Images Sizes for Adobe Stock

[daniellei4510]

Just curious. I prefer to upload images to Adobe Stock that are 300 dpi at 30" along the long side. But now and then, images that large begin to degrade, but look fine if they are at 300 dpi at 14" or 15" along the long side. Are those acceptable or would they be rejected?

[Moderator moved the thread to the correct forum]

[Abambo]

If I understand your request well, you are a contributor.

When uploading pixel assets, you should upload them at the highest resolution in pixels as created. You should not resample the asset: you should not enlarge, you should not scale down (change the pixel values).

The DPI value (it is indeed the PPI value, but never mind) can be set at any size you like, as it is a completely senseless parameter for our use. Something like 200 or 300 dpi is OK. But it would change nothing in the image quality if you would set it at 1200dpi or 1 dpi. This is true as long as you do not resample the asset.

Anything else does not make sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch

[Test Screen Name]

Adobe Stock should have a big message "PPI IS NOT RELEVANT". Really, it is not relevant. Ignore all the web pages which claim it is a measure of quality. Adobe require a minimum size of 4MP (megapixels not MB as some people read it) - be sure you reach that size. Don't reduce it, images of 50MP are welcome.

But there may be something you are not saying. Perhaps you are increasing the size in pixels to reach your target. You MUST NOT do this, Adobe forbid it. Keep your photo, or generative AI, at the original size in pixels - or crop it as needed.

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

First of all, what are you submitting?  Raster images  -- Jpg?  Or Vector graphics - - .ai, .eps, .svg?

Photography should always be captured at highest camera settings available and exported to sRGB color JPG without altering its height x width in pixels.

Generative AI must be high resolution diffusion from the start.  Midjourney's high-res diffusions are approx 2800 px wide.

Vector graphics however are resolution independent. What does that mean?  It means math-based graphics can be re-scaled to any size needed without quality loss.

[daniellei4510]

I submit upscaled AI images by way of Lightroom (also using AI upscalers≠. I aim for 300 dpi at a maximum dimension of 30" along the longest edge. I have a .047% rejection rate (some of which were uploaded at 72 dpi by accident). I'm well aware that AI images in particular are judged with additional cautions and limitations and that is understandable. I follow all the rules. I'm relatively new to Adobe Stock, so I don't have a huge number of images uploaded at this point but I've sold a few. Quality is extremely important to me. But I have created some good images that look horrid at 300 dpi @30" wide or long, but look fine at, say 14" at the longest side. Will those be rejected outright or can those be accepted if they meet all other requirements? In other words, this is about physical size, not DPI or PPI or whatever.  I understand how all that works. 

[Nancy OShea]

72 dpi is standard for JPG models.

The newest Midjourney Model Version 5 (and Niji 5) produces high-resolution 1024 x 1024 px image grids without needing an additional step to upscale each image.  Previous Model 4 produces 512 x 512 px.

https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/en/upscalers

[Abambo]

Upscaling is not allowed and recommended. Upscaling does not produce more information. 

On stock the only measure that counts are the number of pixels, regardless of any ppi value. 

When upscaled assets look bad, they are bad and they will be refused.

It is possible to get upscaled assets through moderation, but upscaling creates typical artefacts and amplifies artefacts. 

[Nancy OShea]

Upscaling has double meaning that deserves clarification.

On Midjourney, UPSCALE (U1, U2, U3, U4 buttons) mean high resolution diffusion settings. 

In any other setting, UPSCALE means "I'm trying to make a silk purse from a pig's ear in post-production."  It won't work.   You must generate high-res diffusions from the start.

Read the Adobe Stock submission requirements & FAQ below. These details are important to know before you submit any more Generative AI.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-content.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/generative-ai-faq.html

Good luck.

[daniellei4510]

This simply is no longer true. I'm a retired photographer and too old (and poor) to be fussing with cameras, lighting equipment, paying models, etc. In addition, the majority of my photographic works were of fine art nudes and portraits which I wouldn't even attempt to post to Adobe Stock for obvious reasons, not the least of which would include the absense of model releases, some of whom are dead or unreachable since the 25+ years I photographed them.

So 100% my uploaded images are AI images that have been upscaled from 1024px along the longest side to 9000px along the longest side @300 dpi. I'm also relatively new to Adobe Stock. I have a .066 rejection rate (25 rejections compared to 385 acceptances), only a few of which were tagged for quality issues. In many cases, the rejected images had little to do with softness, focusing issues, artifacts, chromatic abberations and so forth. Parts of the rejected images were simply not so realistic in the eyes of the moderators.  I simply didn't look closely enough to check if they contained issues, such as a railing not following a winding stair case in a realistic manner. I've since learned to check every square inch of the images I upload, correct them if possible, and it has been weeks since my last rejection.

But I diregress. Point is, the old rules about upscaling and reducing images simply isn't an issue anymore. With a vareity of AI tools, including facial restoration (AI still cannot do eyes properly so they have to be rounded out or re-colored), upscaling, sharpening, jpeg artifact removal, etc., I can achieve very sharp results with little to no additional Photoshopping from very small images.

And please don't get me started on AI vs. real photography. AI designers are not the ones clogging up the process of slow reviews and acceptances of images. (Or at least not the only ones). It's people submitting sub-par images who are very new to photography with little or limited knowleged of lighting, composition, focusing issues, etc., and who believe their $5000 cameras can't possibly take bad photographs.

