Rejected neuro pictures

[trubianna]

Hi everyone, a few months ago I started loading neural network generated content into my portfolio. And I've encountered the fact that most of my work is rejected. The wording is always the same and very vague - quality problems. I have attached a few rejected works. Maybe someone can understand what the problem is and what I'm doing wrong. Thank you!

[oleschwander]

To me they look really good. However, there are small problems - with the camping chair, the pink lines at the bottom of the cupid's wings and the nostrils being of different sizes in Angel Woman. Otherwise it looks great to me. Must be good apps you are using or you have had lots of post processing work with the images ...

[RALPH_L]

In 413cat4 there are artifacts around the edges. These can be seen at higher magnification.

[daniellei4510]

Poorly rendered tomatoe in 378Glazed; There appear to be some stars in FRONT of the moon in 119Camping3 in addition to looking more like another planet than the moon; 62CupidGirl...her teeth maybe? Eyes look realistic while her mouth looks cartoonish; weird earlobes in 67OldWoman; check out the pupils in 55AngelWomen.

[Jill_C]

44AngelWomen.jpg - her eyes are different colors

67OldWomanlFuturist.jpg - the facial wrinkles are really exaggerated/unrralistic. The eyeglasses have no stems .

[Abambo]

The wording is always the same and very vague - quality problems.

By @trubianna

The wording is stock text. Moderators do not write that individually for your precise asset.

If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html

[Abambo]

You did not embed the sRGB colour profile, as required (see the contributor manual).

The cat:

Aliasing and pixelation.

Cut-off fur. There are more of these errors around.

Artefacts due to upscaling. I suspect the pixels originally being nearer together, but that this size, this gap fill-up does not make sense.

The eggs on a plate:

The same issues as with the cat:

Pixelation and aliasing.

Colour noise, and around the tomatoes is a kind of border.

There is a white border. That would be a Non-Compliant image refusal. Moderators refuse on the first error they see, so they don't check the whole image. There is always a possibility that there are other refusal reasons on top of the given reason.

What is this element?

Why is this blurred?

Polar Bear: You see it, your up-scaler is not working correctly:

You also have that white border right and bottom that is not allowed.

The white border is also present in the next picture, the fire place:

As for the rest, it exposes massively artefacts as seen at 100%:

I won't check the other pictures, you see the problems, and they are more or less always the same. You need to check your pictures at 100% and correct all errors before (re-)submitting.