoing since the first days at Fotolia. As I've mentioned countless times before, if the moderation team took the time to wrestle with each and every decision and then spent additional time providing specific details and answering every question that comes in arguing with the decision, the review time would be exponentially longer. It's not a perfect system and they don't get it right every time, but I feel very strongly they get it right most of the time. As an employee or not, you would have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise. Since I opened my account in 2006, I've had 2,989 files rejected. If I thought the content wasn't good enough to be approved, I wouldn't have sent the files in the first place. Someone on the moderation team felt differently. That's just part of the deal. The only real action that can be taken is to look at the content through impartial eyes, consider if something could have been done differently or better, and apply what I've learned to the next shoot to find a better result the next time.
We have an active Discord community, as well as the Adobe Stock contributor forum in which impartial feedback is provided by other contributors on rejected content. I've personally learned a lot from the insightful critiques offered. If you have some content you feel strongly was unjustly rejected, I recommend posting some examples and asking for outside opinions. Maybe you change you mind, maybe you don't. The important thing in my opinion is to continue to grow as an artist and to keep feeding the creative side of your brain.
On a personal note, @Ralf. You commented that my original explanation caused "hair-pulling". I too used to pull my hair with rejection reasons. If you've seen what I look like these days, you will almost certainly stop pulling your hair out. It doesn't always grow back!
Thanks for the lively debate y'all.
-Mat Hayward
-
I appreciate you sharing the example. In my opinion, the image is "OK" or "fine". Maybe a bit hot on exposure, but within range which explains why you didn't get the "technical" rejection. My perception of the "quality" rejection reason is that it's just "fine". It's a subjective process and we definitely won't all agree on everything. My personal opinion is that this one could have gone either way. What pushes me to agree with the moderator is that all the plates are different. Having hosted more than my share of childrens birthday parties, the plates always match. This could potentially be used by a party store, but it's more likely they would hire a photographer to shoot the exact products they carry.
It's easy to focus on the rejections, and I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be. That said, it's part of the process and we've all experienced it. My suggestion is to avoid taking it personal and look at is as a challenge to do better the next time. We approve a heck of a lot more than we reject at Adobe Stock and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Good luck!
Mat Hayward
Sorry Mat, but I really had to laugh out loud when I read your (hair-pulling) reasoning for Firn's rejection.
According to my imagination NOW, a review team of well-paid experts from business, art and technology sits there in a cozy Adobe office and discusses on a scientific basis the sales prospects of every picture that is projected on a large screen - quite democratically, everyone then presses the quality buzzer or not. But in this particular case, an international kids birthday paper plate expert had to be consulted. That is laudable and of course takes time.
At least that explains the long review times. Qualitatively good review takes time ;)
Thanks for explanation ;D
You're welcome Ralf. I'm always happy to provide comic relief :)
Actually, your post hits the proverbial nail on the head. As you know, I'm not on the moderation team. I don't review content, so what I did was scrutinized the image in question, gave it some consideration and decided after looking for a while that if I were forced to guess why the image was rejected for "quality" it would be for the reason I described. It's just my opinion, and in truth, I could be convinced otherwise without much objection.
The moderation team on the other hand, does not have the luxury of time when it comes to analyzing content. As has been noted in countless posts here and elsewhere, the wait time for review is taking an unprecedented amount of time. There is tremendous pressure to get this wait-time down to a more reasonable amount. Even without that added pressure, the mandate has always been for fast reviews. The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video. They do this all day, every day, 365 days a year.
There are more than 500,000 images online at Adobe Stock with the keywords "party plates" right now. It's safe to assume that most on the moderation team have seen their fair share and then some of photos of party plates. Some of the photos are awesome, others are "ok". The image in question here falls into the latter category in my opinion.
Complaints about rejection reasons, the lack of clarity in the reasons provided and disputes on the rejections have been ongoing since the first days at Fotolia. As I've mentioned countless times before, if the moderation team took the time to wrestle with each and every decision and then spent additional time providing specific details and answering every question that comes in arguing with the decision, the review time would be exponentially longer. It's not a perfect system and they don't get it right every time, but I feel very strongly they get it right most of the time. As an employee or not, you would have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise. Since I opened my account in 2006, I've had 2,989 files rejected. If I thought the content wasn't good enough to be approved, I wouldn't have sent the files in the first place. Someone on the moderation team felt differently. That's just part of the deal. The only real action that can be taken is to look at the content through impartial eyes, consider if something could have been done differently or better, and apply what I've learned to the next shoot to find a better result the next time.
We have an active Discord community, as well as the Adobe Stock contributor forum in which impartial feedback is provided by other contributors on rejected content. I've personally learned a lot from the insightful critiques offered. If you have some content you feel strongly was unjustly rejected, I recommend posting some examples and asking for outside opinions. Maybe you change you mind, maybe you don't. The important thing in my opinion is to continue to grow as an artist and to keep feeding the creative side of your brain.
On a personal note, @Ralf. You commented that my original explanation caused "hair-pulling". I too used to pull my hair with rejection reasons. If you've seen what I look like these days, you will almost certainly stop pulling your hair out. It doesn't always grow back!
Thanks for the lively debate y'all.
-Mat Hayward
All fair enough but it doesn't go into the fact why a surpisingly large number of contributors experience, very recently, a way larger rejection rate then normal. But it seems that Adobe, nor you, wants to share why this is.
Pity.
-
...
We have an active Discord community, as well as the Adobe Stock contributor forum in which impartial feedback is provided by other contributors on rejected content. I've personally learned a lot from the insightful critiques offered. If you have some content you feel strongly was unjustly rejected, I recommend posting some examples and asking for outside opinions. Maybe you change you mind, maybe you don't. The important thing in my opinion is to continue to grow as an artist and to keep feeding the creative side of your brain.
...
sorry, Mat, i understand your plight and appreciate your continuing to post here but something in the last month has broken the review process - but what's the point if adobe doesn't review mass rejects - i'm not going to upload a hundred images that somehow lacked the 'quality' of what was accepted before in a forum that has no power to do anything - i dont need commiseration from other artists - i'll spend my time submitting to agencies that actually tell you why an image is rejected and that actually answer requests for review.
-
[/quote]
The moderation team on the other hand, does not have the luxury of time when it comes to analyzing content. As has been noted in countless posts here and elsewhere, the wait time for review is taking an unprecedented amount of time. There is tremendous pressure to get this wait-time down to a more reasonable amount. Even without that added pressure, the mandate has always been for fast reviews. The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video. They do this all day, every day, 365 days a year.
-Mat Hayward
[/quote]
" The moderation team " - what a WORDS. :)
So, what you did ( by that I think on Adobe in general ) to check "The moderation team" capabilities to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video ?
At least for the new people in that team ?
I'm asking this because Adobe simply had to hire 5 to 10 new people recently (in a last 3 months) in a "The moderation team" in order to achieve AI files inspection.
Also I'm asking what are their competencies to join "The moderation team" ?
Are they photographers ? Vector artists ? Video editors ? Or just some random people who had 1 week training without any previous knowledge about stock industry ?
-
Naive question: why not implement upload limits, especially for gen ai content?
Because the onslaught will not stop. There are so many youtubers screaming how easy it is to make thousands on Adobe.
And when firefly is opened for commercial use, that will bring in a lot more people.
-
And again 4 ridiculous rejections out of 6 for 'quality problems'.
Perfect photos - never had this in my 12 year doing fulltime stock, my rejection rate has always been 0 to 1%
-
Show Adobe the way to light and truth
-
You're welcome Ralf. I'm always happy to provide comic relief :)
Actually, your post hits the proverbial nail on the head. As you know, I'm not on the moderation team. I don't review content, so what I did was scrutinized the image in question, gave it some consideration and decided after looking for a while that if I were forced to guess why the image was rejected for "quality" it would be for the reason I described. It's just my opinion, and in truth, I could be convinced otherwise without much objection.
The moderation team on the other hand, does not have the luxury of time when it comes to analyzing content. As has been noted in countless posts here and elsewhere, the wait time for review is taking an unprecedented amount of time. There is tremendous pressure to get this wait-time down to a more reasonable amount. Even without that added pressure, the mandate has always been for fast reviews. The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video. They do this all day, every day, 365 days a year.
There are more than 500,000 images online at Adobe Stock with the keywords "party plates" right now. It's safe to assume that most on the moderation team have seen their fair share and then some of photos of party plates. Some of the photos are awesome, others are "ok". The image in question here falls into the latter category in my opinion.
Complaints about rejection reasons, the lack of clarity in the reasons provided and disputes on the rejections have been ongoing since the first days at Fotolia. As I've mentioned countless times before, if the moderation team took the time to wrestle with each and every decision and then spent additional time providing specific details and answering every question that comes in arguing with the decision, the review time would be exponentially longer. It's not a perfect system and they don't get it right every time, but I feel very strongly they get it right most of the time. As an employee or not, you would have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise. Since I opened my account in 2006, I've had 2,989 files rejected. If I thought the content wasn't good enough to be approved, I wouldn't have sent the files in the first place. Someone on the moderation team felt differently. That's just part of the deal. The only real action that can be taken is to look at the content through impartial eyes, consider if something could have been done differently or better, and apply what I've learned to the next shoot to find a better result the next time.
We have an active Discord community, as well as the Adobe Stock contributor forum in which impartial feedback is provided by other contributors on rejected content. I've personally learned a lot from the insightful critiques offered. If you have some content you feel strongly was unjustly rejected, I recommend posting some examples and asking for outside opinions. Maybe you change you mind, maybe you don't. The important thing in my opinion is to continue to grow as an artist and to keep feeding the creative side of your brain.
On a personal note, @Ralf. You commented that my original explanation caused "hair-pulling". I too used to pull my hair with rejection reasons. If you've seen what I look like these days, you will almost certainly stop pulling your hair out. It doesn't always grow back!
Thanks for the lively debate y'all.
-Mat Hayward
Thank you Mat for your kind and detailed reply.
Unfortunately, the question still remains why many contributors have been complaining for weeks (also in other forums) about sudden new changes in the review with an unusual increase in rejections. Collective blackout?
I've been uploading only editorials myself for some time now. Everything else makes no sense in combination with long review times and high rejection rates at the moment.
And thanks Mat for your tip on hair care. But it's too late for that, we apparently have the same hairdresser ;)
-
The problem seems to be, over the last few months, rejections are more and the reason to teach us why has been less. Quality tells me almost nothing. If Adobe wants to help and have less quality reasons to take review time, Adobe should teach us why we are getting quality rejections. We are just guessing at this point.
-
Focussing on editorial and video is maybe a good idea. Upload the photos later, or just a few snippets notthe whole series until things calm down.
-
Since Adobe and Mat won't share any details why the rejection rate is so high lately I will just let my fantasy run along.
I think they all went on a boot camp with one Guru manager telling AI is the new future and they don't need any new material because Firefly will be the next thing. Only when they discover a pearl here and there in the submissions, then they should accept it.
This fantasy is also based on Jo Ann Snover post (thanks Jo Ann for being on it and sharing news):
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/msg587864/#msg587864 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/announcing-adobe-firefly-a-new-family-of-creative-generative-ai-models/msg587864/#msg587864)
At least this reason would make sense, while we are completely in the dark why are submissions are so heavily rejected all of the sudden.
-
Naive question: why not implement upload limits, especially for gen ai content?
Because the onslaught will not stop. There are so many youtubers screaming how easy it is to make thousands on Adobe.
And when firefly is opened for commercial use, that will bring in a lot more people.
