Lots of rejected AI images

[Olivi]

Hello everyone, colleagues.
I encountered a problem with many AI rejecting images and I don’t understand why, because sometimes images with worse quality are accepted, and images with better quality are rejected. Sometimes images are of the same quality, half are rejected, half are accepted.
I generate in Midjouney, increase in Topaz Gigapixel without applying the enhancement settings.
What do you think is wrong?
Here are some images for example:

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

Spend less time creating images and more time editing them.

Just a quick glance at number 354 and I see:

--the image is too soft and not in focus.

--the berries in the girls hair are melted together.

--the lady has an orange spot in her hair.

--her left eye (the bag underneath) does not match the right eye.

-- her ear ring is formed wrong.

--her ring is formed wrong.

--the finger nail on her pointing finger is wrong.

--the bridge of her glasses is formed wrong.

Should I keep looking?

Seriously, don't waste your time sending bad images. AI is a new frontier, but it does not take away the need to review and edit.

[Olivi]

Thank you very much for your opinion, I will try to improve the quality 

[MindGems]

Basically if anything is Off in the image, it there are tell tail signs of Ai it wont be accepted. Plus you do yourself a diservice submitting bad content, I'm quite sure the more refusals the lower your standing and we all suffer with large volumes of crap waiting for reviews.

[Abambo]

People will need to learn from refusals, not acceptance. If a three fingered hand passes, that does not mean that the next should also pass.

[Olmyntay]

In general, if the three-fingered hand does not pass, it should never pass at all! And not so that it passes twice and fails twice!

[Abambo]

In general, if the three-fingered hand does not pass, it should never pass at all! And not so that it passes twice and fails twice!

By @Olmyntay

I agree. It will be removed, when customers complain. The moderator did not do their job correctly. But it is not that three finger hands should pass, but they should be refused. And you seem absolutly wanting to get acceptance of assets with errors based on acceptance of other erronous assets. It does not work that way. If bad assets get accepted, they get accepted by error. Period. Moderators are humans and they err. And the auality requirements are clear. 

[Olmyntay]

Before purchasing, you can download a preview with a watermark and make sure that the image or video is suitable.
Why do you always talk about customer complaints? I don't understand!
And we already said that there are no perfect AI images!
But there are AI images where there are fewer aberrations, and there are where there are more. I would like to clearly understand the line beyond which you cannot cross! How can we understand this if what is obviously worse is accepted, and what is obviously better is rejected?


By your logic, it turns out that all the moderators made a mistake by accepting all AI content at all!

[Abambo]

Before purchasing, you can download a preview with a watermark and make sure that the image or video is suitable.

By @Olmyntay

In a quality reduced size. Customers are also complaining that some assets are so bad, that they (and I) see the errors in the tiny thumbnails that are shown. If you are searching for an asset, having to go through tons of bad assets, before eventually finding one good one, is a loss of time. A search for such an asset can easily cost hundreds of dollars.

Why do you always talk about customer complaints? I don't understand!

By @Olmyntay

Because customers complain (about AI and other assets, just a small selection):

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-bugs/ai-generated-image-poor-quality/idi-p/14104058

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-bugs/image-is-poor-quality-and-isn-t-what-it-says/idi-p/1424851...

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-bugs/bad-quality-stock-image/idi-p/14232867

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-bugs/cellini-s-quot-perseus-with-the-head-of-medusa-quot-mislab...

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-bugs/poor-image-quality-adobe-stock-download/idi-p/14134133

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-bugs/bought-image-with-defect/idi-p/14103963

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-bugs/adobe-stock-image-543990190/idi-p/14078318

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/generative-ai-filter-now-available-for-adobe-stock-...

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/generative-ai-filter-now-available-for-adobe-stock-...

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/generative-ai-filter-now-available-for-adobe-stock-...

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/generative-ai-filter-now-available-for-adobe-stock-...

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/poor-quality-stock-images-on-adobe-stock/td-p/13689...

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/users-on-stock-not-lableing-their-art/td-p/14197459

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/refund-due-to-quality/td-p/14052966

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/bad-ai-art-that-needs-to-be-removed/td-p/13582929

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/r%C3%BCckgabe-lizenz-ki-generiertes-bild/td-p/14004...

https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-discussions/bad-quality-footage-and-not-able-to-tell-until-lice...

(I suppose you can do your own search. As a side note: not all the complaints are for generative AI. So the fact that bad assets get accepted is not exclusively linked to generative AI, nor is it a new phenomenon. It is, however, getting hotter, since generative AI has been accepted.)

And we already said that there are no perfect AI images!

