Seeking Insight on AI-Generated Image Acceptance Criteria

[Qmini]

Hello Adobe Stock Community

I hope this message finds you well. I've been an active contributor to Adobe Stock for some time now and recently encountered an interesting challenge that I believe many of us may have faced.

I've noticed that while some of my AI-generated images are accepted without any issues, others seem to face rejection. I've meticulously reviewed the submission guidelines, and yet, I'm unable to identify any apparent reasons for these discrepancies.

I understand the importance of maintaining high-quality standards, and I am committed to delivering content that aligns with Adobe Stock's vision. However, the inconsistency in acceptance has left me curious and eager to learn.

I'd appreciate it if fellow contributors or Adobe Stock moderators could shed some light on the criteria that determine the acceptance or rejection of AI-generated images. Are there specific elements or factors that I might be overlooking? Any insights would greatly contribute to improving the quality and relevance of my submissions.

Example : I have submitted four images, of which two have been accepted, and the other two have not. They are quite similar, but each one features a different animal. Could you please provide examples or insights into why this discrepancy occurs? I don't believe it's a quality issue as the overall quality is consistent across all of them.

I believe open discussions like these benefit the entire community, fostering collaboration and mutual growth. Your experiences and guidance will not only help me but also others who might be facing similar challenges.

Thank you in advance for your time and expertise. Looking forward to engaging in a fruitful discussion.

[RALPH_L]

Well, first of all, the images should have been jpeg. Not png. Png is reserved for images with transparency. Secondly, I would not have approved any of the images. I see rendering mistakes in all four images. in the first image, jars are melted into funny blobs. In the third image, the flying birds are not defined and some animal faces are drawn wrong.

[moe hong]

I have uploaded thousands of non-transparent images as PNG as JPG compression – even when saved at maximum size – can cause some artefacting. I prefer to avoid any artefacting at all if possible. I've never had any complaint from clients, image reviewers, or other Adobe staff.

[George_F]

It's hard to tell what, if anything will happen if one submits in PNG vs jpeg.  But Adobe has been very clear in their documentation and guidelines that PNGs are for transparency only.  It may well be the case that nothing comes of it, or Adobe could one day decide to make sure all contributors are in compliance about this and take any number of measures to make that happen.  For me it's not worth the risk.  I'm surprised they don't reject non-transparent PNGs, but I've heard many reports of people submitting them successfully.

I've always thought the larger file size of a PNG doesn't make sense unless there is transparency, but that's my own suspicion and I've never heard that from anyone officially.

[Abambo]

I've always thought the larger file size of a PNG doesn't make sense unless there is transparency, but that's my own suspicion and I've never heard that from anyone officially.

By @George_F

That's correct. Even that I'm not an official, I can confirm that. The trouble with JPEG is, that people are using a low quality parameter, or they are saving several JPEG generations. As each generation slightly changes the image, you will get visible artefacts at a certain generation.

[Abambo]

I have uploaded thousands of non-transparent images as PNG as JPG compression – even when saved at maximum size – can cause some artefacting. I prefer to avoid any artefacting at all if possible. I've never had any complaint from clients, image reviewers, or other Adobe staff.

By @moe hong

That is not correct. JPEG files saved as first generation with a high quality parameter are indistinguishable from the original. When you have generative AI, there may be artefacts in the image, even that you saved them as PNG. I've seen multiple such assets.

As for the rest: as Adobe does not seem to enforce its rules, du as you wish. 

[Qmini]

Hey, thanks for the reply. Now focused and zoomed in in the images i see that there might be some rendering mistake in all of them but still i dont have one thing clear because they all have mistakes but why 2 of them were accepted and 2 of them not, if it would be like that like you said it should have been all rejected. Just wanna know if it was random chosing of images or it was something particular that made them accept 2 and reject 2 while all of them had rendering mistakes. A lot of the AI images have light mistakes that u cant notice unless u focus and zoom in, but yet most of them are accepted overall. 
Thanks for your reply anw 

[Abambo]

You had two lucky ones passing. If a customer buys them and complains, they may be deleted afterwards. It's unfortunate that there is inconsistency in checking, but since Adobe got more stringent with generative AI assets, it happens also to the more subtle errors to be refused. But not all moderators seem to be able to check the assets with the same degree of accuracy.

[daniellei4510]

I have to agree with @RALPH_L , as all four should have been rejected. I've indicated just a few of some of @RALPH_L points. There is far too much going on in terms of randomization to the point that birds, for example, barely look like birds. Faces of the animals are poorly rendered, and there are numerous objects that leave one wondering what they even are. Viewed at 200%, the errors become more noticable.

[Qmini]

Yeah i can see now the mistakes of these generated images but what i want to know is why one is accepted and the other is not, when u can clearly see the rendering mistakes in both of them (like u made it obvious with the red rectangles). I mean if we are looking at that prespective of rejecting images then it should have all been rejected or it all should have been accepted. 
thanks for the reply 

[Jill_C]

These are quite interesting "fantasy" images, and at first glance if you only look at the small size, they seem to be okay. But Moderators always zoom in between 100-200%, and that's when the AI drawing errors start to become apparent. I have highlighted 1 or 2 in each image. 

[oleschwander]

And also the ears of the wolf look like they are mirrored.