Same thoughts. If the AI content is plugging up the formerly functional system, just limit the AI uploads, let the rest of us keep working. Another case of punishing the people who aren't causing the problems. Many new and more stringent laws have come around lately in the same way.
Limit AI uploads, there's a limited need and the demand will be fulfilled soon enough, without over taxing the rest of the system.
Just can't wait to make some new uploads and see what happens. Personally I haven't seen an increase in rejections, but I would understand if files that used to pass, style, subjects, camera all that, are now being rejected, people would take notice and be unhappy.
To be fair, Mat is not a reviewer, he's an advocate, he has mostly the same information we do, from our observations and personal reviews. I know he has more, but that doesn't mean we should assume that he's told everything, in detail, about how things work inside the intake department. When I asked Mat about a rejection, he looked and nailed the reason, which I had missed myself. After that it was easy to see.
-
Mat is doing a great job, even looks into our individual cases.
But the current situation is too abrupt and has too many experienced people complaining in all kinds of groups.
So something is going on and everyone can see how much ai content is being uploaded.
A lot of it is also very, very good and I think Adobe is offering the customer a great solution, instead of having to bumble through the prompting process to get what they need.
But a simple, flexible upload limit is an easy fix and successfully implemented with many agencies.
The star artists obviously can continue to have their unlimited uploads.
But when firefly goes live for commercial use, the ai uploads will probably rise 1000%.
Especially if Adobe offers an easy to use app that can be directly connected to an Adobe stock account.
-
Hi, this is my first post. I'm sorry for my bad english.
I sent a set of 13-15 photos the other day. Shot with a tripod with Canon Eos R and Canon Rf 100mm. fenugreek photos. They were all different from each other, but all were rejected. I sent it again. Half accepted. A photo accepted the next day paid $2.97 commission. It was rejected as quality, but I think this is still the quality the customer wants.
(https://www.hizliresim.com/2dmh0og)
(https://www.hizliresim.com/koq63zs)
I hope I was able to upload the images.
-
Naive question: why not implement upload limits, especially for gen ai content?
Because the onslaught will not stop. There are so many youtubers screaming how easy it is to make thousands on Adobe.
And when firefly is opened for commercial use, that will bring in a lot more people.
Same thoughts. If the AI content is plugging up the formerly functional system, just limit the AI uploads, let the rest of us keep working. Another case of punishing the people who aren't causing the problems. Many new and more stringent laws have come around lately in the same way.
Limit AI uploads, there's a limited need and the demand will be fulfilled soon enough, without over taxing the rest of the system.
Just can't wait to make some new uploads and see what happens. Personally I haven't seen an increase in rejections, but I would understand if files that used to pass, style, subjects, camera all that, are now being rejected, people would take notice and be unhappy.
To be fair, Mat is not a reviewer, he's an advocate, he has mostly the same information we do, from our observations and personal reviews. I know he has more, but that doesn't mean we should assume that he's told everything, in detail, about how things work inside the intake department. When I asked Mat about a rejection, he looked and nailed the reason, which I had missed myself. After that it was easy to see.
There is already limited AI uploads implemented....to 500 "images".
-
There is already limited AI uploads implemented....to 500 "images".
I have way more AI images waiting to be reviewed in the queque than that.
From what I understood there is only a upload limit for new accounts anyways, but I have not read any number mentioned anywhere.
-
There is already limited AI uploads implemented....to 500 "images".
I have way more AI images waiting to be reviewed in the queque than that.
From what I understood there is only a upload limit for new accounts anyways, but I have not read any number mentioned anywhere.
Again all contributors at Adobe doesn't have a same status or treatment.
Nothing new.
Yes...there is a 500 Ai uploads as limited. Thrust me and don't ask how I know that. :)
-
C'mon guys and girls...we are discussing here about Adobe rejections....while our work is moderated by "Moderation Team" which is composed of people who received 7 days of moderation training.
I bet in my year adobe sale that at least one of them is ex house cleaning woman or it will be much appropriated to say maid ?
-
Yes...there is a 500 Ai uploads as limited. Thrust me and don't ask how I know that. :)
And yet I have over 900 AI images waiting to be reviewed, so excuse me if I do not "trust" you on this issue. ;)
-
Yes...there is a 500 Ai uploads as limited. Thrust me and don't ask how I know that. :)
And yet I have over 900 AI images waiting to be reviewed, so excuse me if I do not "trust" you on this issue. ;)
Yes I believe you and you both could be right. If it's a day or a week, or in a 7 day period, there are many possible ways to have a 500 image limit and for you to have over 900 images waiting to be reviewed.
I hate to be someone to suggest restrictions or limitations on anyone else. But if the system is clogged, because of mass uploads of AI images, which prevents other types from being reviewed, I'd say that's possibly unfair to people who aren't flooding the agency with AI created images? Restrict the uploads of all kinds of images, is the only fair way, until there is some way to channel AI to it's own track for review or do something to restore the access to all kinds of images, like it used to be?
Oh right, this is a forum, everything is pretty much hypothetical discussion and doesn't change what's going on at Adobe.
-
Yes...there is a 500 Ai uploads as limited. Thrust me and don't ask how I know that. :)
And yet I have over 900 AI images waiting to be reviewed, so excuse me if I do not "trust" you on this issue. ;)
Yes I believe you and you both could be right. If it's a day or a week, or in a 7 day period, there are many possible ways to have a 500 image limit and for you to have over 900 images waiting to be reviewed.
You are right. I did not consider the upload limit could be for a time frame, like just a day. I thought it meant that you can't upload more as soon as you reached the limit in your review queue. Doesn't seem to be much of a limit then. If the limit is 500 images a day and the AI image review time currently is 28 days, that means some people have 14.000 AI images waiting to be reviewed. No wonder review times aren't getting any shorter.
-
Yes...there is a 500 Ai uploads as limited. Thrust me and don't ask how I know that. :)
And yet I have over 900 AI images waiting to be reviewed, so excuse me if I do not "trust" you on this issue. ;)
Yes I believe you and you both could be right. If it's a day or a week, or in a 7 day period, there are many possible ways to have a 500 image limit and for you to have over 900 images waiting to be reviewed.
You are right. I did not consider the upload limit could be for a time frame, like just a day. I thought it meant that you can't upload more as soon as you reached the limit in your review queue. Doesn't seem to be much of a limit then. If the limit is 500 images a day and the AI image review time currently is 28 days, that means some people have 14.000 AI images waiting to be reviewed. No wonder review times aren't getting any shorter.
You would know best because you actually have something to upload, but yes. I don't know if the limit is a day or week or anything else. But more true, if it was a week, and the reviews take 28 days, people could easily have 1,500 waiting. And also yes, if it's 500 a day, 24 hours, or something like that, your 14,000 number would also be possible.
Now if AS took editorial news, maybe on a Monday, some day, I'd have 500 to upload?
-
Great! Adobe has now accepted all 3 photos I mentioned here. This is because people on here mentioned what was wrong so I corrected them accordingly, thanks. Although tech quality is only part of it - see the below post.
For all the trouble Adobe give, they have at least paid me 99c per photo for the last few DLs. which is much better than SS so it was worth it.
-
Obviously there is some issue with extraordinary rejection rate at Adobe, even if Matt is trying to deny that.
Today I got really frustrated as out of batch of 500 diverse pictures 400 has been already rejected. And I am surely not an idiot trying to submit some useless crap, previously my acceptance rate was around 90% and I have almost 8000 pics in my portfolio.
I corrected all 3 photos & adobe has now accepted them. I didn't even have to downsize them. The other thing is that I wrote the exact location in some of the titles this time. Adobe doesn't have too many photos from my local area & there were no I.P. problems either
-
...
You are right. I did not consider the upload limit could be for a time frame, like just a day. I thought it meant that you can't upload more as soon as you reached the limit in your review queue. Doesn't seem to be much of a limit then. If the limit is 500 images a day and the AI image review time currently is 28 days, that means some people have 14.000 AI images waiting to be reviewed. No wonder review times aren't getting any shorter.
true but at least their uploads will be spread out for review
DT has a 3500/week limit which seems like a reasonable approach
-
DT has a 3500/week limit which seems like a reasonable approach
That equals to a limit of 500/day, so the same as Adobe?
But for whatever reason DT doesn't seem to have any problems with keeping up with reviews at all and nothing has changed since they started accepting AI images. I think they even have the fastest reviews of all agencies I submit to.
-
500 a day? 3,500 a week?
I have issues submitting 10 actual good quality real photos a month.
It's not my day job but still. With that rate it will become pointless to submit actual photos.
I will be outnumbered by factor x and my photos will be lost in an ocean of AI images.
-
I couldn't afford the electricity to upload 100s of photos & have them rejected even if I took that many, thanks to the outrageous behavior of UK utility companies.
-
DT has a 3500/week limit which seems like a reasonable approach
That equals to a limit of 500/day, so the same as Adobe?
But for whatever reason DT doesn't seem to have any problems with keeping up with reviews at all and nothing has changed since they started accepting AI images. I think they even have the fastest reviews of all agencies I submit to.
it may just be theydont get as many submissions.
and the difference with 3500/wk is you can upload 1500 in one day. I've never used more than 500+ per WEEK at any site
-
...DT has a 3500/week limit which seems like a reasonable approach
My limit at DT is 7,000 a week - I've no idea how high it can go.
-
Yes...there is a 500 Ai uploads as limited. Thrust me and don't ask how I know that. :)
And yet I have over 900 AI images waiting to be reviewed, so excuse me if I do not "trust" you on this issue. ;)
500 For a new members. Sorry , I forgot to emphasize that. :)
-
I struggle to produce more than 10 good files a day or 50-70 files a week.
That includes gen ai.
Have no idea how people do mass shootings and uploads.
Even with editiorial I don‘t upload everything.
But perhaps that is wrong and I should find a way to double or triple my uploads.
-
A week ago, I had 4 photos rejected by Adobe for "quality issues". Generally, I don't resubmit but I thought I would try resubmitting one of them as a trial.
Predictably, this photo has been accepted by Adobe.
Does this mean that, in the last week, Adobe has reduced their quality standards? Alternatively, perhaps it highlights that there is inconsistency in the review process and that Adobe's review guidelines lack the specificity to allow for consistent reviews.
Does it also mean that we must now adopt the ridiculous 'resubmission game' that has been a feature of the relationship with Shutterstock.
I had thought Adobe was better than that!
-
A week ago, I had 4 photos rejected by Adobe for "quality issues". Generally, I don't resubmit but I thought I would try resubmitting one of them as a trial.
Predictably, this photo has been accepted by Adobe.
Does this mean that, in the last week, Adobe has reduced their quality standards? Alternatively, perhaps it highlights that there is inconsistency in the review process and that Adobe's review guidelines lack the specificity to allow for consistent reviews.
Does it also mean that we must now adopt the ridiculous 'resubmission game' that has been a feature of the relationship with Shutterstock.
I had thought Adobe was better than that!
Agreed and it's not fair to make us use more energy to have to re-upload. Shutterstock has now vastly improved its reviews in the last few months so Adobe should do the same.
-
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.
-
I struggle to produce more than 10 good files a day or 50-70 files a week.
That includes gen ai.
Have no idea how people do mass shootings and uploads.
Even with editiorial I don‘t upload everything.
But perhaps that is wrong and I should find a way to double or triple my uploads.
Both of you are heroes compared to me. I struggle to make one good photo a day. The first obstacle is motivation to work for a dime, but then there's Adobe and I get 99¢. After that here's Alamy for pennies and DT few sales and IS connect, so I'd rather work in the garden or mow the lawn.
