22
Replies
But what are you talking about engineers, please, very good images are being rejected, it is more than the same lot they reject me some and others do not and they have the same quality.
By @Sdobrick
That is my signature. The message was "Correct! 😂".
Check your assets for artefacts and you will see the quality issues.
And what I find strange is how this evaluation process has accelerated at the same time. Until last month it lasted more than a month to get the results but now they have it clear in 7-8 days.
Apparently it's because the guys "analyzing" the pictures are much better trained now. They are so well trained they don't even need to look at the pictures to decide anymore. I guess they must be having pain in the finger after rejecting content at such speed.
By @David287897922ff2
7-8 days was formerly a very long time. Typical moderation was less then 48 hours!
The speed increase can only be achieved with more moderators or less submissions. And there is also the increased awareness of generative AI flaws. So be prepared to get assets refused that you would have gotten accepted weeks ago.
Individual moderators were rejecting/accepting always at the same speed. You do not think that someone looked for 4 weeks at your assets, before accepting/rejecting them. Moderation time for a single asset was always only seconds, especially when getting refused.
During the last year, moderators moderated millions of assets. To get your waiting time down, more moderators needed to be added. To increase the quality of the assets in the database, more assets need to be refused. Assets get refused when moderators detect errors. Moderators detect errors, when they are well trained. Generative AI creates unique flaws, that the moderators were not trained to detect. In photography, you do not have bad geometries, six fingers, three arms …
So people complain that the review process is too slow, now it's because it's too fast. There's just no pleasing some people.
By @daniellei4510
And because they are a contributor for half a year, they really think that Adobe did spend a month or more to check their assets.
These are AI images, not photographs. I thought I had posted a comment earlier along with part of the image of the woman, but maybe I just clicked Preview and then wandered off somewhere. But my apologies if I'm posting a second time, although I can't find it. The woman's eyes need fixing.
While facial restoration software can often fix such issues, AI, if one is lucky, can render some very realistic irises. When that happens, I copy them and store them in my Photoshop Library. Different sizes, different colors, different catchlights, different sized pupils, etc.
Hola la fotografia del paisaje tiene muchas areas fuera de foco para la próxima utiliza aperturas más cerradas para pisajes tipo f/11, f/8. La imagen del retratro no se, si enviaste el formulario con la autorización de la modelo, yo pienso que como es una imagen muy producida no te la aceptaron si vaz a fotografiar personas trata que sea lo más naturale posible.
By @Roshnyc
There is no need to produce pictures where only irrelevant part of the picture are out of focus. In all picture you have a point of interest. That point of interest needs to be sharp, well exposed and well placed in the image frame to make the image interesting.
AdChoices
