New contributor attempting to understand rejections.

[oscar6161]

Hi Adobe Stock Community. As a newbie to this arena I'm trying to understand the quality guidelines that dictate whther any image is accepted or not. If anyone has the time to look and comment on the photo attached it would be great to get some feedback.

Having looked at the example closely I'm guessing it's because the depth of field doesn't quite cover the nose and mouth? Although my opinion's biased, I thought that this slight softening created a more natural effect rather than 'technically correct' version.

Many thanks...

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

Is this an AI image? The blurred text in the book looks odd...

[daniellei4510]

When in doubt, I've been using this:

https://sightengine.com/detect-ai-generated-images

It does a pretty good job compared to others I've tried.

[Jill_C]

Wow - it worked ! I'm going to bookmark this page.

[daniellei4510]

I know. It's great. I've even tried to fool it with a couple of my more bizarre photographs. It even tells you the AI app that was used.

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

I'm going to be as picky as your moderator probably was.

[oscar6161]

Many thanks for the valuable feedback everyone. Fresh pairs of eyes are always beneficial. The 

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

The rug pattern is wonky, too.  As if the rug is crumpled up on itself.

Don't you just love AI mistakes?

[oscar6161]

Yep, I love them

[RALPH_L · Accepted solution]

Also, the ear lobes look wrong.

[daniellei4510]

Another good point. When I have this much hair to work with, I usually just hide the ears if they look a little funky.

[Abambo]

This is not the original size picture as submitted, I guess. Some of the errors cannot be detected if you downsize for the forum here.

[oscar6161]

Correct it's not however, the feedback received so far has proved enough to
give me an idea of how stringent the moderators quite rightly are.

[daniellei4510]

Unfortunately, they aren't stringent enough with some AI contributors. Although I'm hoping the AI assets that are called being called out to this day were uploaded in the early days of AI being accepted by Adobe. I believe the mindset of the moderators, prior to proper training, was that, "It's AI, and it's not going to be perfect, so let's give it a pass." But AI or not, it does need to be perfect. Also, though we've pointed out multiple errors, it only takes one to result in a rejection. The image you posted is good overall, and it even stood up to remaining relatively sharp at 200%. So you're on the right track.

[Abambo]

Well, if you have at this size very obvious errors in the picture, you should not have submitted it, as at the originbal size, they will be much visible. And your initial guess of DOF can not be checked with a reduced size picture. 

And I agree, moderators are not stringent enough, as much scrap still comes through. That's the reason why on the buyer's side, people are complaining about the low quality generative AI assets, and how difficult it is to search them for quality items.