3 Correct answers
Since these are photorealistic they will be checked for realisticness. It's a weakness of much AI work, often needing a lot of time consuming correction. My opinions (for what they are worth):
#1 - out of focus is fine, but I don't think the background out of focusness is realistic, especially the light spots.And what shape is the table?
#2 - that's one strange mutant olive
#3 - shadow from glassware is too sharp and the light angles are wrong. But more to the point, what is that thing behind the g
...
I agree with the comments of @Test Screen Name. Each of these images have rendering errors in one or more of the objects in the frame. Additionally, you should not be submitting AI assets in PNG format.
and i'm not sure if people should even be allowed to discriminate and filter out AI Images. It's a bit like racism ..but for pictures lol.
By @Anthony280912442jrz
Well, customers asked for that. If a customer wants a real person instead of a fake one, they want a real person. And as it's the customer who pays, they are king.
But the reason behind those furious demands from the customers was and is the bad quality of AI assets. Six fingers, three hands, six legs… and artefacts, artefacts and
...
25
Replies
at a quick glace I can't spot nothing wrong with it. Had you uploaded that before February it would have gone through no problems but since then the flood of AI images has got so great that they are now really really picky over AI images and will study your image under a microscope and literally nitpick at everything..
By @Anthony280912442jrz
For a moderator, the refusal of these assets comes with a very quick glance, as they only need to see a first reason for refusing. You do not need a microscope. You only need to look at the picture at 100%. You should do the same with your assets.
I had about 50 images images up that were getting the occasional download between janruary and april but since then absolutely nothing and i suspect it's to do with increased competition due the floods of people looking to get rich quick off AI images...
By @Anthony280912442jrz
Maybe you are right with the flood of submitted AI assets. They are now in the millions present in the database. And many buyers simply blend them out when searching for assets, as a) quality is not good and b) they want real images. It will be as always: some contributors are getting the downloads. I read about a contributor with 40,000 AI assets adding thousands of new assets a week. Your 50 assets won't show up in a search…
and i'm not sure if people should even be allowed to discriminate and filter out AI Images. It's a bit like racism ..but for pictures lol.
By @Anthony280912442jrz
Well, customers asked for that. If a customer wants a real person instead of a fake one, they want a real person. And as it's the customer who pays, they are king.
But the reason behind those furious demands from the customers was and is the bad quality of AI assets. Six fingers, three hands, six legs… and artefacts, artefacts and artefacts. You name the fault, you get it!
i'm not sure if people should even be allowed to discriminate and filter out AI Images.
By @Anthony280912442jrz
==========
I disagree. Customers have to filter assets by project requirements. When a vector graphic is needed, they don't want to see thousands of videos, photos or AI illustrations. That would be a waste of time.
By @cfcmdesignwhy would i want to pay someone, as a professional, to do what i can do myself using AI?
==========
What most people don't realize is that 90% of AI is unusable junk. High resolution diffusions cost extra for bandwidth and server processing. It takes a hundred or more diffusion cycles to get 10 decent images to work with. Those costs add up quickly. Rinse, lather, repeat...
From there, it takes a talented artist to proof & correct each one to make it suitable enough for Stock acceptance. And due to delays, review times vary from 1-3 months. Rejection rate is high for all but the most talented AI artists.
All said & done, the time & money that goes into creating high quality AI artwork probably exceeds the artist's return on investment. It's not as easy as some people think. If it was, more people would do it themselves instead of buying from Stock.
By @cfcmdesign
Are you paying non artists for pushung a button… ? Because that's basically what photography is about.
Prompt writing will apear soon in job descriptions.
I mistakenly submitted my assets as PNG files, despite them not having a transparent background. To rectify this, I have promptly deleted the incorrect assets and resubmitted them in the appropriate format.
By @HaraLine
That's good practice to delete when you recognize the error. For submitting the wrong format, you should get a “Non-compliant Image” refusal.
3.52... : Artefacts in the out of focus area:
but also with the glass and the chips:
The whole image does not look to be very sharp.
3.32xx: Obviously, as you use the same process, you find the same or similar artefacts.
I agree with @Test Screen Name 's mutant olive. Looks nice, but not realistic. In addition, the picture is not level. The stick is also somewhat strange:
3.42XX: idem. In addition, what really stroke my eyes was this item:
If you can explain the physics of that, you will get nominated for the Nobel Prize.
AdChoices
