MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejections on adobe  (Read 36371 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: March 14, 2023, 06:22 »
+1
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


« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2023, 06:28 »
0
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

« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2023, 07:10 »
0
All photo's of my last batch where rejected for quality issues
I dont understand is, the are sharp, the lightning is good

Frustrating!

« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2023, 07:21 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2023, 07:39 »
+3
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.

« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2023, 08:50 »
+2
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".

« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2023, 09:30 »
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".
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. Oviously I had to clone out some people out of the adobe version


« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2023, 09:51 »
+3
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

« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2023, 11:41 »
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".
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. 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.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2023, 11:51 by RalfLiebhold »

« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2023, 11:59 »
0
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

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 Stocks 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.

« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2023, 13:34 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2023, 01:47 by TonyD »

« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2023, 14:16 »
+1
recent submissions have been either 100% accepted or 100% rejected!  very strange (# submitted varies between  5 and 30)

« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2023, 02:33 »
0
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



« Last Edit: March 15, 2023, 09:36 by TonyD »

« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2023, 03:13 »
0
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

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
« Last Edit: March 15, 2023, 03:18 by TonyD »

« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2023, 08:42 »
+1
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

I cannot ask on the adobe forum because they blocked me don't know why. I asked support but they didn't know.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2023, 09:05 by TonyD »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2023, 11:22 »
+1
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

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

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.



« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2023, 13:00 »
+1
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.

« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2023, 16:37 »
0
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).

« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2023, 01:33 »
0
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
« Last Edit: March 18, 2023, 01:45 by TonyD »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2023, 12:55 »
0
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

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 Gaudis Casa Batll in Barcelona
    Private property thats recognized as a landmark or business and thats 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.

« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2023, 18:47 »
+1
...
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

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.

« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2023, 08:06 »
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?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2023, 13:08 »
+1
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?

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #24 on: May 29, 2023, 17:07 »
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 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
[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
[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.





 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
9990 Views
Last post February 22, 2007, 15:29
by dbvirago
5 Replies
4409 Views
Last post January 06, 2008, 11:27
by lobby
36 Replies
13584 Views
Last post November 05, 2010, 04:20
by sharpshot
14 Replies
6456 Views
Last post May 28, 2023, 09:29
by Injustice for all
82 Replies
8907 Views
Last post January 09, 2024, 14:09
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors