Too many rejected AI-generated images lately

[Haunterrr]

Hi there!
I'm a newbie and I have only 105 images in my portfolio at the moment, all generated by AI. Recently I noticed that images that have been in moderation for more than two months are simply rejected with a “quality problem.” I'm a little confused as to why those images that passed moderation are no better (and sometimes even worse, honestly) than those that were rejected. When looking for inspiration, I even find quality problems or problem fingers in bestsellers, and it comes to mind that the requirements for images have increased over the past two months.

Dear and experienced users, please tell me what is the quality problem in these images that were rejected. I doubt that I will correct these images, wait more than two months again, and upset myself with the result. Images generated by AI do not always give the desired result. To be honest, I was very upset that these particular images were rejected.

Please also tell me if my account will be banned because of 36 rejected images?

Thank you for your time and your expert opinion.

[Jill_C]

First image - many incomplete details. The seam on the hood is intact on one side, but missing in the other. The metallic thingies on the jacket are random, incomplete and not attached correctly. The face mask seems quite blurry.

Third, similarly there are lines in the circuit board that are disconnected and go nowhere..

[Haunterrr]

Thanks for the comment.
Any tips on how to improve AI-generated images to meet ideal image requirements?

[Abambo]

Thanks for the comment.
Any tips on how to improve AI-generated images to meet ideal image requirements?

By @Haunterrr

You need to correct the errors “manually”. Or you need to use a better generator.

[Abambo]

ase also tell me if my account will be banned because of 36 rejected images?

Thank you for your time and your expert opinion.

By @Haunterrr

Probably not. Adobe could block your account, if too many accepted assets are proving faulty, however. Moderation does not mean that accepted assets are good. If too many customers are complaining, Adobe will take action.

[Haunterrr]

Thanks for the new phobia. If, in my unprofessional opinion, there is a MUCH worse image quality in my portfolio, then now I will constantly think that at any moment I will be blocked.

[Abambo]

You can check your assets at 100% and delete the worst.

[daniellei4510]

One thing you should never do is compare your images to bad assets that have been accepted in the past and use them as justification for submitting similar material. When people first started submitting AI, a lot of bad assets were accepted, which we have assumed required additional training for the moderators. A lot of those bad assets might still remain on Adobe Stock simply because they haven't sold and thus have registered no complaints, or they have not been pointed out and reported here for further review.

[Haunterrr]

I’m not making excuses, but simply suggesting that the requirements for images have become stronger. I am sure that even those images that have sales will not be suitable here under such an inspection. Now I have learned that I can be blocked if someone does not like something or a complaint from those already in my portfolio. Paranoia? Not knowing how to make generated images of the same quality as photographs taken by photographers? I obviously don't have enough knowledge and time to edit every pixel.
Thank you for your comment.

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

Your first: Artefacts as seen at 100%:

Your second:

Artefacts as seen at 100%.

Your heart will make a heart attach with all these short circuits:

Well, you guess, it's full of artefacts.

Idem for your shield:

All those pictures look nice, when watched at reduced size, but none of them is really good at 50% to 100%. There are people spending hours on such illustrations to get them perfect. You will need to invest much more time with the asset clean-up.

If your prior assets are worse and got accepted, then the moderator did not do their job.

[Haunterrr]

Thank you for your comment. I hope the moderators don't get fired.
Sorry, I just kept in mind that clients and their clients do not look at the pixels of an image that way. You need an image with an idea and good quality without enlargements - this is the client and everyone is happy. If you need ultra-detail or ultra-realism, then this is clearly for the professionals for a little more money. This opinion was also reinforced by the fact that in the weekly bestsellers that Adobe publishes, not everything in the images is ideal, even for my unprofessional eye.

I was wrong, thank you for the explanation. Now I know more.

[Nancy OShea]

...clients and their clients do not look at the pixels of an image that way.