You are correct. The theory is, work harder, make more money. That's the investment and reward for your work.
Kind of slow Saturday/Sunday, not the best conditions for access, photo holes and locations were limited, four people on a tower and I had to stand below and wait. 1,600 images. I'm still working on culling, editing, IDs and keywords. My estimate, if I don't get too picky or overly critical is 50-80 images that I will upload. Sometimes I don't get that, because I just didn't get enough good material to start with.
I wonder if anything will be suitable for Adobe? All of the above is for Alamy and SSTK.
-
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.
Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.
-
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.
Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.
Maybe some reviewers from SS have jumped ship & joined Adobe
-
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.
Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.
Maybe some reviewers from SS have jumped ship & joined Adobe
-
Now, the rejections on Adobe get ridiculous. I had two photos of Cartagena (townhall and Roman theatre) rejected because they are too similar to previously submitted photos in my portfolio. I have never been to Cartagena before, so these two are my first photos of Cartagena ever submitted. In my portfolio of 2500 images I have 8 pics of town halls of several cities. Does this rejection reason mean that the townhall of city A is too similar to the townhall of city B? And I am not allowed to submit photos of townhalls of different cities? What worries me, people get their account closed because of similarity. So, when I submit a further townhall from another city I will risk to get my account closed? I don’t understand these rejection rules and how a “reviewer” (AI?) can think the townhall of city A is the same as of city B.
-
Now, the rejections on Adobe get ridiculous. I had two photos of Cartagena (townhall and Roman theatre) rejected because they are too similar to previously submitted photos in my portfolio. I have never been to Cartagena before, so these two are my first photos of Cartagena ever submitted. In my portfolio of 2500 images I have 8 pics of town halls of several cities. Does this rejection reason mean that the townhall of city A is too similar to the townhall of city B? And I am not allowed to submit photos of townhalls of different cities? What worries me, people get their account closed because of similarity. So, when I submit a further townhall from another city I will risk to get my account closed? I don’t understand these rejection rules and how a “reviewer” (AI?) can think the townhall of city A is the same as of city B.
But... rest assured, Adobe is thinking about a mode of compensation for contributors who suffer unfair rejection of their beautiful photos which required so much talent, time and work from them. ::)
-
Now, the rejections on Adobe get ridiculous. I had two photos of Cartagena (townhall and Roman theatre) rejected because they are too similar to previously submitted photos in my portfolio. I have never been to Cartagena before, so these two are my first photos of Cartagena ever submitted. In my portfolio of 2500 images I have 8 pics of town halls of several cities. Does this rejection reason mean that the townhall of city A is too similar to the townhall of city B? And I am not allowed to submit photos of townhalls of different cities? What worries me, people get their account closed because of similarity. So, when I submit a further townhall from another city I will risk to get my account closed? I don’t understand these rejection rules and how a “reviewer” (AI?) can think the townhall of city A is the same as of city B.
Had something similar last week. 8 of 10 rejected for being "too similar".
One of them a wildlife image of a bird, never in my life had taken a photo of that species before.
And it explicitly says too similar to other images in your portfolio, not too similar to others on the site.
Obviously something is broken, but Adobe won't admit it...
-
I can add my voice to the mystery of recent rejections. I had 8 rejected for Quality Issues. The explanation for not meeting their "standard" is: "Common issues that can impact the technical quality of images include exposure issues, soft focus, excessive filtering or artifacts/noise." Soft focus? I downsampled the 130 MB files to 60 MB (45.4 Mpixel to 21 Mp). Still, all were rejected again. I've never seen this before. Something has changed.
-
Same problem. I am contributor for more than 10 years, with approval rate above 95% (main rejections regarding intellectual property). Today I've got a 100% rejection on a set, quality issues. I don't think I've changed my editing style/skills in the past months/year and my images are all accepted on the all other big agencies.
Same here. I've been getting some ridiculous rejections in the past week from adobe when in the past, I have about a 95% acceptance rate like you. I would like to know what's going on and what, if anything, changed.
Maybe some reviewers from SS have jumped ship & joined Adobe
LOL they used to say the same thing about IS reviewers going to SS.
-
Now, the rejections on Adobe get ridiculous. I had two photos of Cartagena (townhall and Roman theatre) rejected because they are too similar to previously submitted photos in my portfolio. I have never been to Cartagena before, so these two are my first photos of Cartagena ever submitted. In my portfolio of 2500 images I have 8 pics of town halls of several cities. Does this rejection reason mean that the townhall of city A is too similar to the townhall of city B? And I am not allowed to submit photos of townhalls of different cities? What worries me, people get their account closed because of similarity. So, when I submit a further townhall from another city I will risk to get my account closed? I don’t understand these rejection rules and how a “reviewer” (AI?) can think the townhall of city A is the same as of city B.
That is completely crazy.
So now we can only upload one image of a church or mountain and no other similar looking locations forever?
I hope Adobe revists their inspection process. Nothing about this is normal.
Unless they really want to lower their photo section in favor of mostly ai images.
-
Now, the rejections on Adobe get ridiculous. I had two photos of Cartagena (townhall and Roman theatre) rejected because they are too similar to previously submitted photos in my portfolio. I have never been to Cartagena before, so these two are my first photos of Cartagena ever submitted. In my portfolio of 2500 images I have 8 pics of town halls of several cities. Does this rejection reason mean that the townhall of city A is too similar to the townhall of city B? And I am not allowed to submit photos of townhalls of different cities? What worries me, people get their account closed because of similarity. So, when I submit a further townhall from another city I will risk to get my account closed? I don’t understand these rejection rules and how a “reviewer” (AI?) can think the townhall of city A is the same as of city B.
Had something similar last week. 8 of 10 rejected for being "too similar".
One of them a wildlife image of a bird, never in my life had taken a photo of that species before.
And it explicitly says too similar to other images in your portfolio, not too similar to others on the site.
Obviously something is broken, but Adobe won't admit it...
You're correct, something is broken.
Here's what they say:
Every file you submit needs to offer something unique. Submitting multiple copies of identical or similar content can be perceived as spamming. Our moderation team will reject similar content, and spamming can lead to your account being blocked or permanently closed.
Although we have had some relies that it means, too similar to other content, I don't see that on the help pages.
Adobe Site: Similar vs Spam https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/similar-vs-spamming.html
Doesn't say similar to other artists content.
One flower is not the same as all other flowers and in your case, one town hall in one location, should not be, too similar to another town hall in a different location.
Yes, something is wrong. Just can't wait for my next upload?
-
So today I had two ai images declined, now I have to wonder if something is wrong with all the others I uploaded in the meantime??
That is the problem with 28 days inspection. If I cannot figure out the "quality" problem and have to wonder if all the rest are a bad batch as well??
I am spreading out my series quite widely, in the hope of catching a friendly or less overworked reviewer so that at least a few files have a chance...
On the upside my last photos were accepted. I am now running them through topaz, maybe that helps.
Or maybe I just got lucky. I simply don't know anymore.
-
I know that Adobe will reject flower or food pictures because they have so many, unless it's shot in a way that is unique.
-
They are taking nearly all of my food pictures and many of my flowers and they are not studio shots and often taken with my iphone.
So there is that.
Actually planning to do more real life food because they take it and it sells quite consistently.
ETA:
They also take anything with isolated objects on white. So, more quirky food, more objects...but I will also find a niche with ai that Adobe takes and that will also sell. I am not giving up.
Also need to do more editorial.
-
.
-
Wow! My wife is an illustrator and usually gets 100% acceptance of her work on Adobe and every other site she submits to, and just like that her "quality" is not good enough for Adobe with 100% rejection. This is getting tres weird.
-
...This is getting tres weird.
Really, really topsy turvey. I seriously doubt that this image would have been accepted other than because it was tagged as AI - the cutout job is pathetically bad. Not even in the ballpark. It was accepted some time earlier today.
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/10/39/73/1000_F_610397313_xSsVzSQK2sOPNOGSWNEiuvDDklcaTLKz.webp) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/close-up-of-a-cute-puppy-dog-sitting-looking-forward-on-a-transparent-background-generative-ai/610397313)
-
maybe I should put less effort into my isolations…😂
I am beginning to wonder if Adobe is testing an ai assisted review process.
That might explain many of the weird rejections.
There is a whole series of bad dog isolations.
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/close-up-of-a-cute-puppy-dog-sitting-looking-forward-on-a-transparent-background-generative-ai/610396036?asset_id=610396036
ai reviews would also explain "similar" rejections for similar looking images that were taken in different countries or locations.
-
Now, the rejections on Adobe get ridiculous. I had two photos of Cartagena (townhall and Roman theatre) rejected because they are too similar to previously submitted photos in my portfolio. I have never been to Cartagena before, so these two are my first photos of Cartagena ever submitted. In my portfolio of 2500 images I have 8 pics of town halls of several cities. Does this rejection reason mean that the townhall of city A is too similar to the townhall of city B? And I am not allowed to submit photos of townhalls of different cities? What worries me, people get their account closed because of similarity. So, when I submit a further townhall from another city I will risk to get my account closed? I don’t understand these rejection rules and how a “reviewer” (AI?) can think the townhall of city A is the same as of city B.
On the "too similar" rejection, that doesn't appear to apply to genAI uploads. I just counted 31 closeup pictures of one eye of a tiger's face - from one contributor and all consecutive (meaning I think they were all uploaded together). Edited to add 53 near identical "exploding" hamburgers, likewise from just one contributor.
This drunk-on-the-greatness-of-genAI just results in a pollution of an otherwise great collection of content...
-
...This is getting tres weird.
Really, really topsy turvey. I seriously doubt that this image would have been accepted other than because it was tagged as AI - the cutout job is pathetically bad. Not even in the ballpark. It was accepted some time earlier today.
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/10/39/73/1000_F_610397313_xSsVzSQK2sOPNOGSWNEiuvDDklcaTLKz.webp) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/close-up-of-a-cute-puppy-dog-sitting-looking-forward-on-a-transparent-background-generative-ai/610397313)
What the...?
Meanwhile I got 95% of a whole AI batch rejected earlier today, while usually 99% of my AI images get accepted. And since I am always using the same AI engine and the same post-procession tools, I know for sure that the "quality" of the submitted images is consistant - But the reviewing is not. It's all over the place.
-
If they are taking all those, why are my ai images being declined? I never upload 30 similar files. 😕
-
If I look at the new gen ai files coming in, there isn‘t a lot of variety.
It is either Midjourney style photos or Midjourney style watercolors.
I am sure people are still uploading more creative things, but this is extremely repetetive.
Perhaps they want as many Midjourney files as possible to complete the training of firefly?
There was a lot more variety a few weeks ago. This looks like they just have one artist team that does everything in a very similar style. In fact they could just hire a team to mass produce this for them.
But they have thousands of international contributors with lots of different ideas, why remove the creativity?
The idea of ai is that you can try so many different new things. But if you look at the current uploads it is just one, edited, extremely limited style collection.
Nobody would limit photos, video or illustrations to this extent? Why do it with ai?
You can always have various edited collections.
As a customer this would not be what I would want.
-
Looking at that horrific dog photo or whatever that crap is I can now understand why I no longer suddenly produce the quality Adobe requires. If that is the bar they are setting going forward then it looks like I will never meet their "quality" expectations again because I will never produce crap like that or attempt to lower my standard to get my work accepted. This is appalling.
-
just had 3 gen ai accepted. absolutely not midjourney style. gives me a little hope that not everything I do is wrong. not from a series.
