Too dark, the horizon line is not straight, and it's severely out of focus. Do not post your images here unless your assets were rejected and you have questions as to why. There is Facebook, Instagram and others for that purpose. ... View more

Candid pics of cats are usually going to be rejected by Adobe Stock. Do a search for cats and have a look-see at the competition. Ditto on the apparently random images of flowers and plant life. Welcome to Adobe Stock. As for the new lens, that is irrelevant with respect to composition and a variety of other potential issues. Images are sometimes accepted here that were taken with cell phones. ... View more

You can not contact them or appeal their decisions. Other sites are not Adobe sites and have different standards for acceptance. If the reason for refusal was quality issues, you can always post a couple here, and we can take a look. More often than not, we can point out why the assets may have been rejected. ... View more

What was the reason given for the rejections? And for the record, Adobe is not Shutterstock, so that is irrelevant. You can resubmit assets if corrections are made (assuming the rejections were for quality issues). If it was a quality issue, it may have to do with the fact that the symbols are simply overlaid on the fists and not part of the fists themselves. ... View more

Same. On the bright side, I was able to find time to wash dishes and put away laundry. ... View more

I highly doubt it will result in account suspension, but the rejection reason is particularly frustrating, since it allows us no option to resubmit the images unless it is drastically re-envisioned (as per my example below). At least with well-deserved rejections due to quality issues, we have something to base our changes on. ... View more

I think out of 34 rejections for similar so far in the last three days, only two assets have been accepted. And they weren't all that dissimilar from the similar assets. Something is screwed up. ... View more

"Another thought I have is, is the Similar Content analysis now performed by artificial intelligence instead of humans (moderators)? Is this where wrong decisions are made?"   At this point, that's probably not out of the question. At least something that's happening even before assets make it to human moderators. But it needs some serious tweaking if so. ... View more

The asset below was among those I've recently had rejected for being "too similar" to other submissions. It was created using Midjourney. I then took the above image and used it as a reference model in Firefly to produce the following. Finally, I edited the asset and submitted this. It was accepted within 24 hours. Why was the first one too similar, but this one not? I do concentrate largely on photorealistic portraits, so I like to switch it up sometimes and mix in some abstract or surreal submissions, along with more "mundane examples such as animals, office workers, etc., which are also being rejected as being too similar. If anything, I would think the image below is more "similar" to my usual submissions from a photorealistic perspective than my initial submission.  It appears some extremely subjective decisions are being made here, or some sweeping policy changes that Adobe has yet to inform us about. Meanwhile, there are still contributors uploading hundreds of assets so similar that they are close to being exact duplicates, which some in fact are. ... View more

To contact Adobe Stock contributor support, you can email them at contributor-support@adobe.com . You can also use the "Contact Us" link on your Adobe Stock contributor dashboard.        ... View more

Too tightly cropped in my opinion. Give the room some wiggle room to crop as they see fit. But the other comments also stand. ... View more

We're trying to figure that out. I've had over 30 such rejections. ... View more

Only 5? I've had 36, with perhaps two or three actual acceptances mixed in. There is no one to contact except Contributor Support. You will receive a canned reply, but that doesn't mean complaints aren't being read. If enough people affected by this issue write in, maybe we can at least get an explanation from Adobe as to why this is happening and what we can do to avoid it going forward.  ... View more

If you have an Adobe Photoshop Cloud account, you will find it within the Creative Cloud application under the tab for beta versions of Adobe software. ... View more

I have no idea. ... View more

One or two weeks is not long enough. Adobe even states that reviews can take up to 8 weeks. Some are taking months. A few have reported images under review for over a year. ... View more

I am presently having only 1 or 2 assets reviewed per day. And most of those are being marked (erroneously, I believe) as being too similar to other assets I've submitted. Adobe appears to have made and is continuing to make sweeping policy changes due to what I believe is the oversaturation and bulk loading of AI assets. These changes are hurting both photographers and AI contributors alike, in my opinion. One year ago, I was selling more assets per day with only 2000 assets available, compared to far fewer sales today with over 5,500 assets. When it comes to AI, less is more. Some have called for a minimum of 50 submissions per day, which I believe is still too many, since they aren't being reviewed in bulk in any case. Well, some are. We have people complaining that only 100 or 200 of their daily submissions of 500+ are being reviewed while the rest are being ignored. It's getting messy. ... View more

