6 Replies Latest reply on May 30, 2017 1:23 PM by Szalam

    Good enough for NatGeo, but "Technical Issues" here.

    telemudcat

      This photo was chosen for "Photo of the Day" over on nationalgeographic.com.  It was also used in a book released by National Geographic.  Here, I guess it has "technical issues".   From what I've read on the "reasons for content rejection" page, this includes problems with white balance, contrast, saturation, focus, etc. 

       

      Anyone care to point out something that I'm not seeing here? 

       

      4583274980_91d508be10_b.jpg

        • 1. Re: Good enough for NatGeo, but "Technical Issues" here.
          Szalam Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          Looks fine to me at that size. I'm assuming you submitted a much larger image, so there may have been issues we can't see at this smaller size).

           

          I could understand it being rejected as being not useful perhaps. A lot of artistically beautiful images aren't very useful as stock images. But I don't think this one should be rejected for that reason either. I'm sure it'd be useful for somebody.

          • 2. Re: Good enough for NatGeo, but "Technical Issues" here.
            telemudcat Level 1

            I figured it wasn't a "typical" stock image, but like you said, I thought someone might have a use for it.  Thanks for the response!

            • 3. Re: Good enough for NatGeo, but "Technical Issues" here.
              v.poth Level 2

              Great photo, first time ...
              But it seems to have no drawing in the lights and depths in some areas ... Could perhaps be the reason ...

              • 4. Re: Good enough for NatGeo, but "Technical Issues" here.
                MatHayward Adobe Employee

                Thanks for the post. I reached out to the moderation team regarding this image. The primary issues were that it appears to be over-saturated and the contrast is a bit excessive.

                 

                In my opinion, the general aesthetics of the image overrule some of the technical issues so I've put the file online. If the color is completely natural then please forgive me in advance. As a photographer myself, I want my images to have some color pop to them but not so much that the saturation appears unnatural. To get that result I use only the vibrance slider in Lightroom and never saturation.

                 

                Keep in mind that making photo of the day at Nat Geo or another comparable site or photo contest is an awesome accomplishment. It does not however indicate whether or not the image is a good stock photo. We have to be very careful in what we approve out of responsibility to our customers who have a high level of expectation for technical perfection. It is of course a subjective process and it certainly isn't perfect but you can be assured we are looking very carefully at each file you send.

                 

                Cheers!

                 

                Mat Hayward

                • 5. Re: Good enough for NatGeo, but "Technical Issues" here.
                  telemudcat Level 1

                  Ahh, thanks Mat.   Makes sense to me.    I apologize for my lack of knowledge regarding what makes a good stock image "good".  Something for me to read up on for sure! 

                  • 6. Re: Good enough for NatGeo, but "Technical Issues" here.
                    Szalam Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                    Well, besides just being good for stock in general, this is Adobe Stock; most people are using it in Photoshop, Premiere, or After Effects so they can bump the contrast, saturation, etc. themselves. Thus, unlike a final product or other stock sites, it's usually best to leave images as unedited as possible so people have more flexibility later. As pointed out, the contrast is too much. Detail is lost in the shadows.