Will see how the other files do. 28 day wait is very long to worry about problems.
-
Adobe is rejecting more contents than before. This will surely have negative impact on my work
-
I'm going to watch this space to see if AS stops rejecting batches of photography for "Quality" that would have passed before and consistently pass at other sites. Until then I'll pause uploads, as it is now a waste of time.
-
...
Meanwhile I got 95% of a whole AI batch rejected earlier today, while usually 99% of my AI images get accepted. And since I am always using the same AI engine and the same post-procession tools, I know for sure that the "quality" of the submitted images is consistant - But the reviewing is not. It's all over the place.
yes, join the crowd -- entire batches of quality images has been happening for some time now with no response from AS
-
And 2 more declines for photos that are already online elsewhere.
Well, I got lucky with 3 ai files. Need to be grateful for what luck you have.
But this is no fun. I was always uploading to Adobe first, maybe to cheer myself up I should change that. Upload everywhere else and only to Adobe after the files are live?
Are we supposed to resubmit everything that is being declined now in autumn? or whenever they sort themselves out?
Eta:
Looks like the dogs with bad isolations are still there.
https://stock.adobe.com/de/images/close-up-of-a-cute-puppy-dog-sitting-looking-forward-on-a-transparent-background-generative-ai/610396712?prev_url=detail&asset_id=610396712
-
I'm going to watch this space to see if AS stops rejecting batches of photography for "Quality" that would have passed before and consistently pass at other sites. Until then I'll pause uploads, as it is now a waste of time.
It is a complete waste of time. I am having a hard time taking Adobe Stock seriously these last few weeks, especially with that "dog poop" new Adobe standard of quality we are supposed to lower ourselves down to.
-
I've been looking at the genAI new approvals, and a huge percentage of them just make a mockery of any notion of (a) following the rules that Adobe has said contributors should follow (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html) when submitting AI content; and (b) that there is any consistent standard of "quality" being applied there.
In the light of all the "quality" rejections so many have seen in the non-AI content, it just seems madness to be filling the collection with so much substandard stuff. It doesn't help Adobe in any way I can fathom to have a lot of unusable, poor quality genAI images. Can you imagine using these in an ad about all the great new AI content available at Adobe Stock??
I've been keeping a folder of examples but here are just a few examples of AI mistakes that shouldn't be in the collection from this evening's review:
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/10/72/58/1000_F_610725893_aoxGko6iPawy7KNa3ZBBBpYS0Hto8USB.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/office-interior/610725893)
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/12/38/27/1000_F_612382751_KQSmbdeFzm9Bq8CyRMnuOC9W4QOeBiDP.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/happy-father-s-day-greeting-card-design/612382751)
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/12/46/47/1000_F_612464787_7J81sucIV6TvrbwOVubVzxjDOLEcFkIW.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/appetizing-meat-steak-with-bulgur-porridge-and-vegetables/612464787)
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/12/44/34/1000_F_612443420_Re0aBcByVc5JzXXwfrnRYFbkAMqTUzbE.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/independence-day-coffee-cup-usa-flag/612443420)
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/00/96/02/1000_F_600960271_5PuJpFe2jHHJ5rggh0bCYGifvvNxgNn3.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/homemade-autumn-apple-pie-with-splashes-ai-illustration/600960271)
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/10/70/57/1000_F_610705765_FlWSs9ACbZvEqzkcNPqtPDIE05ft5qW8.webp) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/roti-canai-in-transparent-background-ai/610705765)
(https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/10/65/57/1000_F_610655767_0b8tVBKS8xmwKbM5yRLcUg1J4943ErJO.webp) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/living-room-sofa-furniture-isolated-on-transparent-background-plants-png-can-be-used-for-home-decoration-generative-ai/610655767)
-
While I am a big fan of artful mistakes like the lobster, this does not make sense.
What happened to consistent, reliable inspections Adobe?
Have they hired cheap, but unprofessional reviewers that just click accept, decline without looking at anything and with no oversight?
But it looks like if you use ai to create „photos“ anything goes.
-
Jo Anne, I get the
disappearing furniture
Father spelled wrong
Mislabeled food
fantasy USA map
Onions on apple pie
Roti?
Nonsense lamps
but what exactly is wrong with the Roti?
-
...but what exactly is wrong with the Roti?
The back of the plate is completely missing - if you look at the PNG view on Adobe Stock it's easier to see the "hole"
And it's not just nonsense lamps, look at the legs of the chairs - one has only three legs and the lengths are such that you couldn't possibly sit in them :)
And have a "burger with egg" for breakfast while you're here :)
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/12/34/72/1000_F_612347268_q5tbgTlFQvu17GDdQX2oNSnZcrN52oMj.jpg) (https://stock.adobe.com/images/burger-with-egg/612347268)
-
This sandwich is weird, but that would not be as bad for me, because the customer can clearly see what he is getting.
But many of the others have more subtle problems, I didn‘t immediately see the onions or the missing part of the plate only after looking more closely.
The problem remains that normal photos are being randomly declined, but ai is apparently accepted without any human inspection. As long as the ai looks like a photo.
They decline plenty of other ai files.
-
...
And have a "burger with egg" for breakfast while you're here :)
...
burgerw egg is not uncommon, but it's usually under the bun. more curious is the dripping egg yolk when the yolk is unbroken
-
...
And have a "burger with egg" for breakfast while you're here :)
...
burgerw egg is not uncommon, but it's usually under the bun. more curious is the dripping egg yolk when the yolk is unbroken
Good spot on the yolk ;D
Still, I'm sure it meets Adobe's stringent quality standards (no sniggering at the back).
-
I’m a big fan of the M.C Escher table and chairs.
-
So how is it going guys? Is there anyone still trying to submit real photos and can share some insights? I already have another batch of several hundred photos to be added, but I am afraid of getting all of them rejected and wasting my time. Is it still the same as in last couple of weeks?
-
please adobe solve this rejection issue.
-
So how is it going guys? Is there anyone still trying to submit real photos and can share some insights? I already have another batch of several hundred photos to be added, but I am afraid of getting all of them rejected and wasting my time. Is it still the same as in last couple of weeks?
I do real photogaphy, and I am not used to submit snapshots. So, I stopped submitting my best selected work to Adobe stock for now. Because of the last rejections that prove disrespect and contemp form Adobe.
-
So how is it going guys? Is there anyone still trying to submit real photos and can share some insights? I already have another batch of several hundred photos to be added, but I am afraid of getting all of them rejected and wasting my time. Is it still the same as in last couple of weeks?
I just had another batch rejected by Adobe for "quality issues" having been accepted by Shutterstock. It's beyond a joke now. I'm done uploading to Adobe.
-
Avoid HDR if you want less rejections
-
fwiw my acceptance/declines today were fine. one ai file accepted, 3 photos accepted and one file declined but that one is ok
I did treat them with Topaz for better clarity close up.
ETA
Another 5 ai files accepted.
I feel a lot better now, because trying to figure out what could have gone wrong 30 days later is frustrating.
Hope it stays this way.
I don't mind updating my workflow, like adding the Topaz treatment, but I need some kind of predictability.
-
Avoid HDR if you want less rejections
Avoid non AI if you want less rejections ;D ;D ;D
-
Yeah, I’m seeing high numbers of rejections after 10+ years of near 100% approvals. They need to get a grip as they’re becoming impossible to submit to.
Edit, just to clarify… it’s straight photographs they’re declining, illustrations and composite imagery seems ok. I think I’ll just take that as Adobe are no longer looking for photographs and just send that work to other agencies and illustrations etc to Adobe. I’m don’t want to wreck an excellent acceptance rate.
-
Avoid HDR if you want less rejections
Avoid non AI if you want less rejections ;D ;D ;D
Exactly. Either Adobe thinks they have an oversaturated real image portfolio and nothing passes unless it has some real value or they have hired incompetent idiots do the job for reviewing these real photos. Both reasons are more then eligible to avoid submitting any new content. And no counter argument from Adobe here, except they work as usual and it must be your submission that is not the "quality" that Adobe thinks is good enough while other companies have not shown any divergent behaviour on reviewing your submissions.
-
Mine haven’t been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, they’re been declined as similar… because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, don’t worry, Everest summit will do… they look similar!
-
Mine haven’t been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, they’re been declined as similar… because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, don’t worry, Everest summit will do… they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands perfectly why (part) of your submissions are being rejected :)
-
Mine haven’t been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, they’re been declined as similar… because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, don’t worry, Everest summit will do… they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands prefectly why your submissions are being rejected :)
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs.
Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
-
Mat...
Can you please chime in on this. It is now 7 8 pages of concern from several contributors and not a peep from Adobe. In the meantime I will cease to submit my work as it has become a complete waste of my time. These sudden rejections for quality issues en masse is nonsensical and confusing.
I will reach out on a limb and suggest I am not the only one who would like an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
-
Mine haven’t been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, they’re been declined as similar… because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, don’t worry, Everest summit will do… they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands prefectly why your submissions are being rejected :)
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs.
Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
And I do understand the mountain problem. "The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video" (quote Mat).
So obviously within those two seconds of watching your photo or video and reading your title, those mountains must look the same :)
It's like ultra fast scanning with collateral damage.
Thanks Adobe for taking your time on our curated submissions!
Edit:
Maybe Adobe can get some classes from Getty's which (unlikable as they might be to some) do a thorough review, give you the abillity to revise stuff, if possible, and otherwise explain very clearly why your submission is rejected. And they do it within a week.
-
Mine haven’t been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, they’re been declined as similar… because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, don’t worry, Everest summit will do… they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands prefectly why your submissions are being rejected :)
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs.
Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
And I do understand the mountain problem. "The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video" (quote Mat).
So obviously within those two seconds of watching your photo or video and reading your title, those mountains must look the same :)
It's like ultra fast scanning with collateral damage.
Thanks Adobe for taking your time on our curated submissions!
Edit:
Maybe Adobe can get some classes from Getty's which (unlikable as they might be to some) do a thorough review, give you the abillity to revise stuff, if possible, and otherwise explain very clearly why your submission is rejected. And they do it within a week.
The best review process I experienced was Corbis. They were thorough but you knew a pass was a pass and a decline was a decline. Get this, you actually dealt with them over the phone as well and could chat about any problems! I'm probably showing my age now 🤣
-
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs.
Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
Let us know how they respond. Quite curious, as others will be also.
-
Mine haven’t been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, they’re been declined as similar… because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, don’t worry, Everest summit will do… they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands prefectly why your submissions are being rejected :)
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs.
Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
And I do understand the mountain problem. "The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video" (quote Mat).
So obviously within those two seconds of watching your photo or video and reading your title, those mountains must look the same :)
It's like ultra fast scanning with collateral damage.
Thanks Adobe for taking your time on our curated submissions!
Edit:
Maybe Adobe can get some classes from Getty's which (unlikable as they might be to some) do a thorough review, give you the abillity to revise stuff, if possible, and otherwise explain very clearly why your submission is rejected. And they do it within a week.
The best review process I experienced was Corbis. They were thorough but you knew a pass was a pass and a decline was a decline. Get this, you actually dealt with them over the phone as well and could chat about any problems! I'm probably showing my age now 🤣
The Image Bank, Tony Stone, First Light, Masterfile, and even early Getty all used to do that and get this... take 40% commission for representing your work. That's right the contributors received 60%.
Yes, you are definitely showing your age. I went through the very same rigorous editing process and took my lumps as they were usually designed toward improving my craft.
The Adobe rejections of today are laughable from my perspective and experience.
