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.  ... View more

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.) ... View more

7 days? Oh, if I had been so lucky when I first started submitting to AS. Wait a month. Things will get moving. ... View more

Upscaling is allowed. It just has to be done very carefully, and every nook and cranny of the images must be inspected. I usually use Photoshop's own Neural Filter Super Zoom to upscale my images. It tends not to over-correct, causing fringing, as is often the case with Gigapixel AI. Though it does offer the benefit of placing the upscaled image on a new layer above the original, where masking can come in handy if something is oversharpened. ... View more

If I didn't submit images that I thought moderators might not acceept, I'd probably have 20-30 fewer images on Adobe Stock. I've only been a contributor for about 6 months, but one thing I've learned is that it's very difficult to second guess the moderators. I have a rejection rate of 0.066%, which I assume is relatively low and I do my best to maintain or improve upon it. But now and then, I think you just have to take a chance (within reason) and hope for the best.  ... View more

OK. With all due respect, I think AI is getting a bum rap as the reason for so many images being stuck in the queue and thus causing an insane delay with images being approved. For starters, as I understand it, AI is separated from real photographs and placed in to a different queue (I hate that word...why isn't is just spelled cue?). Also, I have seen far fewer AI inages posted by AI designers asking why their images were rejected compared to beginning photographers (who admit they are beginners) and going so far as to complain that their images should have been accepted because they have very expensive cameras. Sorry, but AI usually does a better job compared to beginning photographers. It's just that competitive right now. As a retired photographer with 35 years experience, I've taken better photographs with a $12 Diana camera compared to some images posted by beginners asking why their images were rejected. I am not saying that beginners should throw their cameras away and turn to AI. Nor am I saying that AI will eventually replace real photography. But let's get real. Enough AI images of female robots with huge bosoms. Enough real photographs of flowers that any 8 year old could have taken with a camera with auto focus and auto exposure after being turned loose in a greenhouse and told to go take some photos of flowers. Expand your minds. Trash bad photographs and trash bad AI. And spend a year or two on how to correct issues that arise with either.  ... View more

I was aware of this, but the AI itself resulted in the sepia toning. I considered converting it to black and white, since I've had 4 or 5 B&W images accepted previously (which is not to say the image would otherwise have been accepted in light of the other issues pointed out). But then, weirdly enough, I was watching a recent Adobe Livestream about submitting AI images (what to do, what not to do, etc.). At one point, if I heard the presenter correctly, he suggested using Lightroom presets to give submissions a little boost to set them apart from other submissions. But this seemed entirely against Adobe Stock standards so I was a bit surprised. Ultimately, I think the subject will dictate what to do or what not to do with an image, particularly AI images, and I would rarely if ever take such advice. To me, the suffix "pre" means, "it's already been done--if not overdone--and should only be used for personal requirements and not stock photography. ... View more

Thanks, ABAMBO...I think you're right. Maybe they would have a couple issues slide, but collectivly I can see all of your points. I think I was relying on the strength of the concept itself rather than focusing enough on the technical issues. And yes, with regard to a comment from another contributor elsewhere, I did provide the proper release.  ... View more

It was "Quality Issues." But I'm at the point where I think quality issues is the go-to selection when nothing else works as their reason for a rejection. Kind of like me selecting "Graphic Resource" when none of the other categories fit the subject. I probably went with "People" in this case, but is it really about people? Not really. The category could be "Time," Clocks, "Surrealism," but of course we don't have the luxury of chooseing from a list of very specific categories. Which is probably good if the overall scheme of things. ... View more

Understood. But deleting an asset that has an issue the moderator overlooked after being accepted is an issue of responssibility on my party. I do not want to sell an image that would require the buyer to make the changes him/herself if they weren't equipped to do so. ... View more

I'm aware that they can be changed AFTER approval, but I haven't come across a means to make minor changes BEFORE approval, other than deleting them and re-uploadinh ... View more

I would never WANT to be a moderator. 🙂 Although I do moderate myself, even after an image has been accepted in error. After one image was accepted, I noticed a glaring error that was overlooked. Well...maybe not glaring. It was actually very subtle, but I just couldn't bring myself t let some poor buyer not notice it until it was too late. I deleted it, fixed the problem, and re-submitted it. Again, moderators are only human and can make mistakes. I don't know how many stock photo sites vet submitted images, but it ones of the reasons I chose Adobe Stock to submit my own. ... View more

You just never know. A lot depends on the moderator you end up with. They're only human and there may be some biases at play.  ... View more

Not so much sure if this is really a quality issue as much as two subjects together that don't have a logical reason to be pictured together, thus making it unlikely to have commercial value? Just a guess. Although the glass is a tad out of focus compared to the totoise. Maybe removing the glass and extending the right hand side might help? I can't really imagine an instance where some searches for "a tortoise on a table sitting next to a cocktail." ... View more

Just curious. Did you submit all 75 images at the same time? Seems a lot, Keep in mind the moderators are human. If I had spent the day looking at hundreds or more images and then same across a series of 75 submitted at one and the same time, I'd probably summarily reject most of them. Just a guess. Considering the number of images submitted daily, hey can afford to be choosy. I don't have a clue how the moderation process works, but I tend to submit an average of 2 to 7 a day. (The most has been 20 or so and all were accepted, but maybe my moderator was in a good mood.) ... View more

If a bot or "program code" were analyzing contributor submissions, I suspect we'd see a lot more rejections than some people are seeing now...and a lot more acceptances that we would never want to see. The bot would be programmed to accept or reject submissions based on a set of photographic rules with respect to ideal focusing criteria, compositonal rules, exposure, etc., and such rules are made to be adhered to...or broken...as called for by the subject matter. Not to mention any emotional factors when it comes to judging art of any kind. Yeah, sometimes we might get a human who ordinarily does a great job at moderation but he or she is having an issue with Jane in HR and having a bad day in general and it gets taken out on us. 🙂 Just kidding...kind of...but I suspect the moderators take pride in the job they do and the responsibilities that come with it. Also, given the limitations we have when it comes to selecting from a limited number of catagories when it comes to assigning just one of those categories to our images, moderators have a limited number of reasons for rejecting a given image, even when there may be multiple reasons. Or even one particular reason not necessarily listed and only the closet one can be selected.  ... View more

Wouldn't work. Images that "don't sell" don't necessarily "don't sell" because of quality issues. They might not sell for a variety of reasons, such as poor keywording, lack of commercial value, competition among millions of images to choose from (which is probably the main one), etc. I've seen way more people uploading actual photographs here asking why their images weren't accepted that couldn't come close to competing with AI in terms of quality. Adobe (and Adobe Stock) is clearly embracing AI as indicated by the introduction of Firefly. Once out of beta, that issue (if AI generation is in fact the issue, which I highly doubt), things will get far worse before they get better in terms of waiting periods. ... View more

Well put. As a retired photographer and now an AI designer, I put as much if not more effort into editing my AI work as I did my photographs. Whether it's one image or twenty (though three to seven is probably my average), I made it a point from the beginning to upload daily. Fingers crossed, but after being patient during the first couple of months of waiting, I'm now having images accepted roughly every other day (weekends and holidays excluded). AI is easy...but  deceptively so. My motto: When it comes to AI, one is only as good as the number of images one assigns to the trash." ... View more