By @Olmyntay

So make them perfect. You are saying, I built a house, but the quality is bad because I can't do better, so you have to buy it as it is. (Replace house with any object you want, including generative AI)

But there are AI images where there are fewer aberrations, and there are where there are more. I would like to clearly understand the line beyond which you cannot cross! How can we understand this if what is obviously worse is accepted, and what is obviously better is rejected?

By @Olmyntay

Submit only the best. When you detect errors in the asset, do not submit it. Correct the errors. If you can't correct them, refrain from submitting. Do not hope that the moderator does not see the errors or that the moderator simply accepts your erroneous assets.

By your logic, it turns out that all the moderators made a mistake by accepting all AI content at all!

By @Olmyntay

I've seen great generative AI, that was as perfect as it could be (perfect enough, that I did not detect any error). But I've also seen bad assets that got rejected and where the contributors discuss that all assets have errors and therefore they should pass.

[Olmyntay]

Ha! Strange, I confused Adobe with Envato.
Envato uploads the preview in full resolution, but with a watermark!
It's very strange that Adobe doesn't do this!
Why then have moderators at all if you are then banned after a client complains? Somehow this is extremely unfair! 😞

Ideal, good and bad are all subjective.
In my work, I often have to adapt to the customer, determine his priorities and what he likes and what he doesn’t. This is the norm!
I am not against that!
But how to do this when there is no logic in what is accepted and rejected?

For example, two images, in fact, they are almost the same.
One has more aberrations, the other has less.
It is strange that in response to my request to determine what is accepted and what is rejected, there is such outrage about competency testing.
But I would like to see the logic, because these images either must be accepted, or both must be rejected!
But in the case when the image is received a little worse. How do you know which direction to go?
Upload new ones that are even worse? )))))

  

[Abambo]

Why then have moderators at all if you are then banned after a client complains? Somehow this is extremely unfair! 😞

By @Olmyntay

Business does not need to be fair. In a first, you are supposed to submit assets in professional quality. The moderator(s) did not correctly do their job, if you submit assets that do not meet the quality requirements. But you are firstly responsible for what you submit. If you submit scrap, you are becoming a cost factor. End of discussion.

[Olmyntay]

I am grateful to you, you told me a lot of interesting things!

But there is still some confusion about quality.
Probably, when you talk about quality, you mean mistakes like three fingers on your hand!
But in that case, this conversation would not have happened at all!
Because everything is clear here!
And if I posted two pictures here, where on one a person has three fingers, and on the other, as expected, four, then everyone would definitely determine that the picture with three fingers was not accepted! But if it’s the other way around, then yes, we can say that the moderator made a mistake.

But our situation is different, we are dealing with very subtle controversial minor nuances, in which, as practice has shown, no one can give an unambiguous answer! Because the two works are practically no different in quality.
And if the bar of requirements is raised to this level, then 99% of the content is defective from this point of view!
And if business is not done honestly, then is it surprising that we are dealing not with a moderator’s mistake, but with his protest in relation to this AI Content?   %))))

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

zagr7 - 186
There's something about the hand that I can't quite put my finger on (no pun intended). Is the middle finger abnormally long? The decorative hat/mask: jewel-studded costumes raise problems when it comes to AI. All of the jewels are misshapen or have random facets, while some seem a cross between a jewel and decorative cloth.

zagr 8 - 355
Although accepted, it should have been rejected. Look at the teeth at 200%. The eyes lack detail and there are fly-away hairs that could be removed.

zagr - 354
Same deal with the teeth and eyes. The woman's earring adds nothing and could have been removed. The decoration on the girl's head lacks distinct ball shapes and in spots look like a mass of jelly.|

zagr7 - 190
This should have been rejected as well. This is one of those Midjourney hybrids that are part photorealistic and part illustration. The pupils and lips, for example, are far from photorealistic.

[Olivi]

Thank you very much for your opinion, I will try to improve the quality

[Abambo]

355 needs to be deleted, even though it got an initial approval. If you have many of such assets and Adobe reviews your account, your account could be suspended.

You will need to be much more critical of your own pictures. Hoping that the moderator does not see the errors is not a good strategy. That could backfire.

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

In addition to the valid comments from @RALPH_L  and @daniellei4510 , I also see the following:

zagr 8 - 354.jpg - the bright spot in the woman's hair looks like a mistake. The bokeh spots of light in the background don't make sense because there is no source.

zagr 8 - 355.jpg - definitely should not have been accepted. The girl's teeth, ear and fingers are poorly formed. If a Buyer licenses this and then takes a closer look, they'll ask for a refund.

zagr7 - 186.jpg - spot of light in her shoulder, the hand is oddly shaped and green.

zagr7 - 190.jpg - pupils aren't round; inner corners of eyes very unrealistic.

