Hey Adobe, My 35mm Negatives Aren’t AI — But Your Moderation Might Be!

[jia1674]

I’ve got a couple of gripes with Adobe that have been driving me up the wall. First off, they’ve scattered their support and community pages across the internet like breadcrumbs in a forest. By the time you click through all the forums, subforums, help centers, and “contact us” pages, half your day is gone and you still haven’t found the one place that might actually help.

But my real frustration is with their stock contributor reviews lately. I recently dusted off my old film camera hobby — you know, the real kind, with rolls of film, chemicals, and the smell of fixer in the darkroom — and started uploading scanned photos. And what do I get? Rejected. Over and over. Apparently, I “missed the generative AI flag.” Excuse me? These are film photos, not pixels born in a machine’s imagination. How are they deciding these are AI-generated — tarot cards? Tea leaves? And while we’re at it, could someone explain why every rejection seems to come from a moderator who thinks a Nikon from 1985 is secretly ChatGPT with a lens?

[daniellei4510]

Are they black and white images? That doesn't make Adobe's reason for rejection the proper one, but black and white assets are difficult to get approved by the moderators. 

[jia1674]

Most of my uploads are in color, with just a few in classic black and white, but lately it hasn’t mattered — Adobe rejects all of them without fail. I honestly have no clue what they’re basing those decisions on. Maybe it’s because there’s no camera info in the metadata, or maybe their algorithm panics the moment it sees a scanned image and assumes it’s machine-made. Just my two cents, but whatever system they’re using isn’t doing me any favors. It’s almost like their AI detection tool needs its own pair of glasses — because it clearly can’t tell the difference between a hand-developed film shot and a prompt-spawned fake.

[Abambo]

Maybe it’s because there’s no camera info in the metadata,

By @jia1674

No, you can submit assets with the exif data stripped, and they will pass.

or maybe their algorithm panics the moment it sees a scanned image and assumes it’s machine-made.

By @jia1674

No, the decision is taken by human moderators, and they are checking assets in a very fast pace. If someone is refusing the assets, and they select the wrong reason (ie AI generated instead of quality, it's refused for a reason, but the indicated reason is not the right one).

It’s almost like their AI detection tool needs its own pair of glasses — because it clearly can’t tell the difference between a hand-developed film shot and a prompt-spawned fake.

By @jia1674

Film shots are probably all having quality issues. At least all my pictures, even when scanned with the most expensive drum scanners are all exposing film noise and are unsharp, if pixel peeped, evne if they are taken with highly professional middle format cameras of their time. They call it progress...

[jia1674]

I’ve also noticed that Adobe seems to have a personal vendetta against certain looks. The moment I upload anything with a black mist filter effect — you know, that dreamy cinematic glow we photographers actually intend — it’s practically doomed. Same goes for pastel tones or slightly desaturated edits. It’s as if their review system has decided that anything soft, subtle, or vintage must be “AI nonsense.” Meanwhile, I’m over here trying to create a mood, and they’re acting like I just typed it into a chatbot.

[daniellei4510]

On the issue of filters, Adobe specifically states not to submit asset with special effects filters, the reason being that the buyer will add those themselves if they wish to do so.

[Abambo]

I’ve also noticed that Adobe seems to have a personal vendetta against certain looks. The moment I upload anything with a black mist filter effect — you know, that dreamy cinematic glow we photographers actually intend — it’s practically doomed.

By @jia1674

There is no such thing like a "personal vendetta". Stock images need to be clean. Any dreamy cinematic filter effect applied will make the picture unusable for any stock user that does need a clean image. Stock buyers needing this dreamy cinematic glow can easily apply a filter to get that. You should have read the instruction for quality stock assets. They clearly exclude the use of any such filters.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

You're a very good writer, and your message worth praising 🙂

I'm still new here, when I started I submitted a bunch of color transparencies of some of my best shots, and most were rejected for same reasons as yours... what I suggest is that you include shot on film on your photos descriptions, it helped me on a handful of my shots.

Dont get discouraged, and next time share some of your photos with us, keeping in mind opinions are like...

belly buttons... everyone has one :)))

cheers!

[Jill_C]

There have been numerous reports here about film scans being rejected, usually for quality issues. It's challenging for film scans to meet the current quality standards of digital photography. Obviously, the rejection reason provided was in error. If you care to upload a few if the rejects here we can suggest the possible reasons for rejection.

[jia1674]

Here’s a typical example of one of my scanned film photos — it gets slapped with the dreaded “missing generative AI flag” label just like many others I uploaded..

[Jill_C]

It certainly doesn't look like an AI image to me, but I do think it's a bit overexposed and noisy, so a quality rejection might have been warranted. 

[daniellei4510]

While we've seen no evidence that Adobe will reject an asset without an sRGB profile, they do state that submissions have an sRGB color profile. This example does not.

[jia1674]

So, there’s a lesson to be learned today. I genuinely appreciate the education and the reminder from everyone — thank you. Adobe Stock clearly has a type: they love technically perfect, crisp, digital-looking images. Anything with creative character — like special effects, scanned film shots, or especially those dreamy CineStill rolls — is basically uploading at your own risk, because chances are, it’s not going to be welcomed. And don’t forget to set your color space to sRGB. Most photographers today work in Adobe RGB, but when it comes to stock submissions, sticking with sRGB could save you a lot of headaches.

