Where's the noise? Is Adobe using an automated detection algorithm?

[sullaman]

Had this image rejected for noise/artefacts, even though there are none, as it was shot at ISO100 on a tripod with minimal processing. It seems it got rejected due to the rusty texture of the chains, but this is the actual texture. So is an algorithm being used instead of human eyes for quality control?

Full image (original 42MP):

1:1 crop:

Shot on A7RII with FE 90mm f/2.8 macro, at f/16, 1.3s, ISO100 on a tripod.

[uk-BPP]

I was also sending in several highres architectural motives that were rejected too. It seems to me as if somebody (or an algorithm ?) is not able, to make a difference between artefacts in pictures and and any given structure within the photographed material, like tapestry or concrete.

. . . . very dissapointing

[weedobooty]

Same here. Several photos shot at ISO 100 rejected for Noise/Grain. The exact same ones were accepted by Shutterstock, who have a pretty high standard.

[hiteshg28135655]

Seems that Adobe using some AI which rejects all images with ISO 100...

[weedobooty]

lame joke?

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Most of my photos uploaded to Adobe is rejected for one reason or another. I however learn from them. You might ask how so, when the explanation is so limited and general. The general dialogue they send directs me to more information; again general, however I learn something new each time I visit these links, and on many occasions it helps me to understand why my photo was rejected. While this is true most of the times, it is not in all cases which is why I'm here. In addition to what I glean from Adobe, I also research otherwise to make my photos better. Adobe is very strict with quality. You can choose to be mad at them, or use it to your advantage. I do. I don't upload to Adobe regularly, but when I do, It is usually after a series of practice. I know, the day Adobe accepts most of my photos, I'm good.

My suggestion is follow the leads they send you, and research otherwise.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Your photo is a beautiful rendition of a rusty chain. I like it. However usually to find luminance and chromatic noise you need to magnify your photo,  and look in the darker areas. If you look between the outline of the edge of the chain links you will see some colorization that do not appear to be part of the rusty chain. Take a closer look at the left bottom corner of the magnified copy and you'll see it. The top photo, assume is of the original size, take a look at the wider space at the top. The colorization is within that space. I believe that is what was seen. From a professional viewpoint it can be distracting.

[Balaji_Kundalam]

The image looks good. The rusty surface (especially the 1:1 crop, where the bluish parts can be seen very clearly) may be recognized as noise by the uploading system. You can reach to the support team for assistance.

[tylersti]

To be honest here as we all should in a critic, I get the sensation of noise. What I mean by that is there is a sensation of being fuzzy. Where it comes from is hard for me to say. In the 1:1 shot it appears to me the photo needs more contrast. But the full shot seems to be ok, but again in my opinion could use a hair more contrast.

If it makes you feel any better, I had a strikingly similar rusty boat chain photo that was rejected for the same reason. I strongly believe anything that has an abstract tint to it is usually rejected. I had a barbwire photo that sold so I tried uploading a completely different photo from another location that was rejected due to aesthetic appeal. Same concept in every aspect but one made it one didn't. I've accepted that in the corporate world, they do what they want so take what you can get :-). Good luck with your next photos!