Ablehnung wegen fehlender Ki Kennzeichnung

[uweodenwald]

Ich habe Vogelfotos, die als RAW Bilder aufgenommen wurden, ganz normal mit Lightroom (ohne KI Veränderungen) bearbeitet und sie wurden wegen fehlender KI Kennzeichnung abgelehnt.
Hat jemand ähnliche Probleme, ist es ein Bug der KI die die Fotos beurteilt und wo kann man sich beschweren?

[daniellei4510]

It's happened to others. Either re-submit with a property release or attempt to submit again and you'll probably get a moderator who call the difference. This one bugs me, since so many AI assets appear to get through without being correctly tagged.

[jacquelingphoto2017 · Accepted solution]

Hi @uweodenwald ,

Human reviews your submission. Sometimes they err in giving refusal reasons. There might be other issues on the file. Can you show us one so that we can see if there's another issue?

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[uweodenwald]

Hello Jacquelin,
Thank you for your answer. I have been with Adobe for a few years and have sold more than 7000 nature photos through Adobe. I now have around 200 photos pending approval and the first 5 photos that were assessed were all rejected. 3 of them with the reason “missing Ki marking”. I only take RAW photos that are developed in Lightroom and completely comply with Adobe's AI guidelines (for example, removing spots etc.). I have attached another one that was rejected with the reason "lack of quality". It is a very high quality photo of an unusual bird.
I understand that as an examiner you can be wrong about the reason for rejection and you press the wrong button. But please also consider the following: we photographers like our photos and often have a lot of work to submit them to Adobe. When you then receive a rejection reason that is sometimes hair-raising, it is more than frustrating. I can live with rejections of photos, but I don't think I deserve to have my work dismissed as sloppy work by a reviewer.
I would also like to ask you to pass this on to Adobe, as I'm sure many other photographers have the same problem.
Thank you for your help
The last pic is the one with "quality problems", the other three with "missing AI label“

[Jill_C]

These are all quite beautiful images, though I think a couple of them are a bit underexposed. I  think what you're saying is that these were rejected because they weren't marked as AI images. To me, these clearly aren't created by AI tools. You can either resubmit them hoping that they'll be accepted the second time, or accompany them with a Property Release indicating that you're the photographer that captured them.

[daniellei4510]

This happens often enough that I'm starting to wonder if moderators have been put on notice that they have been accepting too many AI assets not labeled as such, and now they're over-correctly. 

Wasn't the relatively new Content Credentials supposed to fix this issue? I always turn mine on, though Content Credentials are supposed to be added automatically with any AI content. Although I suppose if one doesn't use Photoshop for editing, the CC's don't get added. Are they also added in Lightroom? I see no way to turn it on there in preferences.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @uweodenwald ,

The first file has motion blur. The beak of the bird appears to have chromatic noise. It is also under exposed. 

The second bird seem nice except you could up the exposure a bit. Not much.

The edge of the third bird is not sharp and also it's a bit dull. The colors of the wings do not seem to be that smooth.

The fourth bird is nice. Except for the soft claw of that bird, I don't see a problem. I don't think that soft claw should be a reason for refusal. These are clearly not AI generated. Except for those with the motion blur and soft edge, I suggest you make them a bit brighter and resubmit as photos. Make sure Photo is selected as "File type".

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Abambo]

Es ist eindeutig dass der Moderator sich geirrt hat, und eigentlich den falschen Fehler ausgewählt hat.

Es scheint mir klar zu sein, dass alle 4 Bilder Qualitätsprobleme haben. Bei den drei ersten Bildern sind die Fehler sogar sehr gut zu erkennen, bei dem letzten bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob es die Unschärfe des Vogelkopfes ist, die teilweise ausgefressenen Lichter oder das Farbrauschen. Oder eben doch die Freistellung.

Die Untersuchung Deiner Bilder sagt mir, dass Du den Vordergrund freistellst und den Hintergrund glättest, den Vordergrund nachschärfst. Dabei arbeitest Du teilweise ungenau, wie die folgenden Beispiele der drei ersten Bilder zeigen:

Beim letzten Bild ist es nicht so offensichtlich, trotzdem glaube ich etwas gefunden zu haben:

Hier müsste ich aber zur Sicherheit die RAW Datei begutachten. Die stehen aber weder dem Moderator noch mir zur Verfügung. Aber wie gesagt, bei diesem Bild habe ich auch andere Fehler gesehen.

Bild eins ist auch etwas unterbelichted.

Es war also gute Arbeit der Moderatoren, der einzige Fehler war der falsche Ablehnungsgrund.

Ich wäre aber froh, wenn endlich die KI Leute einen ähnlichen Qualitätsstandard befolgen müssten wie wir einfachen Fotografen. KI Bilder werden nämlich mit viel gröberen Schnitzern durchgewunken. 

[Abambo]

Es ist eventuell ein Fehler des Bildmoderators (keine KI, ein richtiger Mensch). Ich würde annehmen, dass der Moderator die Qualität der Bilder beanstanden wollte, aber den falschen Grund ausgewählt hat. Das kommt desöftern vor.