I can't speak to the specifics on the image you referenced but it is very important to note that uploading multiple versions of the same image can be perceived as image spam and may result in your account being blocked. Generally designers are able to crop the file to the format they prefer so uploading the full resolution file is enough to get the job done.
If you had duplicate files approved, that was likely the error as opposed to the image being rejected.
But (and this is the point of my post, top) why is none of this spelled-out specifically in writing anywhere?
This is what is driving people nuts: the review process has the appearance of being arbitrary and capricious, since it's a complete black box.
There's no pattern or meaning to much of it.
Here, now, you seem to be saying that the one (two actually) crop variations that were *rejected* were the correct response, while the several others I had *accepted* with multiple crops were -- in fact -- the mistake.
Really? Wow. Who woulda thunkit? And how could anyone ever learn that from any of this?
At the best, it (again) makes Adobe seem unprofessional: very broad guidelines (jpeg, resolution, file size) are stated, but nowhere has anyone bothered to state or even suggest that uploading multiple crops would be seen as "spamming".
I mean, seriously?
Then, as to spamming itself, some clown over the [US] Thanksgiving weekend seemed to have uploaded dozens of "My Alps Vacation" photos that were all shot from the same vantage point, over and over, maybe panned a degree left or a degree right or maybe zoomed slightly; that had no perceivable post-processing (the horizon wasn't leveled, the contrast was flat, the crop looked as-shot, etc etc) -- these were simply vacation snapshots.
And yet all of those -- dozens of them -- made it through the review process. (I wish I could remember what keyword search I used to find them; there was screen after screen of them...)
OK. I just don't know what to make of this.
Although I ended our previous email convo with "This may be a viable option, after all" the more I see of Adobe Stock in actual operation the less and less certain of that I'm becoming.
Too much black box; too capricious; too arbitrary; too little spelled-out specifically.
MatHayward I can second this.
Just started to recieve my first set of approvals and rejections and while all of them make sense to me right now that i see the reason, I did not have that info when i submitted them.
During the submition there really REALLY, need to be information available on what will make an image invalid/rejected. In my experience you are not making unfair judgements (in my case) but if i information on what rejects an image available to me before submiting i wouldnt even have submitted several of the image that i now have in the review process.
I realise that this infotmation might already be there but then it definetly needs to be more clear and/or accessible
Speaking of which, is it possible to withdraw a submitted image?
A suggestion would be to have a button on the submition site that opens a new tab in the browser with info and examples of what might cause an image to be rejected for all the different reasons that an image can be rejected for.
2 people found this helpful
Thanks for the suggestion. You can find information similar to what you have requested at this link: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/rejection-reasons.html
This is going to make things a lot easier!
1 person found this helpful
In addition to the link given by Mat you'll find all the topics at tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle helpful, including the "Adobe Stock Contributor Guide".
All of us, contributors and forum ACPs, are frustrated with the process which confuses so many. If only everyone making stock contributions would actually read and inform themselves BEFORE submitting stock - OH HOW HAPPY WE WOULD ALL BE. We photographers and artists could consider all of this self-re-education and NOT a bother or frustration but a wonderful opportunity to accomplish the equivalent to a Masters Degree program. Any mass screening system can undoubtedly be improved. It must be cost-effective. That requires the contributor to also improve if they will participate at this professional higher quality level that Adobe's clients have required. Adobe is actually the contributor's helper and client. Is it so - that the client is always right? International exhibiting and selling is the best gallery I can have. Thanks for this great idea Adobe. We will improve. Happy to be with the forum! Regards. JH