AI Seaart image not accepted?

[Vision350771902ejx]

Hello, I've generated over 50-100 images using Seaart, upscaled to 4k, and all of them were rejected. Why? Are images created using Seaart not accepted? Could it be that the generator is at fault for not producing satisfactory images, resulting in none of them being accepted? Initially, I generated images using both Leonardo AI and Midjourney without encountering such issues.

Some of the images created with Seaart are being rejected, and I'm not sure why. I understand one being rejected, but every single one? I know there are hundreds of thousands of similar images, but I found it intriguing and decided to give this new generator a try.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

You should read the requirements. You could generate your pictures with any tool you want, as long as they are following the requirements. If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[Abambo]

Check here the hand: 

Navel on the back?

A novel glass and a novel manner to hold it in a crippled hand (three errors for one!):

The woman may be stylish, but the face isn't:

In addition to the drawing errors, you have aliasing.

Drawing errors on the plant:

Check also the bottle and the window. Each of these are worth a refusal on it's own.

As everybody knows, wings are on the back:

You probably never saw a real cupid... 😉 And let's agree that cupids have a fish mouth: 

What is this?

Check also the door. And again you have aliasing.

(Your cupid is a nice idea, but your AI messed it completely up. I don't think, seeing your samples here, that your AI is ready forthe task.)

[Vision350771902ejx]

It seems that you are much more of a specialist than I will ever be! Aaaah, now I'll learn to become better at this.

[Abambo]

Well, you do not seem to be really a cupid specialist, but the drawing errors are quite obvious. You do not need to be a specialist. If you are producing generative AI for fun, then your assets have a lot of potential. Fore serious use, they need to be perfect. The customer gets furious, if they spent hours searching the correct asset and then they see a small error in the hand or eyes … That's real money. "Hobby" contributors who never worked on tight budget for a campaign can't understand this. 

Check your assets at 100% for errors like artefacts, noise etc. With generative AI, you also need to check the geometry, the anatomy and the physics (a table with two legs can't stand). Every single asset needs to be checked like this. It's not to submit 100 assets and see what get accepted. 

If you work as that, you waste time and money. 

Good luck with your future creations.

[Vision350771902ejx]

How do I check for artifacts and other issues? Is there a program that can do this, or do I need to check manually?

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

There is no program. View your images at a minimum of 100%-200%. Use your editng software to create a grid and check each square individually. If you are going to concentrate on people, take anatomy into account. And clothing. And hair. Regardless of which AI software you use, 99.999% of your generations will require some degree of editing. Or just relagating to the trash if the results are uneditable. I lean toward generating mostly portraits (fashion, skin care, children, etc.) and I generally spend 2-3 hours editing each image (though not necessarily in one sitting). When an image only takes me 30 min. to an hour to edit, I can't help but feel I may have missed something that the moderators won't. 🙂

[Abambo]

Open the file → check your assets at 100%, meaning one pixel in the image is one pixel on the screen. If you see “something”, go to 200% or 300%. It's a lot of experience, so after a while you know where to look.

[Abambo]

However, when I look at your first asset, you did post a small thumbnail picture:

I won't see all the defects there (this morning, I was using my iPad, I do not have the same precision there, when I do not open the file in Photoshop. But putting this picture into Photoshop on my desktop, I see additional defects:

(Only by visual inspection!)

[RALPH_L]

Yep, there are a lot of rendering mistakes as already pointed out.