When multiple respected platforms take 90%-95% of submitted work and only one respected platform suddenly, and I do mean suddenly rejects 90%-100% of my submitted content with no explanation other than "quality" issues you can safely assume there are internal issues that need resolving.
-
I remember joining Corbis. You sort of let them know you were interested and then waited... waited... then one day a phone call say,"Corbis Calling" 😂
I remember my editor was Vanessa Kramer... Scared the *$%$ out of me initially but she was great to deal with! I think she retired when Getty took them over!
"When multiple respected platforms take 90%-95% of submitted work and only one respected platform suddenly, and I do mean suddenly rejects 90%-100% of my submitted content with no explanation other than "quality" issues you can safely assume there are internal issues that need resolving."
Definitely... same happened here. Reliably have 90-95% accept then all *&^% breaks out!
-
I interpret Mat not chiming in as a sign that discussions at Adobe are not finished. I hope at some point they just tell us clearly what they want.
-
I interpret Mat not chiming in as a sign that discussions at Adobe are not finished. I hope at some point they just tell us clearly what they want.
Or they don't care. I didn't hear the words "we are looking into it". I heard the words that reviews are done as normal (maybe a bit hasty) but it's your submission that has errors. Or did I miss something?
And, by the way, hope is postponed dissapointment :)
-
And, by the way, hope is postponed dissapointment :)
Never looked at it this way. Sad but true.
If this is the new normal and producers have to just now live with an erratic review process, that would be very disappointing.
And like I said, I am absolutely ready to adapt my workflow. The tip to use Topaz for normal photos was a helpful suggestion. I have thousands of older iphone files that lived a happy and profitable life on eyeem, but where not suitable for normal agencies. Now I can transform and improve quite a few of them.
I can also use my current mobile phone more often and then postprocess with Topaz.
But if this what they would like, to make camera photos look more like ai content close up…just let us know.
-
I wouldn't be so upset if one or two photos from the set I sent were accepted. The entire set is rejected for quality reasons. That's why I'm sending my sets in sets of 5. Thus, fewer images are rejected at the same time. Smaller sets are accepted. As it says in their description, I change the name of the rejected images and send them again. All are accepted. And the image is bought immediately..
Rejections are just a waste of time and frustrating. I've been posting photos to adobestock for years and it was rarely rejected. I thought it was about me. But when I read the comments, I realized that I was not alone.
-
This is why sharing information is so useful.
This rejection issue popped up two weeks (?) ago in all kinds of different stock groups by very different people and in different languages. And every day more people chime in as they realize it is not them.
I don't mind if agencies adapt their review process and want to take their collection in a new direction. I simply expect to be told this is happening so we can adjust our work.
Uploading, then reuploading a few weeks later is a complete waste of time.
Also we all have a lot of experience with our targeted customer groups and know what will sell. We also know how to time our uploads for optimal results.
Whatever the issue at Adobe, I hope they sort themselves out and let us know.
-
i also hope that adobe with fix this issue soon. adobe is the only company i love so much
-
It seems that Adobe recently change the way of submitted content moderation 8)
-
Two ai files accepted. Different themes one food/ one animal.
But in a German group people report mass rejections of batches with 30 files.
I will try to space my files mostly as individual elements, instead of a cohesive series. Hope that helps.
-
It feels a bit like flogging a dead horse, but here's another example of some items accepted into the GenAI collection that should have been rejected.
I know it's not news that AI can't spell, but accepting this work (and these were just a few examples) isn't helping customers in any way. Please have some creatives at Adobe take the C-suite folks aside and explain that filling the collection with unusable work is doing harm. Why would Adobe want to tarnish its reputation as a quality stock site??
Click on the small image to see the previews full size
(https://digitalbristles.com/temp/TN-AI%20cant%20spell.jpg) (https://digitalbristles.com/temp/AI%20cant%20spell.jpg)
-
It feels a bit like flogging a dead horse, but here's another example of some items accepted into the GenAI collection that should have been rejected.
I know it's not news that AI can't spell, but accepting this work (and these were just a few examples) isn't helping customers in any way. Please have some creatives at Adobe take the C-suite folks aside and explain that filling the collection with unusable work is doing harm. Why would Adobe want to tarnish its reputation as a quality stock site??
Click on the small image to see the previews full size
(https://digitalbristles.com/temp/TN-AI%20cant%20spell.jpg) (https://digitalbristles.com/temp/AI%20cant%20spell.jpg)
Well, accepting such a crap and at the same time rejecting quality content from real phographers is very disrespectful, both to creators and customers of Adobe Stock. I wonder why Mat suddenly stopped replying in this topic, especially considering that there is more and more evidence that review process is completely broken.
-
I always remove broken texts unless it is complete „artful“ gibberish or looks like an intentional alien language.
But like others write, if they take this stuff, why reject so many normal photos?
Wouldn‘t the firefly ai need as many real world photos as possible for ai training?
-
I always remove broken texts unless it is complete „artful“ gibberish or looks like an intentional alien language.
Minimal ethics.
One should not be too satisfied to become one of the AI slaves... ::)
And avoid feeling like becoming an AIrtist...
-
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create useful content for stock customers, my artist soul doesn't care if I shoot objects on white, happy people eating salad or ai content.
If it brings money I am fine.
Not here to "discover myself and transform the world with my unique painful essence"...or whatever floats your boat...
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
-
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
;D ;D
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
-
Apparently you don‘t create with your camera or computer.
Make yourself happy as a „proper“ artists and keep looking down on us lowlife stock creatives.
I am perfectly fine to take in all the money with MY CREATIONS, irrespective of medium or tools used.
-
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
;D ;D
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
Well, with my camera I also only press one button ;)
I am absolutely no friend of AI. But now it's there and it won't go away.
So I also played around with my Midjourney subscription for a month. First of all, I had to realize that meaningful, complex images can't be created only at the push of a button.
It needs a bit more.
Different formulations, settings, even the image format lead to different results. So you need a little experience and maybe even a little language talent.
Afterwards, the images have to be reworked, sometimes at great expense, and also keyworded. So all in all, it's a bit more complex than flushing a toilet.
In the meantime I have paused the AI again, because I prefer to be outdoors quite old fashioned with my camera instead of spending the whole day at the computer.
But there's definitely no reason to go after those who are trying to make money with the new medium.
So I also assume that there is still a market for real photos. For illustrators it might look a bit more critical.
-
Another 4 ai files accepted, no declines.
This really makes me feel a lot better. My ai processing seems to be ok.
2 christmas, one food, one painting. No series, all individual files.
-
Mat...
Can you please chime in on this. It is now 7 8 pages of concern from several contributors and not a peep from Adobe. In the meantime I will cease to submit my work as it has become a complete waste of my time. These sudden rejections for quality issues en masse is nonsensical and confusing.
I will reach out on a limb and suggest I am not the only one who would like an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
I'm guessing Mat hasn't seen this thread because I don't think he checks the general forum. If this thread was moved over to the Adobe Forum, he'd probably jump in....which would be nice
-
Mat...
Can you please chime in on this. It is now 7 8 pages of concern from several contributors and not a peep from Adobe. In the meantime I will cease to submit my work as it has become a complete waste of my time. These sudden rejections for quality issues en masse is nonsensical and confusing.
I will reach out on a limb and suggest I am not the only one who would like an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
I'm guessing Mat hasn't seen this thread because I don't think he checks the general forum. If this thread was moved over to the Adobe Forum, he'd probably jump in....which would be nice
Take a look at his replies on page 4 of this thread. Some of them were most unlike Mat... I'm starting to worry Adobe may have cloned him with a faulty bit of AI (joking).
On a positive note, Shutterstock now seem to have lost the dodgy AI reviewing system (or improved it) as they no longer seem to produce weird similar, poor quality declines that we are seeing at AS now.
Maybe they sold the old system to AS?!? Again...not being serious.
-
Mat...
Can you please chime in on this. It is now 7 8 pages of concern from several contributors and not a peep from Adobe. In the meantime I will cease to submit my work as it has become a complete waste of my time. These sudden rejections for quality issues en masse is nonsensical and confusing.
I will reach out on a limb and suggest I am not the only one who would like an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
I'm guessing Mat hasn't seen this thread because I don't think he checks the general forum. If this thread was moved over to the Adobe Forum, he'd probably jump in....which would be nice
I am going to presume that Mat has not chimed in because his employer has directed him to not chime in. Lest we forget that Mat is not on this forum of his own free volition, he is a salaried employee of a corporation and has a set of parameters of what he can and will say.
-
Mat...
Can you please chime in on this. It is now 7 8 pages of concern from several contributors and not a peep from Adobe. In the meantime I will cease to submit my work as it has become a complete waste of my time. These sudden rejections for quality issues en masse is nonsensical and confusing.
I will reach out on a limb and suggest I am not the only one who would like an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
I'm guessing Mat hasn't seen this thread because I don't think he checks the general forum. If this thread was moved over to the Adobe Forum, he'd probably jump in....which would be nice
But he replied in this thread, so he must have seen it? He said everything was peachy at Adobe and Adobe had a very high acceptance rate and that was pretty much all he had to say on that matter.
But then again, Mat also claimed they were making progress with the review times and all that is really happening is that review times get longer and longer. Honestly, I did not have the feeling that Mat even had any real insight into the review process.
-
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
;D ;D
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
Very funny and hitting the nail on the head. The others just don't get it. They only care about money. And how that comes in, is not in their interest. If they need to collect empty bottles in the street that is fine for them also. As long as it pays them a few dollars.
-
The others just don't get it. They only care about money.
And you are working for the higher purpose of enlightening the world with your outstanding instant life changing art, right?
Then, why do stock?
Just do what you do and float around in your elite art circles debating the senseless idea that people actually make a living selling one push button images, while you are still working with oil paints or scratching the walls of a cave with flintstone in perfect human true art tradition.
We, the unworthy button pushers could never dream of reaching your superior intellect and true understanding of the universe.
-
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
;D ;D
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
Very funny and hitting the nail on the head. The others just don't get it. They only care about money. And how that comes in, is not in their interest. If they need to collect empty bottles in the street that is fine for them also. As long as it pays them a few dollars.
Why always directly so insulting when you do not like other opinions.
From my point of view, you have not understood something here.
As already mentioned, I am also not a fan of AI.
But the AI is there now and will not disappear. So the only question is how we deal with it. So what's wrong with using this new tool wisely?
The problem and annoyance are those who suddenly produce thousands of images and fill the agencies with low-quality junk. Or do not mark the images as AI. This, in turn, is not a genuine problem of AI, but of the agencies, namely Adobe.
-
Well... so far this week it has been 100% rejection. Not a single file accepted (photographic). Bear in mind my lifetime rank is around 520 and I've been submitting to them for about 10 years so it's not like I'm a new contributor with no experience.
I've deleted the files that were waiting to go to them and for now, I'm going to pause submitting photographic content as I don't want to damage my acceptance rate. I'm waiting on a reply from AS when I contacted support about the problem.
I really like AS and I'm sure they'll sort it out but the radio silence, I have to admit, is rather concerning.
Edit. I've also asked for feedback as to what, "Quality Issues" because if there is problem, I want to resolve it. It's just that they pass everywhere else so it's a bit confusing as to why just AS. Hopefully someone will reply.
-
And you are working for the higher purpose of enlightening the world with your outstanding instant life changing art, right?
....scratching the walls of a cave with flintstone in perfect human true art tradition.
