1 Reply Latest reply on Jan 20, 2017 10:23 AM by whatevertheexcuse

    Are humans or computers rejecting the contributions?

    markgaler

      I have successfully uploaded, and had accepted, hundreds of images - but I have also received quite a few rejections that would appear to be incorrect or in error.

      If I upload a portrait image that has a model's eyes critically sharp but the background rendered blurred by the f/1.4 aperture. I then receive a rejection because my image is 'blurred' - well yes 90% of the image has beautiful 'bokeh' - which my commercial clients usually describe at 'the professional look'. Likewise I get images rejected because of copyright, because there is some graffiti on a wall that is actually art in a public space and not product branding. As Melbourne's alleyways are famous for its prolific street art it makes uploading potential travel photography images (that would be in demand by travel agencies) captured in my home city a complete nightmare.

       

      I have therefore, and regretfully, come to the conclusion that no human at Adobe is actually looking at my uploaded images. I believe a computer is rejecting them because it finds a word or determines that there are no sharp edges in the majority of the image surface.

       

      This will essentially devalue Adobe Stock as a useful stock resource if users cannot find images that have certain qualities (bokeh) or subject matter because a poorly programmed computer is rejecting them.

        • 1. Re: Are humans or computers rejecting the contributions?
          whatevertheexcuse

          I have the same question, Mark. Although I don't think I am operating at the same level you are, I've received rejections that make no sense. For instance, one photo -- which I gave the description of "A park bench in snowfall at night" was rejected as "too grainy"! Of course it was "grainy", it was the snow! Either Adobe is using algorithms or the humans who are reviewing them are applying such arbitrary and inconsistent standards that it makes it hard to tell beforehand what will make the cut and what will be rejected. I would say this applies to half of the photos I submitted that were rejected. It is something Adobe needs to address if they are to be better regarded as a stock service.

           

          In case anyone from Adobe actually reads any of this, some suggestions on how the service can be improved.

          1. Be more specific in the rejections. Say EXACTLY what you find wrong with a photo. For example, saying "technical issue" without indicating what the technical issue is doesn't really help anyone. If we can take the time to submit, you can take the time to give short but useful feedback.

          2. Have a link on the rejection explanation for each photo that allows a contributor to appeal the rejection if the contributor feels the reviewer has made a mistake.