At the end of the day, this isn’t your gallery wall for creativity and personality — it’s more like a clinical waiting room where your images are stripped down so others can poke, prod, and play with them however they please.

[Jill_C]

Keep in mind that your stock images are raw material for an ad agency or designer's commercial projects. 

[jia1674]

Just got two more clinically clean photos rejected. Both were labeled “quality issue,” which is hilarious considering one of them was rejected, I guess, because it’s in a square format — apparently is now a cardinal sin punishable by banishment. But the other one? That one featured the waves of the Pacific, which I thought looked spectacular. I can only assume that, to their AI, if the water isn’t perfectly still like a mirror, it’s a “quality issue.” At this point, I’m convinced the reviewers in India have either fallen asleep at the wheel or are running some bizarre game of “Let’s Reject him.” Either way, it’s starting to feel like the decision process involves flipping a coin — heads: reject, tails: also reject.

[daniellei4510]

Squeezing out some more detail and opening up some local shadows in the rocks might help. But you're right about the square format. It's a really nice photo. But give the buyer some room to add copy or crop as needed. 

[ZALEZPHOTO]

You don't see your colors are off? Also it seems that you have over sharppened and or added too much clarity. On the square photo, is the whale print your photo and already submitted to your library, if not that is technically a copyright violation. I have many photos where I've added my photos to tv screens, and never have had a problem.

Look, I get your frustration when I started I felted as much, but the fact is that the ocean photo needs improvement.

[jia1674]

Thanks for the advice — seriously, I appreciate it. It’s all part of my ongoing quest to become slightly less of a disaster behind the camera. My grand artistic vision was to capture that stubborn 3 p.m. California sunlight, but I see how it could also be interpreted as ‘color temperature malfunction.’ And you nailed it on the over-sharpening — guilty as charged. I treat that slider like a toddler treats a cookie jar. From now on, I’ll try to keep my heavy editing hand on a leash. Thanks again for the reality check.

[jia1674]

One more confession before I go: I calibrated my screen at 5000K — you know, because I still believed in that quaint, old-fashioned thing called printing. Turns out, that noble decision was also a dumb one. Everyone else, including the fine folks over at Adobe Stock, is living their best life at 6500K. So while I thought my colors were perfect, they were probably over there wondering if I’d shot my photos through a glass of orange juice. Lesson learned. I’ll recalibrate to the modern world for sharing, and keep the print-proof settings tucked away for when I feel nostalgic. Thanks again — consider me both educated and properly humbled.

[Jill_C]

I use a Data Spyder Pro professional screen calibration device; it's the only way you can know that the colors you're seeing on your display are accurate.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

I totally get the challenge with monitor color calibration.

if you're not shooting manual exposure, when you learn to control light, your work will improve 10 fold. Having said that, the give your priority to what your eye sees.

Personally, I don't follow or believe in composition rules... in fact I think most rules photographers speak of, is a bunch of bs. Yes you need to remember breathing space on your photos, but if something feels right to you have fun with it.

Be intuitive in what and how you shoot, and dedicate time to observing everything around you.

I remember when I started using photoshop, I would go a crazy retouching as I was trying to figure things out, specially portraits. Today with  AI we can save so much time editing, which it's one of the reasons I decided to give this another try, and I'm really happy I did!

DON'T Let the frustration get you, every photographer has had their share of it.

once again, above all, have fun with it!

cheers

[Abambo]

I totally get the challenge with monitor color calibration.

if you're not shooting manual exposure, when you learn to control light, your work will improve 10 fold. Having said that, the give your priority to what your eye sees.

By @ZALEZPHOTO

Monitor calibration is in no relation with how your shoot. 

Personally, I don't follow or believe in composition rules... in fact I think most rules photographers speak of, is a bunch of bs.

By @ZALEZPHOTO

Sure, all the old (and still longtime dead) painters did follow a bunch of nonsense. Come on, composition is important. Well, yes, I know, you submit your pictures until they get accepted. It's OK, until you may getting blocked. You are lucky that we are currently in the age of generative AI. That overwhelms the system, and they do not catch you that fast for spamming the system.

[ZALEZPHOTO]

Thanks brother Bambo, I am now assured you read and interpret according to how your heart desires... and yes I 100% support your right to having boring and predictable commentary, as I just did!

Cheers!

[Abambo]

Please do not post nonsense pictures with your messages. If you really want to add that, add that on-line using the "insert picture" icon. It's tiring to check each time to see if that picture does not violate the forum rules. 

Of the 10 years of Adobe stock, I have been a member of this community for eight years. I know, how predictable the image moderation was before the generative AI age. Posting your bad assets, as you have shown here would earn you as much refusals as submissions, and may be an early ban for spamming the system. 

[Ricky336]

I totally get the challenge with monitor color calibration.

if you're not shooting manual exposure, when you learn to control light, your work will improve 10 fold. Having said that, the give your priority to what your eye sees.

Personally, I don't follow or believe in composition rules... in fact I think most rules photographers speak of, is a bunch of bs. Yes you need to remember breathing space on your photos, but if something feels right to you have fun with it.

By @ZALEZPHOTO

Don't forget about Shutter/Aperture priority. That is very useful if one knows how to use it!

As for composition, this is exceedingly important. Without having a good arrangement of your elements in a frame, the elements in that frame will be higgledy-piggledy. One has to know the rules in order to know when to break them. But even so, the elements in that frame still have to be carefully arranged, so it is not higgledy-piggledy!