Are these AI generated images? When zooming in on the details, I see a lot of changes of texture and some odd structures here and there.
With the girl in the rain boots, her head is cut off at the top. This image is also a little dark.
For the person walking in the desert, there's a very odd red structure at her feet that doesn't make any sense and there's a lot of blurriness around the person.
The alligator photo looks dark to me, and shows underexposure on the histogram.
Thank you for your time!
They are not AI genterated but edited by me.
The girl walking in the sand has a blue sled behind her, nothing red by her feet. Is there a way you can show me what you are seeing?
I do tend to underexpose my images. I'll work on this!
Thank you for looking!
@Chantal31180276uvo1 I appreciate your kind response! We are always happy to weigh in.
You are right! It is blue and not red! I wasn't even close, haha. The photo makes so much sense knowing those are sleds for sliding, and a general purpose of why all the people are there.
With composition falling under Quality Issues/Technical Issues, this could also cause a photo to be rejected. It's a really cool photo once you know the backstory, but the photo should be composed in a way that clearly depicts the event or idea without the need for an explanation.
This is a unique concept definitely worth exploring more. Is this a common activity?
I hope you have better luck with your future submissions 🙂
Great point! Thanks again
As @ricky336 said, the sled activity is quite obvious. That does not need to be explained. I think that we currently see too much generative AI assets in weird situations, that we can't concentrate on the obvious anymore. 😂
If I were to see someone with a sled in a desert, I wouldn't assume it was for sliding for fun. A sled in snow would make sense to me. There were just 492 results in the Adobe Stock Library for "sledding sand dunes", compared to the 518,000 for "sledding snow".
Perhaps you are right @Abambo , AI has us expecting to see zebras when we hear hooves, when instead it should be horses 😂
It's not common. I've never done it. And it's not working as well as on snow, because of the sand properties.
What nobody has mentioned yet. 2066, the girl in the sand, when viewed at 300% you can see artifats in the sky and along the edge of the dunes.
IMG_1950.jpg - the picture of the girl is just too blurry; and as @George_F mentioned, you've cut off the top of her head. There is something about the toe of the girl's left boot which is typical of Generative AI images...
IMG_2066.jpg - again, the main subject of the frame, the girl, is just too blurry. The blue object behind her is distracting.
IMG_2219.jpg - not in sharp focus, artifacts that look like chromatic aberration around some of the bright spots.
The original was definitely underexposed, but I don't think you lightened it too much. Chromatic Aberration is a function of the lens and is difficult to avoid but easy to fix in the Lens Correction Panel in Lightroom Classic.
I believe that this is a photograph, and not an illustration created by AI. I certainly have no reason to doubt you there :-). I think what @Jill_C and I are seeing on the left boot is a reflection of some sort after careful examination. It just resembles a common technical error with AI generated assets, in this case it appeared the boot had been molded to loosely resemble a foot.
AI software does a pretty good job but can sometimes create strange structures that are only noticeable in certain situations like large printing scenarios or scenarios where the details will be closely examined. In the early days the flaws were more noticeable and they commonly created very odd things like hands with too many fingers for example, and in some cases too many arms and legs.
It's hard to tell if that reflections were part of what led to the rejection, but it looks easy enough to clone out if you were looking to resubmit and wanted to be sure. Cheers!
How do I avoid chromatic aberration?By @Chantal31180276uvo1
Chromatic aberration will happen on all lenses, if you have a large brightness contrast. More expensive lenses have a better response to that, and it is often easy to correct. The autocorrect function in Lightroom works very well, other programs have similar options. When the autocorrect function does not work that well, you can manually correct it. I then do so mostly by widening the range of chromatic aberration colour that gets considered.
Hi @Chantal31180276uvo1 ,
The first image is not very sharp. The color is not smooth. It's grainy. It's too dark in the shadows and some details are lost.
The second file highlights are much too high causing detail loss. The sky is too saturated.
The third file is a little dark and noisy. Your focus seem not to be deep enough.
Regarding the girl in the sand, for me, it is quite obvious what she intends to do. No explanation is needed. A sled for sliding down snow, in this case, sand dunes. It's called tobogganing in the UK. I think the photo is too over saturated, somewhat under exposed. As there is a lot of light reflection, you have to be careful about exposure.
The girl jumping, generally speaking, it's too dark. You should include the girl's head I think.
The alligator photo, again too dark, too contrasty.
1950: nice colours, great action, but out of focus. I also would guess that the image is underexposed. The girl's head is cut off, that's unfortunate, as some potential use makes using this asset difficult. There is a certain noise level, that will make it difficult to correct the exposure.
2066: the rendering reminds me of old colour prints. Detail is gone in the girl's t-shirt. Whatever you cleaned up to the right and left, you need to do that in a manner, that the editing is not seen. It's obvious here. You need to train your photoshopping ability. The sky is noisy and deep blue, I would think that you pushed the saturation. The shadow on the left is strange in colour and exposes also noise. Overall focus is missing, that adds to the old colour prints impression.
2219: Nice pets, but the contrasts are very hard. Highlights are overblown, shadows are very pronounced. You have chromatic aberration in the reflections:
It looks like you used a direct flashlight. The highlights are also quality issues on it's own, even without the aberration.
Generally speaking, I like the pictures. You have an eye for the situation, and your framing is great, except for the girl's head. But you are, IMHO, combining camera setting and postprocessing errors. On social media, you will get many likes but for general stock use, they are not good enough.
WOW! Thank you everyone for all the helpful input! I sincerly appreciate all the comments!
I do tend to underexpose my images, its my understanding they hold the detail better than on overexposed image, so I will work on getting it right! As well, I will work on my focus and overall coloring!
I do tend to underexpose my images, its my understanding they hold the detail better than on overexposed image,
Correct. However, it's still better to correctly expose your images. With moving assets, it will be more difficult, but with static or near static objects, bracketing is a great solution. You did not include the EXIF data, so I could not check other settings, like the camera, lens, ISO, exposure time etc. But noise is an issue in your pictures, and lifting the exposure is also lifting the noise level. If you are interested in high-level noise reduction, check this out: High ISO noise reduction.
The jumping girl's exposure would have needed probably a good flash to correctly expose the girl, without destroying the light mood. I highly suspect this picture to be a snapshot of your daughter. Sometimes, snapshots are what they are: nice snapshots for the family album. If she loves posing for you, try to plan such shootings.