Idea - Plugin that checks Adobe Stock criteria?

[Henrik Heigl]

Hi,

Maybe someone else already had the idea, but wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of Plugin for PS and/or LR were you can say "Please check if the criteria for Adobe Stock are met" and if so give some kind of "checked" and/or "not fullfilled please check -> (link to the corresponding Adobe help/FAQ Page)" ?

If not can someone please make such a thing?! Because I often answer those rejection posts in the support community as well as lot of others and it always gets to the same 3-5 reasons that could be checked by such a thing (or manually, but THAT takes time...).

If not can someone please make such a thing?! Because I often answer those rejection posts in the support community as well as lot of others and it always gets to the same 3-5 reasons that could be checked by such a thing (or manually, but THAT takes time...). Is there anything out there that I missed yet?

[Abambo]

You can probably use some kind of AI to check assets. @sixhaunt could advice here.

[Henrik Heigl]

That would be a nice start idea.

But I think it could be more specific to the Adobe Guidelines and therefore checked to that specific Standards like Sharpness, Focus, Blur, Color Correctness, Composition, etc. in essence something like Ralph mentioned.

[daniellei4510]

Hm. Beyond Lightroom informing me that one of my files is too small or too large to be submitted, I'm not sure what more could be done. I wouldn't want LR telling me an image might be rejected for reasons such as "too many similar images" or because of "quality issues," if that's what you mean by "criteria." I'm not sure that would even be possible without resulting in false positives. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean here. Can you provide a possible scenerio besides file sizes where this might be helpful?

[sixhaunt]

There's a number of good AI tools for stuff like giving a number for an aesthetic score, which is useful for filtering (for example if it scores less than 50% on Musiq then it's almost surely bad quality), but for identifying exactly what issues there are you would want to use something you can finetune such as OpenClip but you would also need a good dataset of images that you categorize by issue. Even then I have only gotten 80-90% accuracy with OpenClip

[Ricky336]

I honestly don't think this would be helpful. It wouldn't be accurate enough - I think also there would be far too many false positives. In this case, if such a programme could be created, then moderators wouldn't be needed. The asset just wouldn't upload if the criteria weren't met.

Nothing beats an experienced human eye.

[RALPH_L]

It needs to be tested more. I tried Google Bard.

I uploaded the attached phtoto that was rejected by Adobe.

I then prompted Bard with "View this photo and check the quality for such issues as: focus, exposure and artifacts. What quality problems do you find?"

Here was the answer:

Based on the information provided, the image shows a close-up of a ram with long horns. The image quality is poor overall, with several issues in focus, exposure, and artifacts.

Focus

The main subject of the image, the ram, is not very focused. The foreground is slightly blurry, and the ram's horns are out of focus in the background. This lack of sharpness makes it difficult to appreciate the details of the ram's features.

Exposure

The exposure of the image is also poor. The overall brightness is too low, and the ram's face is dark and shaded. This makes it difficult to see the details of the ram's face, and it also gives the image a dull and lifeless appearance.

Artifacts

The image also contains some artifacts, which are digital imperfections that can make the image appear grainy or noisy. These artifacts are most noticeable in the background and in the shadows of the ram's horns.

Overall, the quality of this photo is poor. The lack of focus, exposure, and artifacts makes it difficult to appreciate the subject matter of the image.

[sixhaunt]

Doesnt bing use GPT Vision for the image? GPT-V shrinks images to aroung 768x768 before processing it so it would likely shrink to the point of not being able to spot a lot of problems

edit: nvm you said google, not bing for it. My bad on that, but they also shrink it don't they?

[Abambo]

Bing uses it's own version of ChatGPT.

[sixhaunt]

the resolution would still be the same wouldn't it? All the AI's I have worked with for vision have that limitation and although some tile to get larger (even GPT4-v does but only from 512 to 768), they are usually still scaling things quite a bit compared to the size required for Adobe Stock

[Abambo]

I have no idea. The resolution is a question of resources.

[RALPH_L]

I treid Bing also, Bing thought the image was perfect.

[Abambo]

I treid Bing also, Bing thought the image was perfect.

By @RALPH_L

I'll take that opinion. It pleases more. 😂

[Henrik Heigl]

Ralph, I think in essence that would be a good start. Not sure if there would be really Ai needed or if that could be done with some sort of normal Image Analyzing and Comparing Automation like Actions, but the process would look like this I think.