Author Topic: Rejections on adobe (Read 33779 times)

f8 · « **Reply #25 on:** May 29, 2023, 18:26 »

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.

TonyD · « **Reply #26 on:** May 29, 2023, 23:58 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 29, 2023, 13:08

Quote from: TonyD on May 28, 2023, 08:06
Quote from: 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?
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

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #27 on:** May 30, 2023, 11:08 »

Quote from: TonyD on May 29, 2023, 23:58

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 29, 2023, 13:08
Quote from: TonyD on May 28, 2023, 08:06
Quote from: 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?
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.

cascoly · « **Reply #28 on:** May 30, 2023, 12:54 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 30, 2023, 11:08

Quote from: TonyD on May 29, 2023, 23:58
Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 29, 2023, 13:08
Quote from: TonyD on May 28, 2023, 08:06
Quote from: 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?
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

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #29 on:** May 30, 2023, 12:55 »

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

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

cascoly · « **Reply #30 on:** May 30, 2023, 13:03 »

Quote from: f8 on May 29, 2023, 18:26

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

TonyD · « **Reply #31 on:** May 30, 2023, 13:06 »

I shared photos before on here but that was with Photobucket & they deactivated my account.

TonyD · « **Reply #32 on:** May 30, 2023, 13:22 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2023, 12:55

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

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

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.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #33 on:** May 31, 2023, 11:14 »

Quote from: TonyD on May 29, 2023, 23:58

Quote from: Uncle Pete on May 29, 2023, 13:08
Quote from: TonyD on May 28, 2023, 08:06
Quote from: 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?
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

Yes it works! Rejected for?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #34 on:** May 31, 2023, 13:10 »

Quote from: TonyD on May 29, 2023, 23:58

I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
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.

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.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #35 on:** May 31, 2023, 13:28 »

Quote from: zeljkok on May 29, 2023, 17:07

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.

Roscoe · « **Reply #36 on:** May 31, 2023, 13:40 »

Quote from: TonyD on May 28, 2023, 08:06

Quote from: 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?
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.

TonyD · « **Reply #37 on:** May 31, 2023, 14:28 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 31, 2023, 13:10

Quote from: TonyD on May 29, 2023, 23:58
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
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.

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:

cascoly · « **Reply #38 on:** May 31, 2023, 14:32 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 31, 2023, 13:10

...
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"

TonyD · « **Reply #39 on:** May 31, 2023, 14:45 »

Maybe Adobe has got like Alamy & rejecting the whole batch if they find something wrong with the 1st photo.

KimC · « **Reply #40 on:** June 01, 2023, 01:30 »

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.

TonyD · « **Reply #41 on:** June 01, 2023, 04:59 »

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/y2secfv9jj3wkaw/DSC04738.jpg?dl=0

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #42 on:** June 01, 2023, 07:45 »

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.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #43 on:** June 01, 2023, 08:08 »

Quote from: TonyD on June 01, 2023, 04:59

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/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.

TonyD · « **Reply #44 on:** June 01, 2023, 08:15 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 01, 2023, 07:45

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.

TonyD · « **Reply #45 on:** June 02, 2023, 01:45 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on June 01, 2023, 08:08

Quote from: TonyD on June 01, 2023, 04:59
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/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.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #46 on:** June 02, 2023, 11:30 »

Lets see if I can learn how to share with DropBox? Both sharing sites were down for 502 bad gateway today.

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.

TonyD · « **Reply #47 on:** June 03, 2023, 03:32 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 02, 2023, 11:30

Lets see if I can learn how to share with DropBox? Both sharing sites were down for 502 bad gateway today.

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.

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

cobalt · « **Reply #48 on:** June 04, 2023, 14:39 »

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.

Firn · « **Reply #49 on:** June 05, 2023, 00:27 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 04, 2023, 14:39

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":

This is a 100% crop:

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. $:-\$

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Rejections on adobe (Read 33779 times)

f8

TonyD

Uncle Pete

cascoly

Jo Ann Snover

cascoly

TonyD

TonyD

Uncle Pete

Jo Ann Snover

Zero Talent

Roscoe

TonyD

cascoly

TonyD

KimC

TonyD

Jo Ann Snover

Zero Talent

TonyD

TonyD

Uncle Pete

TonyD

cobalt

Firn

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors