Before commissioning a catalogue reshoot in China, ask for the largest approved source files behind your current listings. An undersized thumbnail and an undersized original are different production problems. The first may need a new export; the second may need a closer photograph, a better reference or a carefully evaluated treatment.
Google Merchant Center’s current main image guidance says the new minimum of 500×500 pixels for all products begins on January 31, 2027. It recommends 1500×1500 or larger. The additional image guidance carries the same notice, so the audit should include supporting images. These are Merchant Center image requirements, not specifications for every advertising placement or video format.
For international teams buying product photography from Chinese suppliers, ONCE recommends evaluating native pixels after the intended crop and checking the product details that survive it. That provides a practical basis for choosing exports, treatments and pickup photography.
Find the submitted file before buying new photography
An approved photograph can pass through retouching, a website upload, an image delivery service and a product feed before Google receives its URL. A high-resolution file in your archive does not establish the dimensions of the image actually submitted.
Export the live image URLs, then connect each to the best approved source available. Record both sets of dimensions, the intended crop, the important product details, the owner and the estimated work. File size in megabytes is not a substitute for width and height: format, compression and image content affect byte size.
Google’s Image too small troubleshooting page explains how merchants can locate upcoming-enforcement warnings in Needs attention and download affected products. Check the current account interface. Use the list to start inspection, rather than treating a warning status as a complete assessment of the photograph.
ONCE proposes four routes:
| What the source review reveals | First action |
|---|---|
| A sufficient original exists, but a small derivative was submitted | Re-export from the approved source and verify the submitted URL |
| The full image is large, but the required detail crop is too small | Try a suitable existing angle or revise the composition; commission the specific detail if necessary |
| Only a poor source exists and important details cannot be checked | Obtain the product, packaging artwork or a better genuine reference before assessing treatment |
| Dimensions and product detail already meet the intended use | Retain the image; assess upgrades against a defined business need |
These are production recommendations, not Google's official categories.
Calculate the pixel budget of the crop
Let the original width and height be W and H. If the chosen crop retains fractions f_w and f_h of those dimensions, its native dimensions are W × f_w by H × f_h.
Once the crop’s aspect ratio is fixed, a target of T_w by T_h requires a linear enlargement factor of k = max[T_w ÷ (W × f_w), T_h ÷ (H × f_h)]. A value above one means pixels must be added to reach the target. A value at or below one shows numerical headroom; it says nothing by itself about focus, optical detail or compression damage.
For a hypothetical 3000×2000 photograph, a square crop retaining 30% of the width and 45% of the height contains 900×900 native pixels. That exceeds the new minimum in dimensional terms. Delivering that crop at 1500×1500 requires approximately 1.67 times linear enlargement. The larger output dimensions do not establish that stitching, threads or label characters have been reproduced accurately.
Keeping 1500×1500 native pixels with those crop fractions would require a source of at least 5000×3334, or a closer separate photograph. These are mathematical examples, not camera recommendations or ONCE test results. A larger sensor image can still contain a small, soft product. Framing, focus and depth of field remain part of the assessment.
This distinction matters for jewellery, textiles, fasteners and compact electronics. A complete product view and a readable connector close-up may need separate photographs. Buying a higher megapixel camera specification does not resolve that shot-planning decision.
Scope enhancement as a treatment requiring review
Google’s product data specification retains an instruction against scaling up images or submitting thumbnails. Its troubleshooting page also describes Product Studio’s resolution enhancement capability. Do not turn those statements into either a blanket claim that all enhancement is forbidden or a promise that every enlarged file will be accepted. Evaluate the source, the result, the applicable requirements and the account feedback.
ONCE recommends preserving the input and testing a representative difficult image before processing a batch. Compare the result against the physical item or an approved high-quality reference. Check connector counts, holes, markings, packaging text, weave and edges across the whole image and the agreed detail areas. Increased apparent sharpness is not verification of those facts.
When the reference cannot establish a small feature, more treatment may simply make an incorrect interpretation look convincing. A targeted close-up can provide a better basis for deciding what to do next. Define the point at which missing information triggers pickup photography instead of unlimited retouching.
Retain applicable provenance and processing records when using generative methods. Google has specific metadata requirements for generated imagery. Passing a dimensional check does not establish compliance with all the other image requirements, and a supplier should not guarantee platform approval or sales improvement from enlargement.
Commission three deliverables with different jobs
Specify the highest-quality approved photographic master, the publication exports for agreed placements and the planned detail crops. Set dimensions, aspect ratios, allowed retouching, naming and retention terms for each. RAW files, layered retouching files, working files and their usage rights need an explicit agreement; they should not be assumed to accompany every photography order.
Review the product facts before the output numbers. The product owner checks the physical details, the visual owner checks composition and treatment, and ecommerce operations checks the submitted file and account response. Preserve useful masters while exporting appropriately for publication. Google's main-image guidance currently caps images at 64 megapixels and 16 MB, so maximum-size delivery alone is not a complete publishing plan.
If still photography shares a shoot with product video, reserve time for its own focus, lighting and framing. A frame grab should be assessed against the actual source, motion, shutter and crop. Discuss the still-image list alongside the motion brief with ONCE’s China-based ecommerce content team.
Compare the cost of verified usable images
Prioritise assets connected to imminent listings, active campaigns and important purchase decisions. Separate retrieval and URL checks, new exports, limited trials, pickup photography, product review and submission checks in the remediation quote.
Use cost per verified usable image = total agreed remediation cost ÷ distinct images that complete the agreed dimension, detail and submission checks. Exporting one photograph in five sizes does not create five independently verified product photographs. This is a comparison method, not a market price or a forecast of approval or conversion.
Start with a representative sample from real account warnings: an image with a good original, a deep detail crop and an image with only a weak source. Ask the supplier to identify the route, inputs and charging conditions for each. Scale the work after those decisions are clear.
Official sources checked October 23, 2026. They are dynamic help pages; the access date is not an announcement date. The crop calculations, triage and costing method are ONCE's analysis. No client project, test result or industry average is claimed.
