I got a few images rejected recently, due to "Artifacts problem". The more detailed (generic) description is (as some of you might have experienced as well):
"Excessive artifacts/noise can be caused by low light, bad camera settings, strong compression or excessive post-production."
The images were shot at bright daylight, ISO 100, and have very few (if any) edits - mainly a slight crop, and +- 1 on some sliders. I'm poking my eyes, looking at 200-300% zoom, but can't see a single artifact. Fair enough, some images if shot with little light and high ISO (or heavy editing ex. too much increase in shadows/ lowering highlights, too much sharpening, or strong noise-reduction) might have noise, but not those shot during the day at low ISO and no editing. This image also got accepted at another stock agency, so can't be that bad.
The one below is resized for upload here, but the submitted one was exported full size, 100% quality JPEG, at either 300 or 350 dpi. Is there something I'm doing wrong? How much dpi is considered enough?
I know there are millions of images submitted weekly, but some more detailed feedback would be appreciated from reviewers (rant over).
Very nice photograph. Certainly looks sharp to me but I can not see it at the magnified level required to find artifacts.
Good that you looked at the work at high magnification. Love the Seagull on top. Clouds like these sometimes carry noise or artifacts. If you did not find any then I will tell you 500dpi is a must for offering stock for sale on Adobe. For more information see -
For more information on what makes a quality image, see The review process and Create better photos for Adobe Stock with 7 tips for success
Search the entire guidelines for Adobe Stock contributors. Best regards, JH
...500dpi is a must for offering stock for sale on Adobe.
Actually, the DPI is irrelevant in this case and should not be confused with PPI. DPI - Dots Per Inch, PPI - Pixels Per Inch. This only becomes important when printing, and this then will depend on the size of the print and then you can choose the actual print quality and of course your print size.
In most circumstances, 300 PPI seems to be sufficient. Megapixels, however, are important and quality should be based on this, not DPI. Also saving and uploading at the highest quality is of course important.
Regarding the photo - I think the exposure/tone is a bit flat/dull. There is not enough tonal contrast. So, perhaps 'Technical Issues' was intended, rather than artifacts.
Something like this would be better:
Good job, Ricky, it certainly add a lot to this image ..!
But the mystrious diagonal foreground totally ruins this image and imo makes it unsellable ...
Yeah, agreed, I could probably crop it a bit, but then the image might look too "crowded" and not enough empty space.
the "artefacts" may be the rust on that structure...
Nice effort, definitely looks nicer! I'm still new to uploading to stock, and trying to find the right balance of post-production editing. I thought I was over-editing in the beginning, so I left this image pretty much as it came out of the camera. Might try modifying it a bit and re-upload.
Yes, edit again but think about the rust... It does not change the image principal elements, so why not simply taking it out. Croping will definitly help the image first sight look.
...500dpi is a must for offering stock for sale on Adobe.
Actually, the DPI is irrelevant in this case and should not be confused with PPI. DPI - Dots Per Inch, PPI - Pixels Per Inch.
In most circumstances, 300 PPI seems to be sufficient. Megapixels, however, are important and quality should be based on this, not DPI.
PPI is also irrelevant as it is only a parameter giving an indication at which density a given picture should be printed. And that depends only from your viewing distance and the printing technology. Photo-printers are doing a good job at 200ppi, billboard displays are ok with 100ppi or even less. A high PPI value means a smaller image in inches (but still the same pixel size). The PPI value is a target value that you use in creating print ready PDF files.
ONLY PIXEL SIZE MATTERS with stock image suppliers and there is only one rule: more is better. But neither DPI nor PPI nor MEGAPIXELS are a measure of quality. Quality may be an abstract term to describe image sharpness, noise, artefacts, cropping, motive etc. That's the quality indicator a stock moderator would use.
But in the sense it is used for JPEG images that means simply the amount of compression applied. Different programs use different measures, but usually the quality factor is a number between 1 and 100, 1 meaning very high compression, low image quality (artefacts) and 100 meaning low compression but high image quality (near to no artefacts). Photoshop uses a value between 1 and 12.
JH Adding on -Stock I upload to Adobe are 90% illustrations and the rest are layered photos or general photos. My illustrations need 500 DPI so I am in the habit of making everything 500 DPI. Size is very important to get the detail in large format prints on canvas. JH
I have also some images rejected due to artifacts. Some of the pictures I would argue, some othere are ok or could be ok. This picture does not show artifacts, at least not the version I see. Artifacts occur when you take pictures at high ISO or you use a high compression ratio. You may also have problems with your sensor or postproduction. But a picture like shown here does not have artifacts. Unfortuneatly there is no established path to apeal the decision. That’s one point that I would like Adobe to improve.
I simply think that the moderator chose the wrong reason.
Thanks, Abambo - I am with you on this one for sure, JH
Thanks for the replies, maybe you are right and the moderator chose a wrong reason. I did bring my camera for a sensor clean recently and there was some dust on it, I was seeing some spots on my images, but that image was taken maybe a year before that.
I didn’t see the dust... That’s normally edited out with ease. I’m thinking more that there is an IP problem or similar. That can also be in the keywords. Clicking the wrong reason is easy if you have to check hundreds of pictures.
I am new here but could it be because the image is not straight on the horizon?
You’re right, the image also isn’t straight at the horizon. But I think it’s the least of the problems ...
Seems a bit hazy/lacking in contrast. I would also straighten the verticals. Then resubmit in a while. A different reviewer may accept it, though I think the comp with that diagonal roof in the foreground may limit the commercial appeal.
There is a blue cast, from top to bottom, making it hazy, I think thats why