31
Replies
Some basic editing could help with the baby panda. The eyes could be improved. At the bottom, there appears to be some "cotton candy like" fluff that could be removed. And that white dot on its nose. Simple enough to remove.
Savannah Sunset. Some dust-spotting would help. Also, the baby looks like it's grown out of its mother's face, rather than be separate.
Lion King. The lion's teeth should be white. More dust-spotting needed.
Golden Embrace is the best of the four, but a couple of things could be improved upon.
All that said, it is not the job of the moderator's or Adobe to give you detailed critiques as to why images get rejected. That is what this forum is for. And Firefly was not created specifically for people to create perfect AI images suitable for stock. Editing will always be required.
Moderators are moderating for the customers, to protect them from bad assets. They need to move fast to moderate all those files that get submitted. The refusal reason given by the moderator is basic, but still it's important. But there is no precise assessment, also because they refuse on the first error they see.
As a contributor you are supposed to submit perfect assets… Firefly generated assets are not perfect, as aren't all other generative AI assets.
Panda: look at the paws. The 5 finger rule also applies to pandas. The area around the eyes should be black fur. In your picture it's a black patch.
Savana sunset:
The ear is weird, the shadow on the mother from the cub is from a bad cutout. You have aliasing on the fur and the whiskers are not looking correct.
The lion king picture has a black line, in addition to many artefacts.
The golden embrace: You have a noise pattern on the image, looks a bit like halftone from a scan. The fur looks weird. You have aliasing.
.... But some kind of explanation is very helpufl to the contributors to improve in the future. Just like a student who hands in the exam, would like to know where he or she made mistakes if he or she didn't pass.
By @WP98560
When I sat an exam, the wrong answer was just marked wrong - no explanation of why it was wrong.
It's the student's job to find out why!
With Adobe Stock it is accepted or not - with some template reason. The 'why' is where you can come here to find out why. The answers/opinions at times can be varied though.
As mentioned many times before - Adobe Stock is not a learning platform - but to sell high-quality images (one hopes they are high-quality!)
My opinion on the Golden embrace - to add as it is a photo-realistic image - would be to tone down the yellow a bit. It's just a bit too yellow and there are signs of noise in the background!
I won't do that, because I don't feel this is the place to promote my profile page for a variety of reasons. But here is an example of how I edit when AI gives me garbage results. You can never edit enough. You just need to know when it's time to stop and submit the asset before you drive yourself nuts. And yes, the edited image was accepted.
Thank you very much for sharing! I noticed that AI normally doesn't generate very high quality of images for wild animals in nature compared with pets. Maybe because of training images.
By @WP98560
Whatever AI normally does not generate correctly needs to be corrected. Even if a bad asset slips through, it will hound you someday.
To be honest, sometimes, imperfection is kind of beauty of art.
By @WP98560
===========
Stock is not an art gallery. Stock is a global assets business that connects worthy Contributors with millions of potential customers. Stock's customers expect highest visual & technical quality for use in commercial projects. In this context, imperfections are not desirable. They will warrant rejection by Reviewers and customers alike. Contributors who receive too many complaints/refund requests are at risk of being blocked or having their account permanently terminated. 😝
There are other microstock services to which you can contribute. However most other services do not accept Generative AI artwork.
...imprefectionism is kind of beauty of art.
By @WP98560
I don't actually believe that to be true. People are striving for perfection - just look at Instagram and the use of filters. Portraits - cloning out spots and imperfections on the face and body, using filters to get the 'perfect' look; the profile photo has to be 'perfect', people don't want imperfection, even in art! (Unless it might be a specific display at an art gallery focusing on imperfection, which then requires specific marketing.)
AdChoices
