Participant

Answered

AI images rejected without explanation. Help?

Forum|Forum|9 months ago
April 10, 2025
7 replies
1730 views

Hi there! I'm a photographer and Adobe Stock contributor for many years now and have been dipping my toes into AI. I'm noticing it's much tougher to get AI images approved and would love some help if anybody has a workflow that works best for them, I'd love your thoughts. Below are just some of the rejected images ( I upscaled upres'd each image to 300DPI). Does anyone have a workflow for AI images that Adobe seems to consider best for AI image quality? Thank you!

Correct answer Abambo

There was surely a rejection reason.

Upscaling to 300dpi (dots per inch) is nonsense. First it would be ppi (pixels per inch) , and second, digital pictures are measured in pixels. I can put the same image in 100 ppi, 2000 ppi or whatever value you want, without changing the picture. Dpi is only important when you want to print a picture, as the size of the print and the pixel density give you an indication of the quality of the print. And newspaper prints do need less dpi as high-quality photo prints.

If you are a seasoned stock photographer, simply check your generative AI assets like you would do with your photographs, but add another check for rendering errors.

Just looking at the histogram of your third asset:

It's underexposed. But you also have rendering errors like these here:

Additionally, you have aliasing and an outline, as you can see on the hand.

I did not check the other assets, they probably have similar issues.

S

Sakateka

Known Participant

Well, really - how can you disagree with them if the fingers and toes are really deformed or underdeveloped?! Although at first glance the images look good. I had the same thing, until I started enlarging them before sending, where I saw everything myself. So I refined and reworked them. Although also at first glance it looked like perfect)
Enlargement before sending - a big help!

Abambo

Correct answer

Community Expert

There was surely a rejection reason.

Upscaling to 300dpi (dots per inch) is nonsense. First it would be ppi (pixels per inch) , and second, digital pictures are measured in pixels. I can put the same image in 100 ppi, 2000 ppi or whatever value you want, without changing the picture. Dpi is only important when you want to print a picture, as the size of the print and the pixel density give you an indication of the quality of the print. And newspaper prints do need less dpi as high-quality photo prints.

If you are a seasoned stock photographer, simply check your generative AI assets like you would do with your photographs, but add another check for rendering errors.

Just looking at the histogram of your third asset:

It's underexposed. But you also have rendering errors like these here:

Additionally, you have aliasing and an outline, as you can see on the hand.

I did not check the other assets, they probably have similar issues.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

N

noelb45388487Author

Participant

Thanks Abambo, quick question: As an AI image are we expected to deliver images to the highest standards of photography as you are pointing out here? Because I don't think any AI generative tools will be able to satisfy quality issues like aliasing in an ultra-zoomed in image. Would love your thoughts and expertise.

daniellei4510

Community Expert

"As an AI image are we expected to deliver images to the highest standards of photography as you are pointing out here?"

Absolutely. And it can be done.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

C

coffeeman_L

Inspiring

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Good catch.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

Abambo

Community Expert

It is probably a little more difficult to lift the barbell over your head like this.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Again, watch the fingers. She has no fingernails.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

Jill_C

Community Expert

I'm quite certain that the first place Moderators look is hands. If they find a fault there, they press "reject". These images look good at first when viewed at screen size, but when zooming in, rendering errors are easier to find.

Jill C., Forum Volunteer

N

noelb45388487Author

Participant

Hey thanks! This is helpful.

M

muhammad_7751

Inspiring

@muhammad_7751,

Could you please use inline pictures? That's easier to handle:

When your posting your assets, that have been refused, you should use attached pictures, because for those, the quality will be better.

Thanks sir for your kind suggestion

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Underexposed. Watch the fingers.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

RALPH_L

Community Expert

The workflow is simple. View your images! At best, at 200%. Look at the hands and anything with detail. All of your images that you posted here have deformed fingers and toes.

N

noelb45388487Author

Participant

Hey thanks! This is helpful

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.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded