32
Replies
You mean like this:
or like this:
or like this:
You are seven years too late. All those issues have been groupped into "quality issues" which makes moderation much faster, which is hell more important than you having an accurate refusal message. Quality issues, or artefacts, focus, or exposure: it did not make a big difference. If you can't figure out the issue, you have the forums. We will help you to get trained to look at your assets with a critical eye. And that includes all refusal reasons.
Months later, as my spidey senses increased, I realized there wasn't anything wrong with the model...it was due to a crappy background I broke my rule about submitting something more than twice and it was accepted.
By @daniellei4510
But you changed the background to something acceptable. Experience is all here, and my stock contributions are a good school to judge my pictures, even when doing client work. 😉
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?
By @Star_Imaging
If you get a refusal that you can't figure out, post the asset here, and we will check the asset for you. But as a tip: 99% of the errors in generative AI are simply artefacts, due to poor AI training and rendering errors because generative AI has no idea what it is showing. And then there is upscaling, where users are overly confident what can be done with that. So, none of the error descriptions you are suggesting would tell you how to check for these errors.
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).
By @Star_Imaging
==========
That will never happen. Stock receives thousands of submissions per week. Reviewers have limited time to examine each one and pick the first refusal reason they see. Although there may be multiple reasons for refusal, Contributors get only one bite from the apple per submission.
- https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
- https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
If Adobe gave personal replies to each Contributor, they'd never get their work done. And we would wait 6 months or more for reviews. 😝
AI images are rarely perfect. Machines make many mistakes with details. Zoom in to 100-300% magnification. Closely examine every quadrant of your asset for accuracy. Proper number of fingers & toes. Correctly drawn apparel, jewelry, eyes, nose, mouth, teeth & hair, etc...
For better answers, we need to see the rejected full-sized asset. We're fairly good at pinpointing AI mistakes that you probably overlooked.
Lets just say someone is not happy in their job...
By @ZALEZPHOTO
========
This smells like self-confession that YOU are not happy.
- Assets are assigned randomly to examiners. It's highly unlikely that your resubmitted asset was evaluated by the same examiner both times. Two people saw different problems, and checked two different refusal boxes. As you say, humans are not perfect people. And that sword cuts both ways to Contributors as well.
- Adobe earns nothing from rejecting assets. Stock gets paid when assets sell. They're more motivated to approve worthy assets than they are to reject them.
Successful contributors own their mistakes & learn from them. Unsuccessful contributors whine and blame the examiners.
The camp you choose is up to you. Be happy!
Your point is taken, and ultimately I am in the camp of learning and enjoying the process.
By @ZALEZPHOTO
Sorry, but you are in the camp of the conspiracy theorists.
You want an example?
Today I received a photo rejection for @ issues, which is an absolute misinterpretation since I had already removed the w logos. Then I put another 20 minutes removing lines, and a couple of hours later it got rejected for "quality issues".
Lets just say someone is not happy in their job...
By @ZALEZPHOTO
Besides the fact that some of your text is not to understand (why "@" and what is a "w logo"), you think that there is a misinterpretation because you have removed (already!) logos. You are working 20 minutes on a file, and think that this is a reason that it should be error free?
I'm with @Nancy OShea!
Moderators, as all humans, may have a bad day, but if you get an asset, that gets multiple times a refusal, there is a high chance that the asset has an issue.
You may not know this, but you are selling your assets to people paying a lot for getting error free assets, not assets that you think are good enough.
With this new similarity issue, I'm afraid what we're seeing is many cases of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", pardon my metaphor...
By @Tan_Tin
Sure. It makes confirmed and good contributors unhappy. But the issue started probably with contributors using automated systems to submit masses. As always, because of a few a lot are getting a bad experience.
AdChoices