We, the unworthy button pushers could never dream of reaching your superior intellect and true understanding of the universe.
i highly recommend netflix 'Cunk on Earth' a hilarious send up of history channel type l faux documentaries. she's aggressively ignorant as a presenter, eg describing cave painting hunting scenes as 'the war of men against cows'
-
Well... so far this week it has been 100% rejection. Not a single file accepted (photographic). Bear in mind my lifetime rank is around 520 and I've been submitting to them for about 10 years so it's not like I'm a new contributor with no experience.
...I'm waiting on a reply from AS when I contacted support about the problem.
...
same here i had 2 30-40 image batches 100% rejected quality issues, - still waiting for a reply from support that i sent 2 weeks ago. for now, i'm only be submitting AI art while SS & DT are selling the rejected images
meanwhile, SS had been immediately rejecting batches for 'exposure' - they answered my email w/in a few days & gave me a way to, bypass the initial AI review & go to actual reviewers and all have been accepted
-
Well... so far this week it has been 100% rejection. Not a single file accepted (photographic). Bear in mind my lifetime rank is around 520 and I've been submitting to them for about 10 years so it's not like I'm a new contributor with no experience.
I've deleted the files that were waiting to go to them and for now, I'm going to pause submitting photographic content as I don't want to damage my acceptance rate. I'm waiting on a reply from AS when I contacted support about the problem.
I really like AS and I'm sure they'll sort it out but the radio silence, I have to admit, is rather concerning.
Edit. I've also asked for feedback as to what, "Quality Issues" because if there is problem, I want to resolve it. It's just that they pass everywhere else so it's a bit confusing as to why just AS. Hopefully someone will reply.
I have done the same thing and won't submit any new work until I see this nonsense is remedied.
-
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
;D ;D
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
Very funny and hitting the nail on the head. The others just don't get it. They only care about money. And how that comes in, is not in their interest. If they need to collect empty bottles in the street that is fine for them also. As long as it pays them a few dollars.
Why always directly so insulting when you do not like other opinions.
From my point of view, you have not understood something here.
As already mentioned, I am also not a fan of AI.
But the AI is there now and will not disappear. So the only question is how we deal with it. So what's wrong with using this new tool wisely?
The problem and annoyance are those who suddenly produce thousands of images and fill the agencies with low-quality junk. Or do not mark the images as AI. This, in turn, is not a genuine problem of AI, but of the agencies, namely Adobe.
Hi Ralf, didn't think you thought you were spoken to.
Let me explain a bit better. I make my money in a complete other sector (which is not art) and I would have to sell at least ten thousand of Shutterstock subscription sales a day to match that income.
But I have a passion, which is photography. I use microstock to understand the value of my photography. Are people willing to buy it or not? I am obviously not in my place there because I only submit photography that I like to shoot and not what the market might actually need. And I am fine with that. It is not my goal to be the best. I am just measuring for myself.
I feel compassion for and I am interested in people who are doing this for their livelyhood. I think it's great if someone was able to earn their money through microstock (if it is photo or video). I understand their dissapointment that the market has gone down and that it is a struggle to get by these days. I understand that people were able to make money of their passion years ago and then the market collapsed.
That is why I am also rude maybe to Mat because I know he is not telling you the truth sometimes. I know corporate speak when I see it. It's not his personal fault. He is an employee but he cannot always get away with statements which are obviously misleading.
I really strongly believe that AI will kill any remained hope for these people that I just mentioned. I am sure they are passionate about their photography and video making (even though they have to shoot something else they would maybe prefer).
In the near feature every idiot (or maybe they are doing it already now, Adobe seems to accept it all), will be able to produce fantastic results with just a few words and one push of the button. Your long waiting time is because all these idiots are flooding Adobe's system.
Contributors here that have an awful portfolio are going all-in on this AI stuff, merely because they smell the money. And those are the people I am referring to in my previous post. Same kind of people as the thiefs that rip a photo or video from your portfolio and trying to sell them with another agency. It's only about the money and has nothing to do with the art or passion of photography or videomaking.
AI sucks also because it has also nothing to do with photography, videomaking or Art at all. It's a bloody computer algortihm that leeches on people's work. It's not creative at all.
For all those people that think they are needed because you need to tweek the original output of AI. It will be short lived. That tweeking will soon not be neccesary anymore.
Lastly, it is, like other people said, disrespectful and outrageous that Adobe accepts junk from AI and rejects high quality real work. It certainly seems they think that AI is the future and have left real work behind them. I am really wondering if they will also stop with their core products like Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere Pro etc.. Why would they continue with that, if it is not the future for them?
-
I am happy to explore a new medium.
I create
If art is your big thing, why do stock?
;D ;D
I'm going to feel creative too next time, when I flush the toilet, since that's what happens when you press a button...
End of story. I stop loosing time now.
Very funny and hitting the nail on the head. The others just don't get it. They only care about money. And how that comes in, is not in their interest. If they need to collect empty bottles in the street that is fine for them also. As long as it pays them a few dollars.
Why always directly so insulting when you do not like other opinions.
From my point of view, you have not understood something here.
As already mentioned, I am also not a fan of AI.
But the AI is there now and will not disappear. So the only question is how we deal with it. So what's wrong with using this new tool wisely?
The problem and annoyance are those who suddenly produce thousands of images and fill the agencies with low-quality junk. Or do not mark the images as AI. This, in turn, is not a genuine problem of AI, but of the agencies, namely Adobe.
Hi Ralf, didn't think you thought you were spoken to.
Let me explain a bit better. I make my money in a complete other sector (which is not art) and I would have to sell at least ten thousand of Shutterstock subscription sales a day to match that income.
But I have a passion, which is photography. I use microstock to understand the value of my photography. Are people willing to buy it or not? I am obviously not in my place there because I only submit photography that I like to shoot and not what the market might actually need. And I am fine with that. It is not my goal to be the best. I am just measuring for myself.
I feel compassion for and I am interested in people who are doing this for their livelyhood. I think it's great if someone was able to earn their money through microstock (if it is photo or video). I understand their dissapointment that the market has gone down and that it is a struggle to get by these days. I understand that people were able to make money of their passion years ago and then the market collapsed.
That is why I am also rude maybe to Mat because I know he is not telling you the truth sometimes. I know corporate speak when I see it. It's not his personal fault. He is an employee but he cannot always get away with statements which are obviously misleading.
I really strongly believe that AI will kill any remained hope for these people that I just mentioned. I am sure they are passionate about their photography and video making (even though they have to shoot something else they would maybe prefer).
In the near feature every idiot (or maybe they are doing it already now, Adobe seems to accept it all), will be able to produce fantastic results with just a few words and one push of the button. Your long waiting time is because all these idiots are flooding Adobe's system.
Contributors here that have an awful portfolio are going all-in on this AI stuff, merely because they smell the money. And those are the people I am referring to in my previous post. Same kind of people as the thiefs that rip a photo or video from your portfolio and trying to sell them with another agency. It's only about the money and has nothing to do with the art or passion of photography or videomaking.
AI sucks also because it has also nothing to do with photography, videomaking or Art at all. It's a bloody computer algortihm that leeches on people's work. It's not creative at all.
For all those people that think they are needed because you need to tweek the original output of AI. It will be short lived. That tweeking will soon not be neccesary anymore.
Lastly, it is, like other people said, disrespectful and outrageous that Adobe accepts junk from AI and rejects high quality real work. It certainly seems they think that AI is the future and have left real work behind them. I am really wondering if they will also stop with their core products like Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere Pro etc.. Why would they continue with that, if it is not the future for them?
Edit: I said thousand but I meant ten thousand a day. It's corrected.
Thank you SVH, I can live with this differentiated answer and your point of view.
I understand that then also as a good constructive exchange of views - now ;)
-
I had one ai decline, but I actually agree with the reviewer, the image was too dark. I reworked it and uploaded it again and hope it will now pass.
So today 4 accepted ais, one reasonable decline with a fitting explanation.
ETA:
I am honored to have the opportunity to uplift my horrible, lowly, cringeworthy portfolio with ai images. Finally I can enjoy a beautiful real artsy port that I could never achieve before, because of my inferior intellect.
-
And you are working for the higher purpose of enlightening the world with your outstanding instant life changing art, right?
....scratching the walls of a cave with flintstone in perfect human true art tradition.
We, the unworthy button pushers could never dream of reaching your superior intellect and true understanding of the universe.
i highly recommend netflix 'Cunk on Earth' a hilarious send up of history channel type l faux documentaries. she's aggressively ignorant as a presenter, eg describing cave painting hunting scenes as 'the war of men against cows'
That sounds like fun, will look for it, thank you.
I am a big fan of the documentary "Cave of the forgotten Dreams" by Werner Herzog.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1664894/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1664894/)
I saw it several times in 3D in the cinema. It is incredible. Hypnotic, especially if they light it with candles or torches. The animals come to life, they move. I ended up dreaming about the experience, it was very weird.
Makes you realize that while we are separated by thousands of years, they were us.
-
@svh
"But I have a passion, which is photography. I use microstock to understand the value of my photography. Are people willing to buy it or not? I am obviously not in my place there because I only submit photography that I like to shoot and not what the market might actually need. And I am fine with that. It is not my goal to be the best. I am just measuring for myself."
What you are saying is, you are an amateur photographer with no interest to understand the actual needs of the customers.
That is why it is unlikely you will make reliable money from stock.
Stock is a service oriented business, not a self discovery journey. We don't make the content for ourselves, we make it for the customers and their projects.
You come into a professional business forum then proceed to judge and lecture the people that do this for a living.
You might as well enter a forum that supports the techs who sell and repair washing machines. Then proceed to criticize and belittle people while they are actually working.
And you don't even notice how out of place you are.
But we get your kind all the time, usually male, retired, bored and in love with their overpriced camera gear.
Have fun, while you are here, but you will get bored and move on sooner or later.
While we will still be here in 20 years.
eta:
Just as an example
my eyeem port
https://www.eyeem.com/u/cobaltstock (https://www.eyeem.com/u/cobaltstock)
my eyeem lifetime earnings - How did I do that?
-
@svh
"But I have a passion, which is photography. I use microstock to understand the value of my photography. Are people willing to buy it or not? I am obviously not in my place there because I only submit photography that I like to shoot and not what the market might actually need. And I am fine with that. It is not my goal to be the best. I am just measuring for myself."
What you are saying is, you are an amateur photographer with no interest to understand the actual needs of the customers.
That is why it is unlikely you will make reliable money from stock.
Stock is a service oriented business, not a self discovery journey. We don't make the content for ourselves, we make it for the customers and their projects.
You come into a professional business forum then proceed to judge and lecture the people that do this for a living.
You might as well enter a forum that supports the techs who sell and repair washing machines. Then proceed to criticize and belittle people while they are actually working.
And you don't even notice how out of place you are.
But we get your kind all the time, usually male, retired, bored and in love with their overpriced camera gear.
Have fun, while you are here, but you will get bored and move on sooner or later.
While we will still be here in 20 years.
eta:
Just as an example
my eyeem port
https://www.eyeem.com/u/cobaltstock (https://www.eyeem.com/u/cobaltstock)
my eyeem lifetime earnings - How did I do that?
Worst part of this business is that so many people call their online images - stock photo portfolio and get accepted by agencies since Shutterstock lowered acceptance standard.
While it is basically social media posts lookalike images about their breakfast, lunch, dinner with keywords.
10 years ago that content would be rejected with a shovel.
P.S. That lifetime earnings many people from this forum earn in a month so there is no point for trying to brag with it.
It just states that you are interested in nothing else but the money which was obvious before, with your AI content advocating and so many posts about that on
this forum.
P.S.S. How did they do that ? By submitting quality stock content, not just random snack images.