As you've learned, moderation, which is done by humans, can be inconsistent. I think they're under pressure to maintain a high volume of reviews, sometimes resulting in flawed images that are accepted. 

[Olivi]

Thank you very much for your opinion, I will try to improve the quality through retouching

[Olmyntay]

Some kind of terror of AI content just started, I encountered the same thing.
And yes, the problem is that it is impossible to understand the essence of the problem!
I think this is simple envy and downgrading of ratings, which ensures a decrease in sales. Since a lot of generative content began to reach the top, it is clear that photographers and artists who are also moderators suffer because of this.
I realize this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but what are the options?
All these comments about pointing out quality problems are completely unhelpful! Thus, problems can be found in anything! Three fingers on the hand are still clear, but otherwise there is no logic, and still no one answers the main question.

[Jill_C]

If you believe that "All these comments about pointing out quality problems are completely unhelpful! " you are totally missing the point of the moderation process at Adobe Stock. Adobe wants to ensure the best experience for Buyers and provide assets of high quality. They have also provided this forum so that Contributors can gain some more clarity on the reasons for their rejected images. Many new Contributors do not properly understand the quality levels desired, nor are they experienced at evaluating their own images for compliance. The OP was apparently unaware of the technical issues in their submission, and has acknowledged the feedback. So how is that not helpful?

[Olmyntay]

I don't know if you want to understand me!
1. I really appreciate what you do here and how you help!
2. But this is where you ignore the main question! Not only you personally, everyone who helps here ignores him!
This question has been raised on this forum more than once, and no one has answered it!
You simply take an unaccepted image and point to the reason why it was probably not accepted!
But the question is not at all why a specific image was not accepted!
Question: - why wasn’t this accepted, but another one that was of even worse quality was accepted?  

 Because, for example, even in the most striking case where there are three fingers in the image, there will not just be accepted images with three fingers, there will be images with three fingers that are even in the top sales and recommendations!
So it's not about quality that they want to improve; if they wanted to improve, there would be clear and understandable criteria for rejection! And not so that two works with three fingers were rejected, but one was still accepted! 
  

[Jill_C]

I really am trying to understand you, but your message is a bit garbled. When presented with a rejected image, the Contributors here will point out the flaws for which we think it was rejected. Sometimes, though not very often, we conclude that the Moderators erred and should have accepted the image.  We cannot comment on images already in the database that are of poorer quality than the image for which feedback was requested. That's not the purpose of this forum. And the fact that poor quality images have made it into the database does not mean that more poor quality images should be accepted...

As stated here frequently, Moderators are human, and there can be inconsistencies in their decisions. 

[Olmyntay]

Ha!
But you still heard me! Thank you very much! 🙂

That's the whole point!
If there is no conclusion or commentary on why a lower quality image is accepted, then there is no answer to the question asked here!
People are falling into a trap!
It is impossible to understand what the quality criterion is now if one image is accepted, but an image with exactly the same quality is not accepted!
It just looks like trolling and bullying, half were accepted, half were not accepted, but why?

%))))
Because AI content is starting to replace photo content!
And crowding out photo content can also be a big problem for many!
Therefore, as trolling AI content, this can be understandable!
But no one simply admits this! 🙂 

[Jill_C]

There no need to promote conspiracy theories here. Adobe is NOT trolling and bullying their Contributors - that's just nonsense. 

AI content is NOT crowding out photo content. ~6% of the assets in the Adobe Stock database of >376 million are AI. The rest are photos, videos and vectors. 

[Olmyntay]

Dear friend, these are very strong words: propaganda and conspiracy theory! %))))))
Essentially, this is the same thing that you often say here: - the moderator made a mistake!
When AI appeared, heated debates began about what was there, where and who would be displaced, and how many artists would be left without work!
AI does it! AI is displacing artists and photographers, and displacing them at a very serious level, because there are many more people who can write a beautiful prompt than there are many more people who can press a button on an expensive camera, and many more than there are artists.
Are you looking at the top authors? 80% of it is generative content!
Therefore, I do not see anything surprising in the fact that one or more moderators express their protest against generative content in this way!
If Adobe suddenly decided to raise the quality bar for AI content, there would likely be a mass mailing saying it would no longer be accepted.
Secondly, if the quality bar were raised without warning, this forum would drown in such topics. And so, in view of the fact that there are only dozens of such questions, and not thousands, this means that we are dealing with a protest, perhaps, of only one moderator! %) And this is not propaganda of a conspiracy theory, this is a common assumption, the same as the moderator made a mistake! Only the assumption “the moderator made a mistake” is much less convincing! %)

[daniellei4510]

Speaking of trolling, you have been making (or trying to make) the same argument or observation in a number of posts. You're talking to the wind at this point.