OK. Now I'm starting to rant and I need to get to bed.

[Jill_C]

Sounds like you're quite new to Adobe Stock; congratulations on your high acceptance rate which is no doubt due to the care you take to inspect and edit every image. I will have to disagree with you regarding your last statement about AI Contributors not clogging up the review system. The long delay in reviews is absolutely caused by the huge influx of AI assets, which has caused Adobe to also implement a cap on the number of assets that a Contributor can have under review. The cap was specifically designed to throttle the Contributors who were uploading hundreds or thousands of assets at a time. Anyone who uploaded thousands at a time was definitely not focused on quality, nor were they spending any time at all inspecting and editing their assets. This simply never occurred in the pre-AI era. When I started as a Contributor in 2016 I would upload 8-10 photographs at a time and they would be reviewed within 24-48 hours. I'm still submitting small batches of images, usually 4-6, and they're getting reviewed/accepted in less than ~5 days. Fortunately, Adobe has separated AI submissions into a separate queue from other assets so that their traditional Contributors aren't penalized by the AI surge.

[daniellei4510]

I can believe it. But I don't know how they do it. I am in fact very new to Adobe Stock and on the days where I upload a couple dozen images (compared to a half dozen on a normal day), I'm worn out.  Plus, a number of my images require property releases, which adds yet another step to the process. How people are uploading hundreds or more is beyond me and I'm sure the cap is a welcome implementation for actual photographers and people who have been here since the beginning.

[Abambo]

But I diregress. Point is, the old rules about upscaling and reducing images simply isn't an issue anymore. With a vareity of AI tools, including facial restoration (AI still cannot do eyes properly so they have to be rounded out or re-colored), upscaling, sharpening, jpeg artifact removal, etc., I can achieve very sharp results with little to no additional Photoshopping from very small images.

By @daniellei4510

Upscaling does not add information to the picture. But as for your description, you add that information, and by doing so, you enhance the quality enough to pass.

And please don't get me started on AI vs. real photography. AI designers are not the ones clogging up the process of slow reviews and acceptances of images.

By @daniellei4510

Where a standard photographer submitted 10–15 images in a row, generative AI contributors submitted 1000 and more assets.

[daniellei4510]

Then there is something nefarious going on here. Spamming, big corporations paying minions to upload images all day long..I dunno. There should definately be a limit to the number of uploads, whether actual photography or AI, that can be uploaded in a single day.

But one thing that I have noticed, even though Adobe says they review images based on the day they were uploaded, I don't believe this is really the case. I've had images sitting on my review page for weeks if not months, while others I've loaded more recently have been reviewed and accepted. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It just doesn't seem they are really reviewed based on the day they were uploaded.

I say this partly in jest, but if I were an Adobe reviewer, and I came across images that I didn't really know for sure whether to accept or reject, I'd pass on them and let a more experienced reviewer deal with it.

[Nancy OShea]

So 100% my uploaded images are AI images that have been upscaled from 1024px along the longest side to 9000px along the longest side

By @daniellei4510

=========

I fear that's your mistake.

Don’t: Enlarge files.

Don’t: Enlarge files.

I repeat, Don’t: Enlarge files.

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustrations.html

[daniellei4510]

My upscales are accepted and sold regularly on Adobe Stock and other platforms. They are virtually flawless and I make sure of that before I submit them. 

[daniellei4510]

In addition, Adobe would not be wasting their time with FireFly if they weren't planning to allow submissions of upscaled images, which are presently limited to 1024x pixels. 

[Nancy OShea]

I only know what the submission requirements say.

In my experience, enlarging native 1024px JPG to 9000px in post-editing does not make it better.  It only exacerbates flaws and makes them even more noticeable.

If you're happy with your acceptance/rejection rate and sales are good, keep doing what you're doing.  If not, then perhaps you should re-think what you're doing.

[daniellei4510]

I'm gonna put myself out there, Nancy. Attached is a section of an AI image that was enlarged using Photoshop Neural Super Zoom and Topaz AI Sharpen, in addition to some pixel by pixel editing in Photoshop. The notes are included in the image. So tell me...is the resulting enlargment worse, at least as good, or better than the original? I'm open to your input. I've been using Photoshop since the day it was first released (like, when when we had only ONE level of undo, as opposed to dozens or even a hundreds...yeah, I'm that old), Thanks!

[Nancy OShea]

I've been using Photoshop since it came out on Windows -- a long time ago.

Was this image rejected?  What was the reason?

Others here may have different opinions.  IMO, the enlarged version is too dark, too soft and lacks sufficient detail for commercial print purposes. Compare yours with current Stock inventory.

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=%22human%20eye%22

[daniellei4510]

I haven't submitted it yet, but it is par with similar images that I have submitted that we're accepted. As for brightness, etc., I don't know what this board does with uploaded images as far as converting them after the upload process. 

[Nancy OShea]

Open your image in Photoshop's Histogram panel.  I can tell just by looking that the left side is too dark and details are too soft.

At any rate, this community is for feedback on rejected images.

Good luck.

[daniellei4510]

As suspected, the image I uploaded and the image you responded with bear absolutely no resemblance to each other with respect to the histogram. The latter is much darker than the original. Histograms mean little when it comes to whatever process is involved after an image is uploaded to whatever site. 

[daniellei4510]

Assuming links work on here, my accepted images are here (bearing in mind I've only been submitting to Adobe Stock for a couple of months: https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/207324673/Daniel