Software to automatically filter image quality before uploading?

[robertm49297337]

Is there a piece of software that can batch analyze images for AI problems like artifacts, weird hands/anatomy, focus or smearing problems, etc. before I upload them to Adobe Stock? I generate a lot of images, and it would be nice to rank them in terms of quality and only upload/title/tag the good ones.

EDIT: I've seen someone using a tool like this, and it works. I just don't know how to reach them or the name of the tool.
If you don't know the answer, just don't answer it. That's fine.

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

No.

[robertm49297337]

I mean, I know there is because someone in a (locked) Reddit thread said they were using one. I just don't know what it is and can't ask because...locked.

[daniellei4510]

I don't even see the point of such an application. At least one that actually worked. If an application can be used to find errors in an AI image, why not just program an AI application to not make them in the first place? Is there an application that tells you when ChatGPT is giving you information that is false? No.  Well...I suppose you could argue that Google is, since it can be used to research the information that ChatGPT provides to see if it is or is not true. And I guess in a way, applications like Topaz Photo could be considered such an application, since it can sharpen assets, reduce noise and artifacts, etc. But Topaz doesn't TELL you what's wrong with the image...it just fixes it, and not necessarily automatically. So why even bother having an application that just informs you what is wrong when it can just go ahead and do it? Me, I just use my eyes, and probably would continue to do so even if proven wrong and such an application actually exists.

[robertm49297337]

Think about it. Adobe Stock's quality checking is at least partly AI. So obviously it's a technically achievable function.  Except that I don't have access to it *before* I upload. 

"If an application can be used to find errors in an AI image, why not just program an AI application to not make them in the first place?"
Great idea! Do you know of one? A generator that incorporates the same quality analysis that Adobe's system does would solve exactly what I'm asking for. Sadly, I don't know of one. I'm using Midjourney, and I'm not able to alter its code. It just does what it wants to, which if I don't curate very carefully results in a 30% - 50% rejection rate. Curating carefully takes a lot of time. Uploading 20 images a day doesn't earn money.

Abobe's checking seems to be able to find: incorrect anatomy, artifacts, blur and focus problems, among other things. I'm just looking for a tool that does the same thing. Maybe if I ask really nicely Adobe will make it available as a standalone.....

"So why even bother having an application that just informs you what is wrong"
Because:
1) Adobe often kicks out images for reasons I can't really see. Being informed ahead of time what Adobe will reject would save time titling and keywording images that won't make it.
2) Curating takes a lot of time. Contributing AI is to some extent a volume game, so it's worthwhile to automate as much of it as possible.

I hope this helps.

[daniellei4510]

"Great idea. Do you know of one?"

Again...no.

"the same quality analysis that Adobe's system does would solve exactly what I'm asking"

Errors in AI are being found by humans, not AI. Or if it is AI, why is it making so many mistakes and accepting often horribly bad AI assets? Or dozens upon dozens of similar images, which are not supposed to be allowed? Or marking assets as too similar to others when they are not? In the extremely unlikely event Adobe is using such technology, it is clearly not working.

"Adobe often kicks out images for reasons I can't really see."

Then learn to see them. Believe me, I've submitted at least one or two 6-fingered hands in my early days as a contributor. Which I promptly deleted once discovered.

"Curating takes a lot of time."

Of course it does. So would running AI images through an application that tells you what's wrong with them when it's so easy to see them oneself after a little practice. Not to mention that AI will ALWAYS require (at least 99.999% of the time) manual editing, whether it's pushing pixels, replacing irises, removing fingers, using applications to correct noise or upscale, or to do whatever. There's no time-saving involved here. Such an application would be more likely to decrease one's workflow.

Anyway...if you ever find this program...do report back. But I'm not that young anymore, so the quicker the better.

[robertm49297337]

"Errors in AI are being found by humans, not AI. Or if it is AI, why is it making so many mistakes and accepting often horribly bad AI assets?"
It is at least partially AI because sometimes my images get accepted instantly.
I don't know why it has lower standards than you'd like, but that's not really relevant to my question. Maybe start a forum post and ask about it.

"Then learn to see them."
I can see six-figured hands. I've studied it. It's often mysterious to me. Sorry I don't live up to your standards either. Not sure what to say about that.

"Of course it does. So would running AI images through an application that tells you what's wrong with them"
Not if it can batch process say, 20 files in a minute or two, finding minute problems. Which the tool the Reddit guy was talking about did. Which Adobe also does.

If I can generate 1000 images a day and automatically filter out 500 of them for bad pixels, irises, fingers, noise, etc.... you can't see how that makes the process more efficient?

I'll reiterate that there's a time factor. If I'm photoshopping irises and can do 10 images an hour that's 80 images a day. Niches are so saturated now that you can't make any realy money doing that. 

Seriously, do some Googling about automating the generation-> upload pipeline. It's a thing. The tool I'm looking for would be an invaluable part of that thing.

