Hello guys, time ago i posted some images generated with Midjourney v4 and v5. They got accepted. I post an example:
Now i'm posting other images generated with Midjourney v 5 (again) and v6 and aren't getting accepted. I don't understand why cause the quality is the same (v 4 has very noisy images so it makes nonsense they got accepted but now v 5 and 6 images no). I post an example of 1 that got refused:
Can someone please explain me what's exactly the problem?
2 Correct answers
In any case, a mistake is that the roof of the tower to the right is not fully drawn. And maybe the green lanterns shoud be alike.
Noise is not the only quality aspect on which images are judged. The first (accepted) image was actually more cohesive in terms of drawing details. The second image has numerous drawing errors and artifacts.
28
Replies
For me time went up to 8 weeks.
By @Conrad3468011975ya
As I said, it's not that easy as @Svetlana28639737zwpi wants to make you believe.
And as for why. Not long ago the review times where 2 months. Now they are 2 days. You do the math.
Maybe adobe went to some marvel universe and hired some superhumans as reviewers to cut that review time by that much 😉
By @Svetlana28639737zwpi
Well, the review time of the assets is pretty much the same. Formerly, your pictures just waited in the queue for two months, before they got moderated. A refusal is pretty fast. The moderator refuses at the first error they see.
And it took Adobe around a year to cut down the waiting time down. In a year's time, you can add a lot of moderators. And they also cut down the number of assets, you can have waiting in your queue, as you well know. Before, certain contributors were submitting hundreds of assets per day. One contributor had around 60,0000 assets in his portfolio, before getting suspended for some violation(s) of the contributor terms.
And it is even not sure that the waiting time is really down. There are indications that Adobe just started an out of order moderation. Before, moderation was strictly first submitted, first moderated, for a category (photos, illustrations, vectors, …).
You dont know that! The reason could also be that many more people uplaod AI Generations and therefor many repetitions. That doesnt make the process more strict. When i have good Ideas that doesnt exist yet, all pictures get accepted, even bad ones. When i have perfect images but they already exist, adobe will reject alot.
By @Conrad3468011975ya
Quality issues is about quality. Not about how many people upload what. We don't know nothing for sure, we just see that assets in the past were often very bad and we saw more and more customers complaining on that. And we see here that more and more generative AI contributors are complaining that their assets do not pass anymore. What leads to the conclusion that Adobe is doing a more stringent checking with a lot more refusals then before.
@Abambo"We don't know nothing for sure, we just see that assets in the past were often very bad and we saw more and more customers complaining on that."
Where did you saw that?
By @Svetlana28639737zwpi
Adobe operates more than one forum.
Also. Why do every "expert" ignores the fact that there is a mass (the same as always) of AI images still getting accepted with the plethora of defects?
By @Svetlana28639737zwpi
Why do you think that?
If you do the "marking dust specks on ai images to explain the rejection reason" test on every new image accepted, gues what will happen?
By @Svetlana28639737zwpi
You need to rephrase. this is not to understand.
There is noise (artifacts) on absolutly every ai image due to the technology constraints.
Noise that simply can't be edited out.
By @Svetlana28639737zwpi
Why do I see generative AI assets that do not expose artefacts?
When I submit high ISO photographs, I have a lot of noise that is inherently connected to the technology used. They get refused if I do not compensate for that. Why would that different for generative AI. Why should I have to accept as a customer bad assets, just because you say so? You can compensate any error you have in your file. It's just a question of effort you put in and talent.
If assets get accepted that expose errors, then Adobe needs to check even more vigorously. It can not be used as an excuse to argue that your assets should be accepted.
And as for me rephrasing what i wrote? You need to get a better translator. I am not your english teacher.
English is not my native language, but people seem to have no trouble in understanding what i write (without using language tools and translate).
By @Svetlana28639737zwpi
The sentence does not make much sense neither in English, nor translated into German, French, Spanish, Dutch. Sorry, but I don't speak any Slavish language. Your name lets me guess that you are coming from one of the Slavish countries. I'm not a native speaker neither, and it happens, occasionally, that I write difficult to understand sentences.
Nobody, except you, talked about raw images. I can also take the example of my phone camera, where a lot of the pictures would earn refusals because of the inherent technical limitations that those cameras have. I can, however, submit phone camera assets, and some will pass, if scrutinized under the same quality criteria as any other picture. Using a technology with limited capabilities is not an excuse for bad assets.
AdChoices