The Impact of Generative AI Content on Adobe's Reviewing Process

[epic_Captain5C7C]

Hey there! I wanted to share my feedback about the reviewing process on Adobe. Lately, it seems like submissions are taking a lot longer to be reviewed since they started accepting Generative AI Content. I'm a bit confused as to why they would opt for AI-created content, as it's causing a backlog in the reviewing system and negatively impacting creators who are uploading their original work. It's definitely not an ideal situation.

[Jill_C]

Indeed, it is unfortunate that Adobe has combined AI and traditional illustrations into the same queue, causing both asset types to suffer from the huge backlog of AI assets awaiting review. Seems like they should be able to segregate these since AI Contributors have to tick the AI checkbox when they submit,.,

[daniellei4510]

Hey, Jill...

As a retired photographer (mobility issues, i.e., I've gotten lazy in my old age), 100% of my uploads are AI. I upload daily, but rarely more than 5-7 submissions at a time. The most is 20 if I'm feeling ambitious, since most of my AI images feature people, requiring some additional "paperwork." My rejection rate straddles between 0.06 to 0.08 on any given day.

Anyway, you're probably right. People are flushing the system with AI, probably because it's so "easy.' But it's not. If you're an AI designer/prompter or whatever you want to call yourself, if you aren't spending at least 15 minutes to 2 hours editing your results, you're doing it wrong. And if you're spending over 2 hours, just ditch the thing and try something else.

So yeah...don't backlog the queue just because your AI thumbnails looks great. Check the results carefully once they have been upscaled. Corner to corner, at 200% minimum. And I use the term "they" with some sense of caution. If the images look even somewhat similar to others, pick one or at most two if they differ from each other.

Are you submitting images of people? Great. But make sure you run them through a facial restoration program first, to improve the eyes, nostrils, mouth and sometimes ears. Even then, are the irises round? Are the pupils round and centered within the irises? Are there catchlights in the eyes? Does one have two catchlights and the other just one? Are they both positioned in the same location within each eye? Oh, and facial restoration programs favor brown eyes only. So every now and then, change the eye color.

And landscapes. Don't get me started on landscapes. They may look great at their original size, but upscaling will usually rip them apart. Grain. Noise. Chromatic aberations. They can all be improved upon with additional photoshop editing and verious AI applications, but take the time to use them (up to 2 hours...then remember the previous rule).

And please. No more female robots with big bosoms. (And yes, I was guilty of that when I first started...a half dozen out of a half dozen were selected, but I'm done uploading more.)

I'm rambling. Point is, there should NOT be an influx of AI if people if they were to start treating them like actual photographs. There are cropping issues to consider. Quality issues with respect to the same kinds of quality issues one might experience with an actual photograph). Compositional issues. Color balance issues. In other words, all the same issues one would deal with editing an actual photograph.

AI users: SLOW DOWN.

(End of rant.)

[Jill_C]

Well written, and your approach seems to be very quality oriented. Have you had much success selling the AI assets that you're taking so long to prepare? 

[daniellei4510]

I'm selling, but I'm relatively late to contributing to Adobe Stock so things are progressing slowly, both in terms of sales and the rate at which I upload. I've been active with AI for the last few months, long before I started with Adobe Stock, so I have a backlog of images to upload, many of which are under consideration for deletion, given how much the quality of AI has improved over such a short period of time. 

[Abambo]

AI users: SLOW DOWN.

By @daniellei4510

There are currently some reports of users getting blocked for spamming. I suppose that those also submitted thousands of assets at once.

[epic_Captain5C7C]

Please understand that I genuinely believe that you don't spend as much time using AI as individuals who dedicate their entire day or more to capturing and editing photos. In my situation, for example, besides photography, I spend my time modeling objects in Blender, rendering them in 8K resolution, and then editing them further in Photoshop (creating mockups). Therefore, why should I have to "endure" a month of waiting for my genuine and original work to be reviewed because of Ai which by the way steals other artists' work?

[daniellei4510]

I was a professional photographer for 45 years (weddings, portraiture, fashion, fine art, figure/nudes, still life).  And I still take on a wedding now and then. I trained with some of the world's best known portrait and fashion photographers. I worked for 12 years each for two companies creating images and videos using Lightwave and Blender. I've paid my dues and now I'm involved in something new. You do you and I'll do me. 😉

As far as waiting time is concerned, EVERYONE is waiting, including photographers and AI designers. Adobe is 100% behind generative AI and is working to assure that designers using the work of others to create images are compensated accordingly. 

[daniellei4510]

That came out wrong. Adobe wants to assure that the creators whose work is used by AI designers are compensated accordingly.

[epic_Captain5C7C]

I want to clarify that I have complete faith in your previous work, no one is doubting that. However, it seems that ever since Adobe started accepting generative Ai submissions, the waiting time for reviews has tripled. If you wish to upload Ai content, please do so. You deserve to be paid for it. However, I shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of having to wait for a month and more for reviews. Adobe should work this out that's the point.

[daniellei4510]

Understood. But I want to make it clear that while I've been fortunate to have a number of AI images accepted over the past few days (a trend that could just as well end at any time), the images that ARE being accepted were submitted well over two months ago, as are many of the ones still waiting to be reviewed. So we're all waiting. It's not just photographers as far as I can tell. Meanwhile, Adobe has finally updated their notice upon submission of images that the review process could take up to a month, rather than the 4 or 5 days as stated previously. So there's still some catch up to do and maybe this is why I've had a recent lucky streak.

[Abambo]

@epic_Captain5C7C ,

What is the point for waiting. Your asset will be up for sales for an eternity. In the meantime produce the next assets and load them up. 

BTW: I do not contribute generative AI.

[epic_Captain5C7C]

Yes, but consider the complications for content themed around a specific holiday or season. Picture this, you have to wait for a month for content approval, and then some files get rejected due to various reasons, further prolonging the wait for another month. For instance, you plan a photoshoot centered around Christmas, but by the time the review process concludes, the holiday has passed and you're stuck with images that have no demand. Therefore, should you start preparing in May for Christmas? This issue is far more significant than what people are realizing.

[Abambo]

You know that the delay is something between a week and two months. You should time that in. 

As always, you need to plan this correctly. Submitting assets regularily helps to get at least some assets in time. BTW: I would start a Christmas shooting shortly after Christmas. 

[Abambo]

However, I shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of having to wait for a month and more for reviews. Adobe should work this out that's the point.

By @epic_Captain5C7C

They are doing this, however, if generative AI would not sell, they would stop it. 

[Nancy OShea]

I'm a bit confused as to why they would opt for AI-created content...

By @epic_Captain5C7C

==========

Customers are #1. Contributors are #2.

Stock's business is providing customers with what they want -- a rich inventory of high quality commercial ready assets.   The vetting process takes time and varies by how many assets are in the wait queue.  Contributors get a rare opportunity to reach millions of potential buyers worldwide and receive royalties on what sells.  It doesn't matter if assets are approved this month or next month.  It all balances out in the end. 

Does that answer your question?