I think reviews are done by AI

[Julián_2019]

I think that the reviews are done by a software and not by a person, it is not possible to review so many photos, and it is also noticeable that many rejections do not have an objective vision, rather guidelines built by some AI software are noted. In summary the reviews are totally biased and grossly unfair. Greetings

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

Well, in this example there are a few technical problems/issues. Exposure could be better for one! The verticals of the building could also be better - slight adjustment is needed. So, no AI is needed, as a reviewer could easily see the issues!

Also, you may need an IP release for this building.

[Julián_2019]

This photo has won a photography award, but I'm not just talking about this
photo, but in general, there are hundreds of thousands of images to review
and this can only be done in an automated way, years ago, when there
weren't so many images the reviews were done in a more equanimous way, and
I think that it would be good if the contributors of imatges knew how their
images are evaluated. Greetings and thank you very much.

[Ricky336]

I think that it would be good if the contributors of imatges knew how their images are evaluated. 
By @Julián_2019

The simple answer to that is it's done by flesh and blood humans. That is what we are told!

Regardless of the above photo winning a photography award, there are enough reasons to warrant a refusal.

And hundreds of images to review - well that's why it's taking longer these days for images to be reviewed!

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

Winning an award is no assurance that the image will have commercial viability. This image is underexposed, not sharply focused, and the verticals are leaning; thus, it does not meet Adobe's quakity threshold for inclusion in their commercially-oriented stock database. Moderation is done by human beings, and this fact has recently been validated by the fact that moderation queues have grown dramatically due to the influx of Generative AI assets. If assets were reviewed by computers, Adobe would simply have added consulting capacity to address the influx. 

[Nancy OShea]

This photo has won a photography award.

I think that it would be good if the contributors of images knew how their images are evaluated.
By @Julián_2019

========

Stock is a business, not a contest.  Customers who buy images are numero uno.  Give customers what they need and you'll be successful at Stock.

Everything you need to know is in your Stock Contributor User Guide.  Did you read it carefully?

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html/stock/contributor/help/photography-illustr...
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html

===========
Model/Property Releases:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/model-release.html
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/property-release.html

[Abambo]

This photo has won a photography award, but I'm not just talking about thisphoto, but in general, there are hundreds of thousands of images to reviewand this can only be done in an automated way, years ago, when thereweren't so many images the reviews were done in a more equanimous way, andI think that it would be good if the contributors of imatges knew how theirimages are evaluated. Greetings and thank you very much.
By @Julián_2019

Image moderation is done by humans. Refusals are very fast, as the first error will get your asset refused. A photography award is no guarantee to get a picture through for commercial use. Indeed, many art photos, that are done by great artists wont pass moderation, because the criteria are different for art and stock.

If it is not about this picture, there is no need to post it here. 

[Test Screen Name]

We cannot know how Adobe does the review. It is a business secret. They would certainly be very happy if all reviews could be done by AI. Perhaps they use AI a little. Perhaps they employ 100 reviewers; perhaps 10000. In my opinion it doesn't matter. It is the job of the commercial artist to deliver what the client wants. Part of the process is to discover what the client wants, and adapt to the client's changing needs. Submitting things that were succesful for other clients (eg prize winning art, cover art for magazine etc.) and using a rejection as proof of something is not a valuable use of the commercial artist's time (though it may be cathartic).

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

Wrong.  Adobe employs 26,000 people worldwide. They don't need to use AI.

Sorry but the reveiwers correctly rejected this.  The image is underexposed (too dark).  Poor lighting makes this unusable for commercial print purposes. 

Better luck next time.

[George_F]

Some of my favorite photos are technically very imperfect and would never pass for stock.  That doesn't make me like them any less though!

I prefer to turn rejections into a opportunity to better evaluate my photos or better understand what Adobe is looking for instead of a personal attack.  I view it more as using the right photo for the right job instead of a good photo/bad photo scenario.

@Nancy OShea beat me to it!  With more 26,000 employees, there could be many people reviewing photos.  I don't think it's unreasonable to think that several hundred thousand photos could be reviewed daily by human reviewers.