[daniellei4510]

"It is at least partially AI because sometimes my images get accepted instantly."

And humans can't do it instantly?

"Not if it can batch process say, 20 files in a minute or two, finding minute problems. Which the tool the Reddit guy was talking about did. Which Adobe also does."

I don't batch process. I create and edit, at most 5 to 8 AI assets per day. Mass production and submission of AI assets have upset more than a few buyers looking for GOOD assets, only to become disheartened and angry that they now make it a practice to filter out AI results altogether.

"If I can generate 1000 images a day and automatically filter out 500 of them for bad pixels, irises, fingers, noise, etc.... you can't see how that makes the process more efficient?"

Nope.

"Seriously, do some Googling about automating the generation-> upload pipeline. It's a thing. The tool I'm looking for would be an invaluable part of that thing."

No thanks. I'm good. 😉

I can only shake my head here. Why in the world process 1000 images per day?

"I'll reiterate that there's a time factor. If I'm photoshopping irises and can do 10 images an hour that's 80 images a day. Niches are so saturated now that you can't make any realy money doing that. "

[robertm49297337]

"can only shake my head here. Why in the world process 1000 images per day?"

Money.

I'm not sure how you think spending a day on eight images is more efficient than spending a day on 500 images. 

I think we're done here.

Money. 

[robertm49297337]

I don't know who marked this as "correct answer", because I've seen someone using something like this. I just don't know what the name of it is or how to contact them.

[Jill_C]

Not that I'm aware of. If such a tool existed, wherein AI could evaluate AI images for flaws, it would already be possible to generate flawless AI images. And we know that the technology has not reached that level. Nothing beats the human eye. Focus on quality rather than quantity: the goal should not be to crank out the most AI assets in the least amount of time. 

[robertm49297337]

I didn't say flawless images, I said images that pass Adobe Stock's quality filter, which is at least partially AI.

Think for a second. If it's possible for Adobe's systems to filter out images below a certain level of quality, it should be possible to have a standalone piece of software do the same thing.

And focusing on quality is exactly the point of an app that filters out low quality images. 

[Jill_C]

Quality comprises much more than easily measurable attributes such as file size and resolution. That's why such an app doesn't yet exist.

[robertm49297337]

Adobe's quality checker is at least partially AI.
I'm just looking to duplicate that same functionality.
It's clearly not impossible because it already exists, just not as a standalone tool I can use before uploading.

Also it does exist because I've seen people using it. I just don't know how to contact them.

[Nancy OShea]

Asking a machine to assess another machine's output is tantamount to tasking a wolf to guard the hen house. Nothing good will come from it.

Humans assess Technical Quality based on proper lighting, composition, focus, exposure, color balance, contrast between light & shadow, pleasing aesthetics and the absence of noise & unwanted artifacts. There's also that elusive WOW factor that elevates a plain image into something really special.  There's no artificial brain on Earth that can adequately assess these factors without aid from a human.  

Auto-correction tools in Photoshop & Lightroom can do only so much. And if used too aggressively, they can actually ruin a good photo. Use them with care and pay close attention to your results.

Enter machine-generated content, the assessment switches from Technical Quality to visual accuracy. You can have a high quality image that's unfit for use simply because AI did a mediocre job of rendering.

• Does it look fake? 
• Why does it look fake?
• What's missing, what's been added?
• Can this be fixed, or should I discard it & start over?

Once again, only humans can make these judgment calls. 

Machines have no human awareness and thus can't grasp the subtleties of the 3D world we inhabit. Why should they? They're machines. They operate in their own mini-verse where pixels are scraped from various content sources, and re-combined into new products.  To a machine, every possible combination is feasible, even when the results are nonsense (3-fingered hands, 2 left feet, wonky anatomy, poorly drawn details...).  

AI makes lots of mistakes that might get overlooked on quick glance. But when you zoom in to examine the image closely, the defects are there.  Because AI is a machine & not human, it's too stupid to recognize & correct its own mistakes.  It can't fix what it doesn't see.

Machines won't replace human talent, judgment and intervention. At least not in my lifetime.

Good luck in your quest for the Holy Grail. 🙂

[robertm49297337]

Adobe's quality checker is at least partially AI.
I'm just looking to duplicate that same functionality.
It's clearly not impossible because it already exists, just not as a standalone tool I can use before uploading.

[robertm49297337]

By the way "asking a machine to assess another machine's output" is a major way that generative AI's are trained. 

'The core idea of a GAN is based on the "indirect" training through the discriminator, another neural network that can tell how "realistic" the input seems, which itself is also being updated dynamically.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network

[robertm49297337]

Also as I've said already, I know it exists because I've seen people using it. I just don't the name of the tool or how to contact them,

[Nancy OShea]

I know it exists because...

By robertm49297337

=============

"I saw it on the internet, so it must be true."