Hi everyone,I’m looking for specific, technical feedback on a small set of AI-generated images that were recently rejected by Adobe Stock. The files are attached below.Review outcomes received:“Quality issues” (multiple files)“Similar content already in our collection” (one file)Context:All files are intended as commercial, non-editorial backgroundsNo text, logos, brands, people, or news referencesClean compositions with copy spaceSubmitted as raster images (not vectors) What I’m hoping to understand from experienced contributors:When reviewers flag “Quality issues” for AI content, is this most often due to:Gradient banding or micro-artifacts visible at 100%Over-smoothing / AI texture patternsPerceived “illustration” look vs photographic realismSomething else reviewers commonly catch that’s easy to miss? 2. For the image flagged as “Similar content in our collection”, Is the rejection more about the concept saturation (e.g., growth / success metaphors),Or are there specific compositional cues that make it feel too close to existing stock even if execution differs? 3. For AI backgrounds in general, are contributors seeing better acceptance when:Avoiding literal objects and leaning more abstractAdding subtle grain / imperfection to break AI smoothnessReducing contrast and cinematic lighting in favor of flatter, neutral tones? I’m not looking to appeal these files — just trying to tighten my submission process and better align with current reviewer expectations. Appreciate any insights, especially from contributors with recent AI approvals. Thanks in advance.

Question

Requesting technical critique on AI-generated backgrounds rejected for “Quality Issues” and “Similar

Forum|Forum|6 months ago
December 25, 2025
3 replies
1542 views

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for specific, technical feedback on a small set of AI-generated images that were recently rejected by Adobe Stock. The files are attached below.

Review outcomes received:

“Quality issues” (multiple files)
“Similar content already in our collection” (one file)

Context:

All files are intended as commercial, non-editorial backgrounds
No text, logos, brands, people, or news references
Clean compositions with copy space
Submitted as raster images (not vectors)

What I’m hoping to understand from experienced contributors:

When reviewers flag “Quality issues” for AI content, is this most often due to:

Gradient banding or micro-artifacts visible at 100%
Over-smoothing / AI texture patterns
Perceived “illustration” look vs photographic realism
Something else reviewers commonly catch that’s easy to miss?

2. For the image flagged as “Similar content in our collection”,

Is the rejection more about the concept saturation (e.g., growth / success metaphors),
Or are there specific compositional cues that make it feel too close to existing stock even if execution differs?

3. For AI backgrounds in general, are contributors seeing better acceptance when:

Avoiding literal objects and leaning more abstract
Adding subtle grain / imperfection to break AI smoothness
Reducing contrast and cinematic lighting in favor of flatter, neutral tones?

I’m not looking to appeal these files — just trying to tighten my submission process and better align with current reviewer expectations.

Appreciate any insights, especially from contributors with recent AI approvals.

Thanks in advance.

Contributor critique

T

TrendingAtlasAuthor

Dude to website issues I'm reposting per suggestion of another user (Thanks to daniellei4510 for the heads up on the issue)

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for specific, technical feedback on a small set of AI-generated images that were recently rejected by Adobe Stock. The files are attached below.

Review outcomes received:

“Quality issues” (multiple files)
“Similar content already in our collection” (one file)

Context:

All files are intended as commercial, non-editorial backgrounds
No text, logos, brands, people, or news references
Clean compositions with copy space
Submitted as raster images (not vectors)

What I’m hoping to understand from experienced contributors:

When reviewers flag “Quality issues” for AI content, is this most often due to:

Gradient banding or micro-artifacts visible at 100%
Over-smoothing / AI texture patterns
Perceived “illustration” look vs photographic realism
Something else reviewers commonly catch that’s easy to miss?

2. For the image flagged as “Similar content in our collection”,

Is the rejection more about the concept saturation (e.g., growth / success metaphors),
Or are there specific compositional cues that make it feel too close to existing stock even if execution differs?

3. For AI backgrounds in general, are contributors seeing better acceptance when:

Avoiding literal objects and leaning more abstract
Adding subtle grain / imperfection to break AI smoothness
Reducing contrast and cinematic lighting in favor of flatter, neutral tones?

I’m not looking to appeal these files — just trying to tighten my submission process and better align with current reviewer expectations.

Appreciate any insights, especially from contributors with recent AI approvals.

Thanks in advance.

Abambo

Community Expert

2. For the image flagged as “Similar content in our collection”,

Is the rejection more about the concept saturation (e.g., growth / success metaphors),

Or are there specific compositional cues that make it feel too close to existing stock even if execution differs?

By @TrendingAtlas

This refusal is very difficult to tackle down, as we do not fully understand how it gets triggered. Adobe is happy with it's results, however. We think that, at least for morst of the contant posted here, that the algorithm is ill configured. My personal conclusion is that when the refusal hits, move on. You may try to modify title and keywords to something more unique, however, and resubmit. If you get the similar strike again, move on.

As for quality issues, most of them are to be seen in your assets even as small thumbnails. You need to check your assets at 100% and when you see issues, any issues, correct them before submission. Adobe expects your assets to be "perfect". Buyers, for sure expect that too. If they first neeed to do extensive corrections, the will become angry. They pay a lot of money, you need to deliver good assets.

I see banding and artefacts in your assets. One of the assets is in addition completly blurred.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

3. I'm not sure if Stock is accepting more background images, since they have more than they can sell already.

https://stock.adobe.com/discover/backgrounds

A search for backgrounds & wallpapers yields well over 200 MILLION results. The sales potential is very low due to so much competing inventory.

The best approach is to find something that Stock needs, then fill it. This is what Stock has to say about similar content:

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

T

TrendingAtlasAuthor

Thank you, Nancy — that’s very helpful context.

The scale of background saturation makes sense, and it explains the “similar content” feedback I’m seeing even when trying to differentiate stylistically.

To make sure I’m adjusting in the right direction: would you recommend focusing less on general-purpose backgrounds and more on specific conceptual illustrations or problem-driven visuals (e.g., compliance, risk, infrastructure, workflows) where Stock may still have demand?

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this — it’s exactly the kind of guidance I was hoping to understand.

Nancy OShea

Community Expert

I would steer clear of any mention of backgrounds in titles or metadata.

Find topics you like (environment, waste management, etc...).

Search the Stock database for competing content.

Then strategize accordingly.

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert

daniellei4510

Community Expert

The forums are presently broken and your images can not be viewed or downloaded. Please re-post them as originally submitted using the image icon (fourth from the right above the input window). That said, be aware that there is no way to appeal the moderators' decisions in any case, but you can re-submit following any edits to fix issues in the images.

Adobe Community Expert | If you aren't submitting your assets in sRGB, you probably didn't read the rules.

T

TrendingAtlasAuthor

Thanks for the heads up! I'm currently working on getting the 2nd post to work - it's being difficult - hoping these two image post here in this reply for a smaller scale review. Thanks for your input!

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Just a few of many areas where the renderings aren't up to par for Adobe Stock.

Screenshot 2025-12-25 at 2.57.30 PM.jpg

Adobe Community Expert | If you aren't submitting your assets in sRGB, you probably didn't read the rules.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.