Rejection needs a comment from Adobe, Quality issues is too broad (CLOSED)

[Star_Imaging]

I have started adding some AI-generated images to my submissions, and I find that quality issues are being raised as the reason for rejection. Some of the early ones, I can see, there were artifact issues in upscaling. Now I am more selective in the upscaler settings, but I get a broad message 'rejected with quality issues'. It would be great if the reviewer had a checkbox for lighting, artifacts, focus, etc., or better yet, added a short comment (if they are human). It would greatly improve future submissions as we experiment with AI-generated images.

Thoughts?

[Nancy OShea]

I think I will stop using Adobe suggested keywords and use another tool to generate them..

By @Star_Imaging

==========

Why does anyone need a "tool" to generate keywords for them?

Erase auto-suggestions. Enter your own custom keywords to fit your particular content. 

Critical thinking is being replaced by collective ignorance. 🙄

[Star_Imaging]

@Nancy OShea I can describe the image, but I struggle with more than a few keywords, and since they seem so important on here, I need a little assistance to prompt me for other ways of looking at describing an image. Give me a subject and I can easily tell you how to light it, but when it comes to giving 50 keywords to describe it adequately, I drop of at about 5.

[Nancy OShea]

Don't overthink it. 5 main keywords are all you need for most things. 15 - 20 keywords are overkill.

Accurate titles & descriptions fill the gaps.

[Tan_Tin]

This incorrectly working  feature of searching similar images from the front end user interface probably gives a hint on how newly submitted images are judged for similarity semi-automatically during moderation, and the verdict is sad: they are judged wrong, and yes, primarily based on meta-data. I am not sure why it wasn't thoroughly tested before deployment. Actualy a well-done feature like this demands significant processing resources for each image which is rather costly. What we see here is an optimized low cost "quick and dirty" attempt to mimic it using a rough keyword filter to cut down the incoming images traffc which doesn't recognize creative nuances.

[Abambo]

I am not sure why it wasn't thoroughly tested before deployment. Actualy a well-done feature like this demands significant processing resources for each image which is rather costly. What we see here is an optimized low cost "quick and dirty" attempt to mimic it using a rough keyword filter to cut down the incoming images traffc which doesn't recognize creative nuances.

By @Tan_Tin

Again: Adobe thinks that the feature is working perfectly, or they would not have posted their message, and continue to use it. And you can be sure that Adobe is looking at what gets refused and what gets through. 

If they are looking at the metadata, it's a simple database problem, that does not need an excessive amount of power. A midsize server will do. The most power gets consumed by the gerenerative art creation. 

At a personal note, I think that the feature is not working correctly, but nobody at Adobe did ask for my opinion.

[Tan_Tin]

Yes, among other set weekly limitations and such, it is indeed workling perfectly for:

1. Cutting down all incoming traffic dramatically - including both valuable and spam-like.

2. Discouraging a vast number of contributiors (especially with non-AI works) by vague rules.

[Jill_C]

I had already removed the w logos. Then I put another 20 minutes removing lines

My general rule of thumb is that if an image requires more than a few minutes of editing to remove logos and distractions, it's not worth the time given the current high rejection rate and the fact that only a minority of images in our portfolios are ever licensed. Unless you have captured a very compelling and unique frame, just move on...

[Ricky336]

Generally speaking, I really do not think that Adobe should give more detailed rejection reasons.

If it isn't up to the mark, too bad! Try again. One thing is that, until one spams the system, one can send as many assets as they like, and 99% may be rejected, but Adobe doesn't stop them from trying.

Adobe is not a charity, it's a for profit organisation!