Cheers!

[Jill_C]

By my count, 2.1million assets were added to the database in the week from May 19-27! 500,000 of those were Generative AI. 

[Nancy OShea]

I wonder how many of those were pre-vetted assets obtained from trusted partners and agencies.

[Julián_2019]

Hola a todos, y muchas gracias por sus opiniones. 

En esta foto no hay nada que esté subexpuesto, soy un fotógrafo que me gusta tomar mis imagenes lo más cerca de la realidad posible,

si ustedes vieran realmente este edificio observarían que está muy mal iluminado, las líneas están muy bien, para estar tan cerca del edificio. Mi estilo, como ya mencioné anteriormente es realista, no me gusta nada sobre editar o sobre reverlar, revelo con ajustes mínimos y necesarios. Si ustedes viesen este edificio, se darían cuenta que la foto esta bien. Yo podría haber sobre editado la foto, pero como dije antes no es mi estilo, y respeto mucho los estilos de los demás, pero cada uno tiene el suyo. Hay que recordar que no hay nada mas subjetivo que todo lo que tiene que ver con los sentidos, vista, oido, gusto, olfato y tacto. Bien, la fotografía es un arte totalmente subjetivo, lo que no les gusta a unos, les encanta a otros.

Un saludo a todos.

[Ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hola

Well, the histogram disagrees. From a photographic point of view, the image is underexposed:

There have to be corrections. In reality, the building is not leaning, is it? The leaning verticals are because of the lens, so in reality the lines are straight, are they not?

So, after a few quick adjustments - exposure corrections and leaning verticals corrected you get this:

The histogram is better distributed.

Editing/enhancing needs to be done. This used to be done in the darkroom. Now we can do this in a 'Lightroom'!

The enhanced image is still realistic, is it not?

[Julián_2019]

Hola, muchas gracias por su opinión que es muy respetable, como he dicho anteriormente, la fotográfia entra por el sentido de la vista, que por otra parte es totalmente subjetiva, cada persona ve las imagenes de distinta forma, unos la verán estupenda y otros todo lo contrario, creo que en esto estaremos de acuerdo. El histograma no es ni mucho menos determinante, para mi, la fotográfia tiene que tomar vida y parecerse a lo que estamos fotografiando, le aseguro que mi foto sin corregir tanto el histograma se parece muchísimo más a lo que es el edificio en la realidad, que es lo que trato de reflejar en todas mis obras, si usted pudiera verlo en vivo se daría cuenta de lo que estoy diciendo. Si usted hace una foto a un edificio mal iluminado, claro que el histograma sale mal, pero eso es la realidad, en la foto debe aparecer tal cual es, si acaso con alguna pequeña correción necesaria para que sea esteticamente visible, la foto que usted a sobreexpuesto poco tiene que ver con la realidad, se lo digo con todo el respeto, ya que yo he visto en vivo el edificio y usted no. En resumen como decia anteriormente no hay nada más subjetivo que lo que tiene que ver con los sentidos, esta frase es de la persona que me enseño todo lo que se de fotografía, que aunque no es mucho si tengo un poco de experiencia en fotografía arquitectónica. Vuelvo agradecerle su opión que valoro y respeto, pero no comparto. Saludos cordiales

[jacquelingphoto2017 · Accepted solution]

Hi @Julián_2019 ,

I won't argue if Adobe uses AI or not for reviews. Whatever argument we come up with on that subject, its on pure baseless opinion and speculation and not facts. You will reach nowhere arguing opinion or speculating. Launch an investigation and come up with the facts and you have everyone's attention. Good luck with that one.

One thing you are right about is that guidelines are used to determine the acceptability of the files and some of the reviewers seem sharper than a software.

Your photos is underexposed. The underexposure causes it to have excessive noise and the edges not very sharp. Also there's color fringing around the edge of the highlight. You need to zoom in on your files to inspect and correct the errors before submitting them.

Noise grains

Color fringing

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Julián_2019]

Bueno, es su opinión, yo tengo mi propia opinión, no estoy interesado en debatir más, doy por cerrado este debate. Saludos cordiales y muchas gracias.