-
12 files accepted, one file declined.
All 10 ai images accepted, one photo accepted, one photo declined for "quality". Things done with natural light/not studio is always wobbly with Adobe. But the file is already live and selling elsewhere. Maybe in a few weeks I will revisit all the declines where I cannot really see what the exact problem is.
So, for me this is a normal review day. Hope it stays like this.
Most of the ai images are winter/christmas, so it is good they are live, otherwise it will become too late.
Might start to work on easter/valentine ai soon.
-
@svh
"But I have a passion, which is photography. I use microstock to understand the value of my photography. Are people willing to buy it or not? I am obviously not in my place there because I only submit photography that I like to shoot and not what the market might actually need. And I am fine with that. It is not my goal to be the best. I am just measuring for myself."
What you are saying is, you are an amateur photographer with no interest to understand the actual needs of the customers.
That is why it is unlikely you will make reliable money from stock.
Stock is a service oriented business, not a self discovery journey. We don't make the content for ourselves, we make it for the customers and their projects.
You come into a professional business forum then proceed to judge and lecture the people that do this for a living.
You might as well enter a forum that supports the techs who sell and repair washing machines. Then proceed to criticize and belittle people while they are actually working.
And you don't even notice how out of place you are.
But we get your kind all the time, usually male, retired, bored and in love with their overpriced camera gear.
Have fun, while you are here, but you will get bored and move on sooner or later.
While we will still be here in 20 years.
eta:
Just as an example
my eyeem port
https://www.eyeem.com/u/cobaltstock (https://www.eyeem.com/u/cobaltstock)
my eyeem lifetime earnings - How did I do that?
Why post your lifetime earnings? It's a bit juvenile. That said it's decent income for basic and random snack photos. Imagine how much more it would be if you submitted real quality.
I took a look at your port and my only comment is before microstock started and dropped the bar in quality, you would have never made it into the "closed shop" of macro stock.
-
I was a getty house contributor, but gave it up after the drama around the getty google deal.
Now I supply many agencies, including macrostock.
I didn‘t start with eyeem. And these are not my total lifetime earnings in stock. It is just eyeem.
I posted the earnings to show that I understand the customers needs. Unlike the contributor this post is directed to, I did stock fulltime for many years, then took a ten year break, now back to rebuilding my income in stock.
We always get amateurs here every year who have absolutely no clue about industry trends or what is really needed.
The pros here will outsell the clueless 100 to one if they did a shoot together. And they would do it using an iphone, while the amateurs gloat about their Leica M Noctiluxcombo.
Even on eyeem, the amateurs make no serious money. Unless they morph into stock producers and put the customer first.
ETA:
I was getting 50% of what eyeem was getting from getty. Because these are 95% getty sales.
If eyeem got the usual 20%…try to imagine what the customers were actually paying for my content that you are so derisive about.
Eyeem was sitting on an absolute goldmine of content, but they had no clue how to monetize it.
Now they are gone.
In this industry it is only the customer that matters. Only their projects, their needs and their money.
-
And you are working for the higher purpose of enlightening the world with your outstanding instant life changing art, right?
....scratching the walls of a cave with flintstone in perfect human true art tradition.
We, the unworthy button pushers could never dream of reaching your superior intellect and true understanding of the universe.
i highly recommend netflix 'Cunk on Earth' a hilarious send up of history channel type l faux documentaries. she's aggressively ignorant as a presenter, eg describing cave painting hunting scenes as 'the war of men against cows'
That sounds like fun, will look for it, thank you.
I am a big fan of the documentary "Cave of the forgotten Dreams" by Werner Herzog.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1664894/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1664894/)
I saw it several times in 3D in the cinema. It is incredible. Hypnotic, especially if they light it with candles or torches. The animals come to life, they move. I ended up dreaming about the experience, it was very weird.
Makes you realize that while we are separated by thousands of years, they were us.
yes, that's an excellent (serious) documentary
-
I was a getty house contributor, but gave it up after the drama around the getty google deal.
Now I supply many agencies, including macrostock.
I didn‘t start with eyeem. And these are not my total lifetime earnings in stock. It is just eyeem.
I posted the earnings to show that I understand the customers needs. Unlike the contributor this post is directed to, I did stock fulltime for many years, then took a ten year break, now back to rebuilding my income in stock.
We always get amateurs here every year who have absolutely no clue about industry trends or what is really needed.
The pros here will outsell the clueless 100 to one if they did a shoot together. And they would do it using an iphone, while the amateurs gloat about their Leica M Noctiluxcombo.
Even on eyeem, the amateurs make no serious money. Unless they morph into stock producers and put the customer first.
ETA:
I was getting 50% of what eyeem was getting from getty. Because these are 95% getty sales.
If eyeem got the usual 20%…try to imagine what the customers were actually paying for my content that you are so derisive about.
Eyeem was sitting on an absolute goldmine of content, but they had no clue how to monetize it.
Now they are gone.
In this industry it is only the customer that matters. Only their projects, their needs and their money.
What can I say?
You used to be a passionate photographer (although I can't see it from what you are showing) and now you sold your soul to AI pushing buttons to get some bucks.
You actually proof my point.
-
Strange arrogant discussion here by self-proclaimed star photographers who themselves do not put their quality images here for discussion.
Stock agencies are in my opinion and experience no vernissage of high-carat images (of course, there should also be), but a collection of images that are needed by customers.
Do you top-photographers actually take a look at which images are used in the media?
Not every customer needs highly polished, artfully perfect works, but also simple pictures from everyday life.
This market is also large and lucrative.
My example image of snacks is admittedly of poor quality, actually embarrassing to others and was somehow an accident. But it obviously has content - and that's what stock photography is all about - that resonates with customers. Over 100 customers have so far chosen the image over your high quality fries alternatives in the face of stiff competition.
-
Strange arrogant discussion here by self-proclaimed star photographers who themselves do not put their quality images here for discussion.
Stock agencies are in my opinion and experience no vernissage of high-carat images (of course, there should also be), but a collection of images that are needed by customers.
Do you top-photographers actually take a look at which images are used in the media?
Not every customer needs highly polished, artfully perfect works, but also simple pictures from everyday life.
This market is also large and lucrative.
My example image of snacks is admittedly of poor quality, actually embarrassing to others and was somehow an accident. But it obviously has content - and that's what stock photography is all about - that resonates with customers. Over 100 customers have so far chosen the image over your high quality fries alternatives in the face of stiff competition.
Ralf, do you also mostly supply AI images these days? If so, then the same goes for you.
If not, read what your fellow contributor says and let it sink in before, again, you think you are targeted here:
"All 10 ai images accepted, one photo accepted, one photo declined for "quality"."
Edit: Which brings us back to the original issue. Real photos being rejected without any good reason while Adobe is accepting nearly all AI stuff. And no answer from Adobe whatsoever.
-
Strange arrogant discussion here by self-proclaimed star photographers who themselves do not put their quality images here for discussion.
Stock agencies are in my opinion and experience no vernissage of high-carat images (of course, there should also be), but a collection of images that are needed by customers.
Do you top-photographers actually take a look at which images are used in the media?
Not every customer needs highly polished, artfully perfect works, but also simple pictures from everyday life.
This market is also large and lucrative.
My example image of snacks is admittedly of poor quality, actually embarrassing to others and was somehow an accident. But it obviously has content - and that's what stock photography is all about - that resonates with customers. Over 100 customers have so far chosen the image over your high quality fries alternatives in the face of stiff competition.
Ralf, do you also mostly supply AI images these days? If so, then the same goes for you.
If not, read what your fellow contributor says and let it sink in before, again, you think you are targeted here:
"All 10 ai images accepted, one photo accepted, one photo declined for "quality"."
No I have not submitted any AI images yet. But that doesn't mean I won't do it someday.
What is annoying me here, is that some self-proclaimed top photographers take apart the portfolio of a forum member without being asked and make it bad. I do not find it ok and beside the point.
And the income for an agency like Eyeem is impressive.
-
Strange arrogant discussion here by self-proclaimed star photographers who themselves do not put their quality images here for discussion.
Stock agencies are in my opinion and experience no vernissage of high-carat images (of course, there should also be), but a collection of images that are needed by customers.
Do you top-photographers actually take a look at which images are used in the media?
Not every customer needs highly polished, artfully perfect works, but also simple pictures from everyday life.
This market is also large and lucrative.
My example image of snacks is admittedly of poor quality, actually embarrassing to others and was somehow an accident. But it obviously has content - and that's what stock photography is all about - that resonates with customers. Over 100 customers have so far chosen the image over your high quality fries alternatives in the face of stiff competition.
Ralf, do you also mostly supply AI images these days? If so, then the same goes for you.
If not, read what your fellow contributor says and let it sink in before, again, you think you are targeted here:
"All 10 ai images accepted, one photo accepted, one photo declined for "quality"."
No I have not submitted any AI images yet. But that doesn't mean I won't do it someday.
What is annoying me here, is that some self-proclaimed top photographers take apart the portfolio of a forum member without being asked and make it bad. I do not find it ok and beside the point.
And the income for an agency like Eyeem is impressive.
Just curious and no judgement. Do you think between taking a actual photo, and all that comes with that, is interchangeable with typing some words and create an AI image? And it's the same creativity?
But I do not want to hijack any further this topic which is about why Adobe suddenly seems to reject real photos from respected contributors with a normal high approval rate. And the fact that Adobe does not wish to respond to that concern via Mat.
-
Have anyone seen Mat Hayward recently ?
It seems like he disappeared from the forum ?
P.S. Each day I am more and more convinced that Adobe moderation team is full of incompetent people with no previous knowledge about art or photography that "passed" some kind of a week or so training that they received from "experienced" coworkers.
-
I've been in contact with AS and Mat recently about rejections. The ones I took issue with do appear to have been approved now (now in the accepted list, image portfolio)... I'm waiting on a follow up confirming what actually happened.
I have to say I found Mat to be very understanding and balanced with his assessment. I have no issues there at all. Hopefully the rejection problem is a growing pain issue due to the high volume of images rather than a change in policy.
If I had any issue, AS should have seen this coming... we've seen how fraudsters have worked tirelessly in the Stock Industry, especially at Shutterstock, so there was bound to be a massive influx of chancers submitting dodgy work etc by the 1000's.
Personally, I'd like to see AI have its own queue away from photographs, illustrations and human pngs etc and for any delay to affect them only rather than impacting everyone. At the moment photographs seem to go through ok but png's take an age.
-
I've been in contact with AS and Mat recently about rejections. The ones I took issue with do appear to have been approved now (now in the accepted list, image portfolio)... I'm waiting on a follow up confirming what actually happened.
I have to say I found Mat to be very understanding and balanced with his assessment. I have no issues there at all. Hopefully the rejection problem is a growing pain issue due to the high volume of images rather than a change in policy.
If I had any issue, AS should have seen this coming... we've seen how fraudsters have worked tirelessly in the Stock Industry, especially at Shutterstock, so there was bound to be a massive influx of chancers submitting dodgy work etc by the 1000's.
Personally, I'd like to see AI have its own queue away from photographs, illustrations and human pngs etc and for any delay to affect them only rather than impacting everyone. At the moment photographs seem to go through ok but png's take an age.
Thank you for your update, you are more communicative than Adobe in this fiasco.
I am glad they looked into your image/s but what the real going concern is the mass rejections that totally break the pattern of years previously.
I have completely halted uploading as the rejections are beyond reasonable and quite frankly a complete waste of my time.
