Quality issues rejection

[Prasanth320689315kv6]

can i reupload rejected items?

rejection reason: technical quality of images include exposure issues, soft focus, excessive filtering or artifacts/noise 

[Jill_C · Accepted solution]

Resubmitting rejected images without having corrected the errors is considered spam, and can result in your account being suspended. The first image seems over-saturated, and there are many spots on the plate that need to be cleaned up, including chips in the plate. The second image also seems a rather lurid color, the horizon is leaning, and there are spots on the plate and in the background that need to be cleaned up. Same with the 3rd image.

[Prasanth320689315kv6]

Ok i understand, thank you

[Abambo]

can i reupload rejected items?

By @Prasanth320689315kv6

Sure, but you need to correct the issues in the image.

The reason you told us is stock text, and not targeted to your assets, but especially for your assets, it seams to be correct.

I did check 8471, and I saw that you did mask the grilled chicken thie to modify their colour into this readish tone. That's excessive filtering. 

You have artefacts and noise: 

And you have exposure issues as shown in the histogram: 

You do not have soft focus, however.

In addition, you should get rid of the dust on your table and plate:

That dust is especially visible on black backgrounds, so cleaning-up before taking a picture is a must. But still, you will need to do a time consuming dust hunting in postprocessing. The plate also has some dirt stains, which should be cleaned before the shoot: 

And last, but not least, food photography does not allow for burned parts. These are not appetising and also highly unhealthy.

[Prasanth320689315kv6]

Thank you

[Abambo]

You're welcome.

[oleschwander]

These must be AI images?

[Abambo]

These must be AI images?

By @oleschwander

Not necessarily.  They can also be food photographs. At least the one I checked has been shot by a Canon EOS 6D Mark II.

[Jill_C]

They do not look like AI to me... the chips in the plate and the droplets of food splatters here and there are not usually seen in AI.

[oleschwander]

No you're right about the food splatters which also pussled me. But many other things looks pecisely like AI.

[Abambo]

No you're right about the food splatters which also pussled me. But many other things looks pecisely like AI.

By @oleschwander

They look more like overdone Photoshop work. And the EXIF data shows the camera and model. There are none of the typical generative AI issues, but ground-based good old photo issues. It was a real pleasure to see again a real photo to comment on, instead of those artefacts laden images out of the generator.

[daniellei4510]

I ran one image through a reliable AI detection application. They are photos. They are simply overprocessed.

[Abambo]

I ran one image through a reliable AI detection application.

By @daniellei4510

What application if I may ask?

[daniellei4510]

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

It's been accurate for me so far. I even tried to fool it by taking one of my most realistic looking AI portraits, and one of my more bizarre and surreal actual photographs, and it detected both of them correctly.  It even knows (or at least guesses accurately) which popular AI application was used (Midjourney, Firefly, DALL-E, etc.).

It appears to be free to use, although after one or two images, it asks you to subscribe. But it's free afterward.

Here’s the kicker, though…it also touts being able to discern if auto accident photos are real or were manipulated. I ran what I am 100% sure was a real accident, but it labeled it as fake. So, like any AI, it’s not perfect.

[oleschwander]

Yes, you're right ...

[Prasanth320689315kv6]

No, this was taken with a photocamera Canon EOS 6D Mark II

[oleschwander]

Ok ...

[Abambo]

No, this was taken with a photocamera Canon EOS 6D Mark II

By @Prasanth320689315kv6

A decent camera. Adobe stock is currently full of generative AI that peole simply forget that cameras exist. 😉