Adobe Stock pattern designs are being consistently rejected by moderators based on photo-specific criteria.

I already explained the issue clearly through the Adobe Stock contact section. There was a link there that directed me to this platform.

My point here is simple: if there are other colleagues experiencing the same problem, I think they should also speak up and report it. We are not simply pressing a button on a camera and taking a photograph.

“Even a 5-year-old can do that nowadays.”

What we are trying to do is create a branch of art that people can actually wear and use in everyday life. For that reason, I do not think pattern designs should be evaluated according to exactly the same criteria as ordinary photographs.

Pattern design is a creative process developed from scratch, based on a specific visual perspective, trends, originality, and the designer’s own interpretation. I want to make one thing very clear here: I am not talking about copied content. I am talking about original designs created specifically for production purposes.

In my opinion, this is a limitation on Adobe Stock’s side. Other platforms have already handled this issue much better. When I upload 100–200 pattern designs to those platforms, they can review and approve them much faster. Adobe, on the other hand, can sometimes take up to a month.

On top of that, moderators repeatedly mention issues such as “focus,” “sharpness,” and “clarity,” which are criteria mainly associated with photography. But this is not a photograph; it is a pattern design.

A pattern should not be technically evaluated in exactly the same way as a photograph. Whether it is vector-based or pixel-based, the structure of the design, its repeat consistency, intended print surface, and final use should all be taken into account.

What matters in pattern design is whether the artwork can be applied consistently and correctly to the printing surface.

That is exactly what I am criticizing: Adobe Stock appears to evaluate pattern designs using the same review logic that it applies to photographic content.

I suspect they’re submitting pixel-based patterns rather than vector graphics. And that’s why Adobe’s treating them as rasters. 

Personally, I would never buy raster textile patterns. Adobe Illustrator vector files can be scaled up or down to any size required without quality loss. JPEG & PNG files can’t. 

Please do not comment on the subject if you do not have sufficient knowledge about it. You can review the links you shared to better understand what the file formats you mentioned are actually used for. Your comments do not address the core issue because you do not seem to have enough technical knowledge of printing methods and production processes.

What I am talking about here is not whether JPEG, PNG, EPS, or AI is the “better” file format. The actual issue is that, within the Adobe Stock system, pattern designs intended for printing are being evaluated according to the same criteria as ordinary photographs and are being rejected for that reason.

In printing, the file format alone is not what matters. The DPI of the artwork, the actual print dimensions, the color range, screen mesh count, number of passes, and the printing technique all need to be considered together. When the production parameters are set correctly, even a 72 DPI JPEG can produce the desired result depending on the intended use and print size.

We are not selling photographs here; we are creating and selling patterns intended to be printed on textile products. From an industry perspective, we are directly involved in the production processes behind many of the textile products you see on the market today.

So the point I am criticizing is the fact that a pattern specifically prepared for printing is being filtered and judged according to the same technical criteria as a simple photograph.

That is exactly what I was trying to explain above. Please evaluate the issue based on textile printing processes and intended use, rather than reducing it to file formats alone.

I’m referring specifically to pattern design. It is not reasonable to evaluate this type of work according to the standards and criteria used for conventional photography. The designs we create fall outside those traditional standards and criteria.

Unfortunately, I feel that Adobe Stock has not developed enough in this area compared with its competitors and has fallen behind. I’m sorry to say this, but that is my honest impression.