It's hard to see because you've posted such a small example image, but it looks like there is no detail in the person's body area. It definitely looks a bit underexposed for that region. Especially if Adobe has a computer do a first screening pass of the images, I could definitely see an algorithm rejecting it for exposure issues. A person might too. It looks really dark.
I am trying to remain civil. As I said, you obviously only shoot white skinned or higher skinned models, If I expose the image further, her skin will wash out, as will the red laptop, and wooden desk, so you are suggesting I would select and expose the persons black dress only? - or have her wear another dress? - How many dresses other than plain black or plain white that are not name brand or proprietary? Don't try to educate me on Stock Photography. Seriously, this is what we are talking about when we say racist. You only look at things from models with white or similar skin (such as that Asian model in that underexposed coffee shop image). Plus everything you said is subjective from a European point of view. I've been doing this a lot longer than you, and I know what I am talking about, believe me you have nothing in terms or skills and experience with photography, development, exposure, and effects compared to me. I've been shooting, and editing images since before Adobe acquired Macromedia, and long before you, Sir. Huge clientele, and am well aware of how these images were shot, but thanks for your technical suggestions anyway.
You said that the reason Adobe rejected the image was exposure issues and I am saying that the dress makes it look under-exposed. That is all I'm saying.
Some people have floated the idea that Adobe has a computer algorithm as the first step in the process and an automated exposure checking system would definitely flag that image as being under-exposed due to the dress. I don't know if Adobe uses artificial intelligence in their image screening at all, but it would make sense in this case.
If I expose the image further, her skin will wash out, as will the red laptop, and wooden desk, so you are suggesting I would select and expose the persons black dress only?
Instead of lighting from the front only, you could add some light from the side to show the texture and folds of the material.
You could select just the dress in Photoshop and mess with the levels to bring out some detail but maintaining the overall tone.
As I said, you obviously only shoot white skinned or higher skinned models, If I expose the image further, her skin will wash out,
Your suggestion that somebody who only shot white people wouldn't understand exposure doesn't make sense to me. If a white person wore that outfit in that room with that lighting, exposing the image more would be even worse for a white or lighter-skinned model because they would be washed out much more easily than a darker-skinned model would! It's actually the opposite of what you're saying.
Also, a small bump in exposure will bring out detail without washing anything out.
That was just a quick, ten second levels bump in Photoshop. Again, if you localized the exposure change to just the dress, it would be even better.
As I said, you obviously only shoot white skinned or higher skinned models,
Also, this isn't true.
I'm from Florida and I'm used to even light skinned people having tans. I can't see the face in your picture. i would have never even guessed it was an Asian if you hadn't made such an issue of it. I really doubt the people at Adobe are "Racist"
I'm from Florida and I'm used to even light skinned people having tans. I can't see the face in your picture. i would have never even guessed it was an Asian if you hadn't made such an issue of it.
He's referring to another thread where he had images rejected for aesthetic reasons (bad lighting mostly, as far as I can tell). I shared an image that Adobe Stock did accept that was similar to his in content (business person with coffee cup) to try to demonstrate the difference between what they accept and what he had submitted. Well, apparently, he focused on the race of the person in the image instead of the lighting and composition of the image that I was trying to talk about.
I really doubt the people at Adobe are "Racist"
Me too. Have you seen the Adobe CEO? He wasn't born or raised in Europe or America. From what I know of Britain's history in India, if the Adobe CEO is racist, it's probably racism against white people! (For the record, I don't think he is racist towards anybody.)
I'm just getting started and so far only about 20 of my pictures have been accepted - out of more than 200 I sent. I can say they are really strict about what they accept and don't accept. I don't get upset, I try to figure out exactly what they are talking about. Most of my rejected pictures were rejected because they were "Grainy" I know some were taken in low light. A couple were taken when I was just getting into photography. A couple were in violation of intellectual property restrictions. I consider this a learning experience and will try to eventually reach a point where most if not all my pictures are accepted. That should be the goal. I'm 65 years old and had never been accused of being a "Racist" till after Trump got elected. Now suddenly everybody is a "Racist a Misogynist, a Homophobe, a Xenophobe, an Islamaphobe" or God only knows what else ... It's really getting out of hand