My motto: Be fair to real photographers who probably upload a handful of images per day or even per week. Adobe Stock is already oversaturated with AI. But we have already discussed the issue of bulk uploads and you know my feelings on the issue. 😉 ... View more

Was it rejected? It's both underexposed in the shadows and overexposed in the bright areas. ... View more

Assets are moderated by humans. I know I'm looking at a reduced image here, but I do start to see some noise and grain when viewed at a larger size. Cell phone images do not have a large enough sensor to capture some types of images, most particularly, I would think, broader landscape types of assets. ... View more

They are very similar to each other, and Adobe seems to be rejecting a lot of "similars," often seemingly without just cause. In this case, if a buyer wanted a closer crop, they could easily do that on their end. ... View more

"It is at least partially AI because sometimes my images get accepted instantly."   And humans can't do it instantly?   "Not if it can batch process say, 20 files in a minute or two, finding minute problems. Which the tool the Reddit guy was talking about did. Which Adobe also does."   I don't batch process. I create and edit, at most 5 to 8 AI assets per day. Mass production and submission of AI assets have upset more than a few buyers looking for GOOD assets, only to become disheartened and angry that they now make it a practice to filter out AI results altogether.   "If I can generate 1000 images a day and automatically filter out 500 of them for bad pixels, irises, fingers, noise, etc.... you can't see how that makes the process more efficient?"   Nope.   "Seriously, do some Googling about automating the generation-> upload pipeline. It's a thing. The tool I'm looking for would be an invaluable part of that thing."   No thanks. I'm good. 😉   I can only shake my head here. Why in the world process 1000 images per day?   "I'll reiterate that there's a time factor. If I'm photoshopping irises and can do 10 images an hour that's 80 images a day. Niches are so saturated now that you can't make any realy money doing that. "     ... View more

I used my four free credits. 🙂  ... View more

Magnific.ai is one. $39 a month for 200 upscales/enhancements. I think you get something like 4 free credits per day (enough for one enhancement, I believe), but the results can't be used for commercial purposes to the best of my knowledge. And, like all AI, great results aren't guaranteed, and you will still need to edit. ... View more

"Great idea. Do you know of one?"   Again...no.   "the same quality analysis that Adobe's system does would solve exactly what I'm asking"   Errors in AI are being found by humans, not AI. Or if it is AI, why is it making so many mistakes and accepting often horribly bad AI assets? Or dozens upon dozens of similar images, which are not supposed to be allowed? Or marking assets as too similar to others when they are not? In the extremely unlikely event Adobe is using such technology, it is clearly not working.   "Adobe often kicks out images for reasons I can't really see."   Then learn to see them. Believe me, I've submitted at least one or two 6-fingered hands in my early days as a contributor. Which I promptly deleted once discovered.   "Curating takes a lot of time."   Of course it does. So would running AI images through an application that tells you what's wrong with them when it's so easy to see them oneself after a little practice. Not to mention that AI will ALWAYS require (at least 99.999% of the time) manual editing, whether it's pushing pixels, replacing irises, removing fingers, using applications to correct noise or upscale, or to do whatever. There's no time-saving involved here. Such an application would be more likely to decrease one's workflow.   Anyway...if you ever find this program...do report back. But I'm not that young anymore, so the quicker the better. ... View more

I don't even see the point of such an application. At least one that actually worked. If an application can be used to find errors in an AI image, why not just program an AI application to not make them in the first place? Is there an application that tells you when ChatGPT is giving you information that is false? No.  Well...I suppose you could argue that Google is, since it can be used to research the information that ChatGPT provides to see if it is or is not true. And I guess in a way, applications like Topaz Photo could be considered such an application, since it can sharpen assets, reduce noise and artifacts, etc. But Topaz doesn't TELL you what's wrong with the image...it just fixes it, and not necessarily automatically. So why even bother having an application that just informs you what is wrong when it can just go ahead and do it? Me, I just use my eyes, and probably would continue to do so even if proven wrong and such an application actually exists. ... View more