Why does Adobe Stock refuse photos for quality?
Adobe Stock refuses a photo for quality when the main subject is not sharp, noise or artifacts show, or light, contrast and colour are unbalanced. Software can catch some of this: in our tests on real photographs, automatic focus and exposure checks failed, and a noise check found about 4 in 10 noisy photos.
Key points
- Adobe's final quality check has three parts: a sharp main subject, minimal noise and artifacts, and balanced light, contrast and colour.
- Adobe tells contributors to inspect images zoomed in to full pixel size to find softness or unintended blur.
- Noise, film grain, compression artifacts, pixelation and banding are separate problems with separate causes.
- Fixing one problem can cause another: Adobe warns that over-editing creates artifacts and noise, and Shutterstock warns that too much noise reduction loses edge detail.
- In our tests on real photographs, automatic focus and exposure checks did not work, so they are off. A noise check finds some noisy photos, not most.
What Adobe asks for
Adobe's page on quality and technical issues groups the advice under a few headings.
| Area | What Adobe says to do |
|---|---|
| Sharpness and focus | Check images zoomed in to full size for softness or unintended blur. Keep the main subject sharp when you use motion blur. Apply depth of field carefully, without blurring important elements. Sharpen with thought, so clarity improves without introducing artifacts. |
| Editing | Avoid creating artifacts and noise through over-editing. Use high ISO carefully. Keep an original backup so you can compare if a file is refused. Clean the camera sensor to prevent visible dust spots. |
| Light and exposure | Use the camera histogram or live preview for balanced exposure. Avoid extreme exposure settings that may lead to lighting-related refusals. |
| Colour and finish | Use clean masking, remove colour fringing, and watch white balance, contrast and saturation. |
Adobe adds that if a submission is refused for image quality, several factors may be at play. That is why a single number from any checker cannot settle it.
What noise and artifacts look like
Shutterstock's help centre describes the same family of problems in more detail, which helps when a refusal does not say which one it was.
| Problem | Shutterstock's description |
|---|---|
| Noise | Multi-coloured dots or specks, blotches of colour or random variations in brightness, especially in low light |
| Film grain | Visible particles of metallic silver in analogue film |
| Compression artifacts | Jagged square-shaped artifacts caused by image or video compression |
| Pixelation | An effect typically caused by upscaling, where individual pixels become visible |
| Posterization or banding | Abrupt changes of tone that appear as visible bands |
Its recommendations include shooting at the lowest practical ISO, using noise reduction sparingly because over-use can cause loss of edge detail, shooting JPEG at the camera's highest quality setting if you do not shoot RAW, and not upsizing or stretching a JPEG beyond its original size.
What we tested
We built automatic checks for focus, exposure, blown highlights, noise and JPEG compression, and tested them on 96 real photographs from Wikimedia Commons with explicit licences. The corpus included defocused and shaken shots, over- and under-exposed ones, noisy ones and acceptable ones, taken with phones, cameras and AI tools. We wrote the test method down and committed it before running the checks on the real photographs.
| Check | What happened on the real photographs | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Focus and sharpness | Flagged none of the 26 photos labelled as soft or blurred. A football crowd fully out of focus, shots from a moving train and night camera shake all scored as sharp. | Switched off |
| Exposure | Flagged none of the 8 mis-exposed photos, and flagged three deliberate high-key or silhouette shots. | Switched off |
| Highlight clipping | Found 3 of 9 problem photos and flagged some intentional bokeh highlights and candle flames. | Switched off |
| Noise | After re-tuning its threshold, found about 4 in 10 noisy photos, with about 7% false alarms. Fine natural textures such as bark and rusty metal read as noise, and noise hidden by in-camera noise reduction was missed. | Kept, as experimental |
| JPEG compression | Only four heavily compressed photos were available, too few to judge. | Kept, as experimental |
Why the focus check failed is instructive. Grain, phone sharpening and JPEG noise add fine detail that a simple blur measure reads as focus, so a photo that looks soft to a person can score as sharp.
Limits of this test
The set is small: 96 photographs, with 5 to 12 for each failure mode, so the figures carry wide uncertainty. The labels saying which photos were soft, mis-exposed or noisy were assigned by an AI reviewer looking at the images zoomed in to full size, together with dataset labels for noise, not by a panel of people. We fixed the labels before running the checks and did not change them afterwards. None of this measures Adobe's own review, whose thresholds are not public.
What to do instead
Do what Adobe's page says. Zoom in to full pixel size and look at the subject, the edges and the shadows. Check the histogram when you shoot. Keep your original file so you can compare if a file comes back. Use the checker, if you use it at all, only for the two things it can still say something about: visible noise and heavy JPEG compression.
What to do next
If a photo failed for quality, find which of the problems above you can see at full size, fix that one, and avoid stacking edits. Photos can also be refused for technical reasons that a file check does measure, covered in What are Adobe Stock's technical requirements for photos?, or for being too close to another photo, covered in What counts as similar content on Adobe Stock?. For how our checks work and what they leave out, read how Check Before Submit works.
Sources
- Adobe Stock Contributor Help: Quality and technical issues behind content refusal (page last updated 11 June 2026) (read on 13 October 2026)
- Shutterstock Contributor Help: Quality Standards, Noise / Artifacts (page dated 23 April 2025) (read on 13 October 2026)
Figures taken from these sources are quoted as written on the date shown. Your printer's own specification always comes first.
More guides
What does a KDP paperback interior PDF need?
Trim size, bleed on three edges, margins by page count, 300 DPI images and embedded fonts. KDP's published numbers, and what a check can and cannot verify.
What are Adobe Stock's technical requirements for photos?
JPEG, sRGB, 4 to 100 megapixels, 45 MB at most. Adobe's published photo requirements in one table, which of them a file check can verify, and what happens at the edges.
What counts as similar content on Adobe Stock?
Adobe lists flips, crops, filters and slightly different angles as too similar. Which of those a perceptual hash catches, tested on generated scenes and 14 real photos.