Why had these pictures been rejected?

[Jilmary]

[Nancy OShea]

Most likely for Quality/Technical Issues.

What reason did Adobe Stock give you for the rejections?

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

[Moderator moved from Using the Community to Stock Contributors.]

[Jilmary]

The answer is "Quality problems"

I'm gonna read all the specifications I think, but it would be nice to have a specific answer because you can't improve when you don't know what's wrong and you're making a guess, which perhaps won't be accurate.

Thank you for your help

[Abambo · Accepted solution]

I'm gonna read all the specifications I think, but it would be nice to have a specific answer because you can't improve when you don't know what's wrong and you're making a guess, which perhaps won't be accurate.

By @Jilmary

Moderators do not have the time to do that. Even selecting from several refusal reasons costs time. And then, moderators refuse at the first error they seee. They won't check further.

Sorry to express it as such: A contributor is supposed to be a professional knowing about quality and IP and anything else. Moderation is not done to make a better contributor of you, but to protect customers from bad assets.  If you have problems finding out about the possible causes of the rejection, Adobe established this forum for you to help.

[Jilmary]

Ok, I understand. But I find it harder to generate good pictures with AI. And as I don't for now understand why some pictures don't pass, I don't either understand why some passes. I think I have issues with pictures including people, they are for me the most difficult to produce

[Abambo]

Ok, I understand. But I find it harder to generate good pictures with AI. And as I don't for now understand why some pictures don't pass, I don't either understand why some passes. I think I have issues with pictures including people, they are for me the most difficult to produce

By @Jilmary

Generative AI pictures always need some corrections to be applied, at least still for now. As for the issue, why some assets pass and some other assets don't: moderators are humans, and some humans are better in detecting the flaws. IMHO, if you submit assetzs straight away, mostly all should be rejected for quality reasons. 

But I know that bad assets sell and as long as buyers do accept substandard-quality assets (many are good enought for a web site or a PowerPoint), there is no real need for a change. A lot of the buyers indeed are filtering out generative AI assets, and that hurts those contributors who put a lot effort in the asset corrections.

[Jilmary]

They filter AI assets because they are not used to it but in Time, they'll understand that it can be as good as a real pic. People just don't trust what's new but they'll get used to it at one point.

[Abambo]

No, there are different reasons for this, the most embarassing for Adobe is, however, the low quality standard of the accepted generative AI assets:

1. Selecting stock assets is a time consuming task and finding out that the selected asset is full of errors and does not meat the quality requirements is a high risk.
2. Legal issues are driving their decision. Some companies simply prohibit the use of generative AI for legal reasons. 
3. Most of the topics also exist as real pictures. Why should I risk getting a foul apple, if I can use the real thing. Even those icon pointing pictures with the light and transparent icons exist in real composits and the quality of those assets is much better than the generative AI counterparts. 
4. The need for assets that can't be photographed, like the fighter jet operated by a dog are very rare. 

[Jilmary]

Some are "low quality", like 4M px because that's what AI produce but it's possible to make it better with another AI. I've used that once and you don't lose quality over enlargement. But it's not free. It's a feature I've plan to use if I make it here. 

Low quality equal low pay. I Hope the bigger the pic the higher the reward 😁

Even if some stuff exists and can be produce in Real life, the means needed are a brake for anyone who isn't a pro.

And there are a lot of really creative things that can be done by AI, sky is the limit. It's not true with traditional photography.

Are you all using midjourney too?

[Jill_C]

you said "Low quality equal low pay. I Hope the bigger the pic the higher the reward". Adobe does not set prices based on quality, nor file size, and there is no option for Buyers to select "low quality" vs "high quality".  All submissions must meet Adobe's quality standards. We earn a 33% royalty of the image price based in the subscription that the Buyer has chosen. Have you read the royalty info? 
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/royalties

If you want to get your images accepted by Adobe, you need to make the investment in purchasing the learning the necessary tools.

[Jilmary]

Of course I'm willing to learn. But I have sold my firt 3 pics and I was shocked by the royalties. The pictures have been sold 63.99 euros each and I earned 0.53, 0.62 and 0.96 US$. What the heck???

[daniellei4510]

You earn 33% of all assets sold. The royalties can vary based on the type of stock plan the buyer has purchased. The 63.99 euros you are referring to is probably the price one must pay if purchasing an extended license. 

[Jilmary]

Thank you, I will dig into that too

[Jill_C]

Apparently you didn't read about the royalty structure before setting up your account. Click on the Royalties link at the bottom of your Contributor page to understand how it works.

[Jilmary]

Ok, copy that, thank you

[Abambo]

Some are "low quality", like 4M px because that's what AI produce but it's possible to make it better with another AI. I've used that once and you don't lose quality over enlargement. But it's not free. It's a feature I've plan to use if I make it here. 

Low quality equal low pay. I Hope the bigger the pic the higher the reward 😁

By @Jilmary

Quality is not a function of the size of an image. Low quality means that customers will complain, regardless of the size. I've seen low quality 100 M px assets.

If a picture can be produced (with resonable effort) in real life, there is no need for generative AI. 

I'm using Canon 5D Mark III. But any decent camera can produce great real life pictures. 

[Jilmary]

Of course you can producer great pics with a camera. But with IA, you'll do the same from your couch ^^

[Jill_C]

Really? AI, so far, is not able to replicate the authenticity and accuracy of a real camera capturing images of real places...

[Nancy OShea]

Most beginners don't notice the various mistakes that Artificial Intelligence makes. That's why beginners have so much trouble getting their work accepted.

[Jilmary]

You have a point 

[Abambo]

Of course you can producer great pics with a camera. But with IA, you'll do the same from your couch ^^

By @Jilmary

Sorry, no. I can take a picture of the Eiffel Tower. Your AI will create something that looks like the Eiffe Tower in Disneyland. Because most of the training pictures came from there. 

You can do a picture of an astronaut on Jupiter. I can't do a photo of the same. That's the difference. 

[Jilmary]

Agreed for now, but wait a little and no one won't be able to tell the difference 

[Abambo]

Agreed for now, but wait a little and no one won't be able to tell the difference 

By @Jilmary

Now is now and tomorrow is tomorrow. I do not believe that generative AI will create accurate landmarks. They will get better in general portraits and they will invest in video. That will be much more lucrative. If you put the bucks on the table, you will be able to do a two hour movie with no actors. 

[daniellei4510]

If I could create great AI images from a couch, I probably wouldn't be seeing a surgeon in a couple of weeks for possible back surgery.

[Jilmary]

In a few years, you'll be cured from your back pain and won't be using your camera, you'll be on your couch creating gorgeous images