We have been assured by Mat that nothing has changed, and I think is safe to say after 9 pages of a thread proclaiming the opposite that this simply is not true.
Honestly I expect more from Adobe as they are usually top shelf but lately they have dropped the ball on this issue, and for that I among others are very concerned.
I am not at all concerned about a longer inspection time, this is totally understandable, volume creates delays. What concerns me is the SUDDEN extremely high amount of rejections or total rejections of quality content not meeting their quality standards. It is the polar opposite of the experience I have had since Adobe took over from Fotolia, black and white different.
I just with they would a) address this issue or b) fix it.
-
I've been in contact with AS and Mat recently about rejections. The ones I took issue with do appear to have been approved now (now in the accepted list, image portfolio)... I'm waiting on a follow up confirming what actually happened.
I have to say I found Mat to be very understanding and balanced with his assessment. I have no issues there at all. Hopefully the rejection problem is a growing pain issue due to the high volume of images rather than a change in policy.
If I had any issue, AS should have seen this coming... we've seen how fraudsters have worked tirelessly in the Stock Industry, especially at Shutterstock, so there was bound to be a massive influx of chancers submitting dodgy work etc by the 1000's.
Personally, I'd like to see AI have its own queue away from photographs, illustrations and human pngs etc and for any delay to affect them only rather than impacting everyone. At the moment photographs seem to go through ok but png's take an age.
Thank you for your update, you are more communicative than Adobe in this fiasco.
I am glad they looked into your image/s but what the real going concern is the mass rejections that totally break the pattern of years previously.
I have completely halted uploading as the rejections are beyond reasonable and quite frankly a complete waste of my time.
We have been assured by Mat that nothing has changed, and I think is safe to say after 9 pages of a thread proclaiming the opposite that this simply is not true.
Honestly I expect more from Adobe as they are usually top shelf but lately they have dropped the ball on this issue, and for that I among others are very concerned.
I am not at all concerned about a longer inspection time, this is totally understandable, volume creates delays. What concerns me is the SUDDEN extremely high amount of rejections or total rejections of quality content not meeting their quality standards. It is the polar opposite of the experience I have had since Adobe took over from Fotolia, black and white different.
I just with they would a) address this issue or b) fix it.
Please share your account number with me via PM or direct email to [email protected]. Share with me the date range, the number of images in the batch that were all refused and some file numbers for content you believe was inappropriately rejected. I will be more than happy to explore.
I cannot add any value to this discussion based on anonymous complaints of invalid rejections. I've not seen evidence of the "SUDDEN extremely high amount of rejections" being reported. To investigate, I need to see real-world examples. Without that, we are just spinning wheels here.
thanks,
Mat Hayward
-
Good to see that Mat is here and well.
P.S. I am still more and more convinced that Adobe moderation team is full of incompetent people with no previous knowledge about art or photography that "passed" some kind of a week or so training that they received from "experienced" coworkers.
-
I have also noticed an unusual rate of rejections from Adobe.I’ve been with them for a long time and there’s nothing wrong with the images that are being rejected.
-
please adobe fix the high number of files rejection. this is so sad. i am loosing my motivation.
-
Both photos and ai are all accepted in the last 5 days.
So at least for me things are perfectly normal. Also a revised image was accepted.
Back to around 95% acceptance. Must be something right with my workflow.
-
adobe rejecting a lot of video files suddenly
-
adobe rejecting a lot of video files suddenly
As Mat said, you can eventually ask him help sharing your account and files rejected number, he could give opinion, otherwise it's useless to complain in blind mode
-
Personally I didn't find great problems in last weeks, some rejections yes but nothing to complain.
The only bad thing really changed is the timing of review for AI illustration.
I contribute with both photo, also editorial, and clips
-
A few images made it through today. Many rejected but for a new reason. Before it was "Quality Issues" (nonsense); now it's "Similar Image(s) already submitted". In most cases that's not true either - nothing similar has been accepted or submitted before (although a few had been submitted and rejected for "quality issues"). I'm going to try smaller batches.
-
[...] otherwise it's useless to complain in blind mode
So true, it's much better in hidden mode! ;D ;D ;D
-
Ok, got hit with a serial batch reject.
Will look at them again later, at the moment I am miffed.
I think it is important to upload only 2-3 files and not everything at once.
But my ai files got accepted, so there is some balance.
-
Ok, got hit with a serial batch reject.
This totally sums it up, and so does this quote "we are just spinning wheels here."
The sad thing is that this random and senseless "serial batch reject" issue is messing with my livelihood and has absolutely no logic attached to it.
Smaller batches also don't seem to make a difference, it appears to be all accepted as per what was normal in the past and is normal still on other platforms or it is "serial batch reject" brought to you only by Adobe.
Also it is gut wrenching knowing it takes weeks or a month to complete the cycle of randomness when the content is already actively selling on other platforms.
-
There might be something wrong with them. They were mostly taken with a mobile phone outdoors. My little daily life shots, not high quality 10 000 dollar camera studio shots.
They are already live on istock and other places, noone else declined them, so they will make money.
So it does not have to be Adobe, it could actually be me.
I will look at them again, when I am in a better mood.
Also, since the war and the high cost of energy I am no longer working with good external monitors to save energy costs. This might be part of the problem. My apple pro laptop has a good monitor, but it is a smaller screen.
-
I have over 20 submissions which have been waiting for two weeks now. In my opinion, they are a step up in quality to the work I did in the past because my new camera/lens combo is that much better. All have been accepted on other sites too.
Anyway, I made a copy of the title and key words for all of them so I can resubmit real fast and with a minimum of effort. If Adobe want to play 'silly buggers', so can I.
-
I have over 20 submissions which have been waiting for two weeks now. In my opinion, they are a step up in quality to the work I did in the past because my new camera/lens combo is that much better. All have been accepted on other sites too.
Anyway, I made a copy of the title and key words for all of them so I can resubmit real fast and with a minimum of effort. If Adobe want to play 'silly buggers', so can I.
Good call, why do something once when you can do it two or three times. At this point it is fairly evident Adobe is not interested in fixing the problem.
-
Real photographers < ai creators. SaD!
-
...
Anyway, I made a copy of the title and key words for all of them so I can resubmit real fast and with a minimum of effort. If Adobe want to play 'silly buggers', so can I.
i've had the same experience w batch rejects
but do you not already have the meta data embedded in your images?
-
I know that there will always be rejections and that contributors won't always agree with them, however with all the tales of rejects, I find a totally different story looking at recent genAI acceptances.
I would give a batch reject to all 5 images of a child holding out an empty bowl as not one image has a total of 10 digits. One could be explained by how the bowl is being held - maybe. The portfolio is small and new:
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211451045/lordrul
There are also two iMacs with logos in the portfolio (not in this morning's acceptances) which should have been rejected.
If you look at the other (not hand-related) details of several of those child-with-bowl images, they're a mess - focus in very odd places, stray lines above a tee shirt edge, lots of reasons to reject.
-
same here batch rejection
-
same here batch rejection
Tick the AI box and they will get accepted, within a few days.:P
PS. I'm just being sarcastic.
-
this is actually worth a try!
-
So, three of my batch were reviewed, one accepted and two rejected for 'similar'. One of the 'similars' was a windmill in the Netherlands. Now, I've only ever photographed one Dutch windmill and that was it. So I'm at a loss to know what it's supposed to be similar to.
It will be resubmitted along with the other rejection.
-
Now I had ai files submitted as photo declined for quality. With two, I have to admit there are some artifacts visible at 100% were I removed too many legs or feet. The other look fine to me, but have the plastic look of ai up close.
Perhaps I should have submitted these as illustrations?
However others from the series were all accepted as photos.
I think I will split my batches and make some as illustrations and some as photos, in case the photo vibe is not strong enough.
-
10-11 pages on this thread and "we are just spinning wheels here"
It is pretty self evident that Adobe has lost its way regarding the whole inspection process.
Far too many people with the same result of "serial batch reject" to be a coincidence.
It's really a shame as Adobe was truly one fine agency and now I am starting to have my doubts as the review times are seriously broken and the rejection rate far too random with no consistency at all.
-
after marinating for a month, 2 batches rejected in entirety except for those rejected for ai series not having a model release - were properly submitted under new rules
-
...
-
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
I'm only mildly psychic and can't see your rejected images, so anything I'd say is a total guess. Could you post some examples for people here to see and try to help you figure out why they are being rejected?
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0)
Beautiful image. But, honestly, I think you might be oversharpening, which is hard to see when the image is small, but if you pixel peep (an annoyance required by stock), it becomes obvious.
I didn't download it but zoomed in to 100% on Dropbox and thought maybe it's a little oversharpened? When I zoom to 195% (roughly equal to 100% with my Retina screen), I can see jpeg artifacts/halos especially around the tree. I'd try again with the RAW file, look at it at 100% (or 200% if you've got a Retina MAC) and make sure you only sharpen to the minimum needed.
It's a really lovely shot. I hope you're not offended but I've made some specific suggestions below:
When you use the Sharpening slider in ACR or LR Classic, you need to pay attention to masking and pixel size. A lot depends on the photo. For a landscape like yours, I'd do a tiny bit of sharpening at 0.8-1.0 pixels and (in the sharpening tool) use masking carefully, trying to avoid doing much if anything to the sky. If you hold down Option (or the PC equivalent) while using the slider, you can see what the masking effects.
Next, create a mask of the sky, invert it, and add in Texture, Sharpening and Clarity very carefully for your scene- sometimes 5 is enough Clarity even on my large 61MP files, and sometimes I can push it higher, but it really depends on the photo. 20 would be very high. Texture is usually more subtle and can usually be pushed higher, but not always, Again, you need to pay attention to your specific photo. As you move the sliders, very slowly, you need to view all the open spaces and edges carefully to see the effect.
Dehaze will also add contrast, so if you use it to bring up the blues in the sky and canal/river, then maybe decrease your contrast so it's not overdone. Too much contrast can leave halos especially where light meets dark like tree leaves against the sky.
Removing chromatic aberration can also cause halos at the edge of leaves if you push too far. Sometimes you need to paint over the chroma with a mask and just adjust a part if you've got a really deep purple line somewhere without affecting the rest of the photo.
If your photo isn't sharp enough when you use the tools in a subtle way, pushing them won't help, but as others mentioned, you can shrink your file down to where it is sharp. Most stock sites don't need big files. Just bump it to 200% if you have a Retina screen to see what's going on with the actual pixels.
It's a lovely composition, great leading lines and beautiful reflections so worth reworking.
-
Seems a bit better now (maybe famous last words). Of my batch of over 20, one rejected for quality (I can live with this one), two for similar (ridiculous), two still pending (it's only been 15 days) and the rest accepted. I'm going to resubmit the similars and then feed in a bunch of others I have waiting.
-
hi any one receive payment yet
-
hi any one receive payment yet
While this is a separate beef: No, in addition to long review times and rote rejections - payment is late.
-
hi any one receive payment yet
no,I still haven't received payment and it's already been 8 working days,lately AS is slow in many aspects :D
-
no payment yet
-
For the past months, Adobe has been sending me money on Saturdays. Wait until tomorrow.
-
For the past months, Adobe has been sending me money on Saturdays. Wait until tomorrow.
yes I also received the last payments on Saturday morning around 2-4 am Italian time,this shows that they try to funnel payments into those few days.
Now I don't know the facts,I certainly don't know many things,but I have the impression that they could do better,for both payments and reviews,because waiting up to a month for a review seems a little too much to me,and I understand that they are flooded with AI content,but it is something they will surely have foreseen,so i don't know why all this time.