By @Haunterrr

========

Sure they do.  Especially for large print projects where one small mistake can quickly turn into a huge, costly disaster.  👿

Stock customers purchase images for a variety of commercial uses from digital books, TV & video, to printed magazines and merchandise like t-shirts, tote bags & calendars.  Highest visual & technical quality is the standard that Stock customers expect.

• Carefully examine your work at 100-300% magnification. 
• Fix all AI errors if you can or discard the image. 
• Submit only your very best work and you should be fine.

Good luck.

[Haunterrr]

I wrote that I “kept it in my mind” and in the end “I was wrong.”
Well, these are the company rules and requirements for images. And anyway, who am I to argue with them...
On the one hand, millions of content fly into the void due to minor technical problems, content that is not required for printing on billboards, and on the other hand, there is a certain guarantee of the highest quality.
It would be nice to divide or make notes for the authors into ordinary and strong professionals with the highest quality. Who needs it for an article on the Internet, where the photo will be pressed, goes to the ordinary ones, who needs it for a billboard in New York, goes to the elite.

Thank you for your comment.

[Nancy OShea]

It would be nice to divide into ordinary and strong professionals...

By @Haunterrr

=========

Oh, you mean Standard vs Premium Collection.  Yes, Adobe already does that.

https://stock.adobe.com/premium

Adobe curates the Premium Collection from exceptional artists with good reputations.  If you work hard & put your best foot forward, you might get invited to join that elite community. 

[Abambo]

It would be nice to divide or make notes for the authors into ordinary and strong professionals with the highest quality. Who needs it for an article on the Internet, where the photo will be pressed, goes to the ordinary ones, who needs it for a billboard in New York, goes to the elite.

Thank you for your comment.

By @Haunterrr

There are some providers that are less critical. You get good royalties from Adobe (compared to other providers). They can ask for quality.

[Abambo]

Sorry, I just kept in mind that clients and their clients do not look at the pixels of an image that way.

By @Haunterrr

Sorry, but if I buy a licence for a website, I may be happy with what I get. But I have also made 3×8m walls. And you sit with your nose at those walls, so you see all the detail. Including all those artefacts. And then I'm asking myself, how many assets I need to try and return, to get a satisfactory result. And I'm asking why I'm losing my time with all those bad assets.

I once tried to prepare an asset for a young lady who wanted to print an image as a separation wall on glass. Unfortunately, all the assets she chose were badly photoshopped. And we didn't even talk about generative AI at that time. With all my respect, I would even see with the small preview, that your assets would not be adequate.

[Haunterrr]

Thank you for the real-life example and generally expert guidance on problems. I completely agree with you that my images have many problems.

I have never done graphics or photography, I don’t even have Photoshop on my computer or other Adobe products (Linux operating system for other tasks). When the wave started with AI-generated images, I just decided to try it out of curiosity. It’s interesting for people like me to receive normal (not professional) images from text prompts.

[Abambo]

You're welcome. You need to use at least one tool to correct your assets.

[daniellei4510]

It's likely you will never get an AI result that doesn't require at least some editing. Or a lot. In lieu of Photoshop, try Gimp. It's free and while it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of Photoshop, it can help in a pinch. There's a learning curve, but if you want to continue submitting AI, you'll need to commit.

[Nancy OShea]

The cybersecurity shield looks a lot like an existing brand/logo. 

What was the reason for rejection?  Technical issues, Property violation, etc...

• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
• https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[moe hong]

Very poor quality. Are you using a custom model? Can you output at a higher resolution? Even then, expect to spend far longer correcting/editing/cleaning things up in Photoshop than you ever would in building/working the prompt. I sell a *lot* of AI images, but of course I generate 200-300+ for each one that I feel is worth working on, and even after editing only submit less than half I've done any kind of postprocessing on. I get about 85% accepted, maybe slightly more when the subject is topical and not totally derivative/cliche (and, for the record, your images are clearly derivative and cliche; no offense to you, but these are about as generic as AI images can get, and won't be exceptionally useful for possible clients).