#October Rejection Reasons

78 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

hushed field
#

Rejections are one of the most frustrating experiences for contributors. Our moderators will give feedback and explain why some images were rejected so we can learn how to avoid those mistakes.

You can submit up to three rejected images -sharing the IDs- and we will select up to 10 to discuss live on Discord.

Please, send us the IDs between Monday 25 September and Sunday October 1 at 12:00 PT.

hushed field
serene prawn
#

ID: 642932553 643126545 643127478

#

So its enough if I only provide the ID of the rejected shot?

hushed field
#

Yes, only the ID. That way only us can see the rejected picture 😉

It's how we used to have it on the old #1039563449866391602 channel (you can take a look if you want).

soft briar
#

624904972
638023204
639952893

errant reef
#

I actually don't have any this month that I feel strongly enough about to disagree with. Of course I still have quite a few in queue for review so that could change 🙂

vagrant magnet
#

For me more interesting is why id: 630815306 is NOT rejected? Adobe does promote this on the contributor Portal under "Auswertung" (dont know the english translation for that).

minor hornet
#
      1. All editorials for me. So i assume the same rejection reason but im interested to know why they were not accepted as there are similar images approved by other contributors. Thanks
hushed field
vagrant magnet
#

No, it is not my image, and no, I didnt read this rule 2, and no, I didnt complain. It is easier to learn from the false positive but I understand that sometimes it is very comfy to say there is this and that rule. Will discuss this with our enterprise Account mgr in the company.

thorn hare
#

651706363
647028540
647029589

nocturne peak
#

650930049, 627526497, 626078398

opal igloo
#

Vectors: 651585321, 651574656
Photos: 641772259, 640678825

tough fossil
#

644147656
644149887
644149576

ember quail
#

650962197

#

I'm wondering about the reason for the refusal. Does anyone have support?

bitter summit
#

638911048
638790520 (similar illustration was accepted...)

olive cliff
#

641839223

hushed field
#

Hey guys!

Thanks for your submissions! We will take a look at the IDs and select a few to talk about them tomorrow!

velvet creek
#

646865442

#

642312246

#

646865242

hushed field
#

Hey @here!

We are about to start the event in 5 minutes 😉

#

Hi!

thorn hare
#

Here!

nocturne peak
#

Hello 👋🏻

hushed field
#

@opal igloo here! You need to join the audio!

nocturne peak
#

😅

#

Is it Floret? @eternal bluff

#

Dahlia farm

hushed field
#

@soft briar

#

This is a “common subject” image we usually discuss. For nature, flowers, bugs, butterflies, insects, etc. that you can easily catch, we expect a great quality. This image, for example, is framed in a way that the main subject (the black and red butterfly) is lost in the composition; you are not focusing on it, so its presence seems testimonial, almost coincidental, and not the central motif of the image. Also, remember thinking as a customer; if someone is interested in that kind of butterfly, they will need -and buy- the image where they can see it properly, without distracting elements all around.

#

@nocturne peak

nocturne peak
#

It was accepted by other agencies and has been already sold

hushed field
#

Even though the idea has a commercial interest, the execution for this one has room to improve: the framing is too tight, and almost a third of the image is filled with the out-of-focus finders holding the pencil. Having a bit wider shot, some more wide depth of field and positioning the hand in a different way could change the image for the better.

nocturne peak
#

Thank you

hushed field
#

@serene prawn

#

The images Malgo shared with us where from the same series of Catrinas, and all of them presented the same issues: poor upscaling. And for this image the size went up to “only” 20 MP; for the others it was so high as 50 MP. For Gen AI images upscaling bigger is not better! Try to keep your upscale around 6 to 8 MP, since that’s enough and the image doesn’t start showing artifacts, loss of textures, aliasing (like in this image), or other issues. For example, on high-contrast zones, like the nose, you can see the sawteeth of aliasing, and then the details of the paint around the eye is blurry and filled with artifacts.

fervent pasture
#

Do we need to have the model release form filled out for people who are completely in disguise because of their costume and face paint etc?

hushed field
#

@minor hornet

#

The three images that you shared with us were similar kinds of flags sent for the IEC (Illustrative Editorial Collection). The issue here is that we do not accept digitally created or manipulated versions of trademarked logos or other brand content — other than social media icons. So if this was an actual photo of the FFF that you took outside their headquarters in Paris, it could be acceptable as IEC; or maybe a representation of such headquarters where you include the flag. You can check the requirements for IEC in this link: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html

runic wedge
#

is it the review time on adobe stock slowing down or are you guys bombarded with images?

hushed field
#

@thorn hare

thorn hare
#

So more "fineart"is not a good way to go

hushed field
#

A couple of the images Fernanda shared with us were similar shots of a forest; however, in both case the images were underexposed, with lots of grain when checked at 100%. As always, remember to think of the customers: who is going to need an image like this one? For what kind of uses? What images with the same concept/keywords can I find on Adobe Stock? Also, if you use “golden hour” on your title and keywords, customers will expect to see an image with that golden, warm tint, that it is not present in this image.

thorn hare
#

No worries 🙂

#

Yeah, and the grain was the lenses.
Got it! Thank you!

hushed field
#

@opal igloo

#

The image looks nice at first glance, with that photorealistic lightning. But then, checking it at 100% we find an almost pixel-art mosaic 😊. Please be sure to always review your images at full size and resolution before submitting them. This image shouldn’t have been uploaded with this quality: you must be more strict and choose the images you are sending to avoid clogging the moderation queue even more. Also, I am really sure that on the #🤖generative-ai-talk channel someone will share some alternatives for upscaling your images with the best quality possible.

opal igloo
#

😆

toxic harness
#

LoL

hushed field
#

@olive cliff

olive cliff
#

No worries! You are pronouncing it correct😄

hushed field
#

That image has been rejected because it’s underexposed; usually, a white background is not a great idea for these kinds of images unless you can light it properly and just get rid of it and get a uniform white. And we saw the photo was shot with a phone, which is a helpful, but very limited tool, especially under low light situations or, like this one, where there is a contrast and the light measurement can be all over the place.

olive cliff
#

Yes, it was shot on phone with white wall as backdrop. Will start to add lights properly in next shots. Thanks!

hushed field
#

@tough fossil

#

This is a good image; however, it has been rejected because of IP issues. You have to keep in mind that there are a lot of protected designs and elements, more than we can cover in our restrictions list (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/known-image-restrictions.html), and some of those affect guitars and music instruments. In this case, the guitar looks like a Fender, and since it’s very prominent in the image, we cannot accept it. The other images you shared showed a different guitar, but there were also elements that were protected. Also, I would like that you all to be aware: when we reject images because of possible IP issues, we do it to protect our customers, Adobe, and also you as contributors!

toxic harness
#

That's interesting, and good to know

opal igloo
#

In this case, when the person's whole face is not shown, or the person is standing backwards, do you need a model release?

#

yeah

#

perfect!

hushed field
#

Do you think this content is helpful and could affect your content creation?
🙂 Yes
😢 No

toxic harness
#

👍

cunning pagoda
#

Thanks for doing this!

toxic harness
#

Very informative

hushed field
runic wedge
#

really helpful session! thank you

nocturne peak
#

Thank you Raul and Mat!

hushed field
#

🫶

signal kite
#

Thanks you guys very informative 👍

rapid linden
#

Good event, thank you

upbeat condor
#

Thank you!

olive cliff
#

Thanks @hushed field and @eternal bluff for the feedback. Helpful as always.

thorn hare
#

thank you!

hushed field
#

Thank you all! I hope to see more images next month! 🫶

umbral sable
#

628804314