|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - DiscreetDuck
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 32
201
« on: January 08, 2024, 09:27 »
Did you read the bottom of the post?
Did you read the topic you wrote for this post?: AI Generated images on Adobestock-Is it all down to the individual reviewing?
202
« on: January 08, 2024, 09:19 »
Sorry, but all this is the case for more than 18 years with real photos. Produce good images, and this will not happen. I never complained myself about rejections for 18 years! You should try doing something else then instead of AI generating, something where you have got a skill, or maybe spend time and work to get a skill. Btw, feel free to show the rejected images here. Usually, people don't do it. Guess why... 
203
« on: January 08, 2024, 04:54 »
Sure, not that soon, but they already organise the(yr) future.
Adobe is obviously interested in all the money they will keep without the royalties given to human prompters uploading rapidly outdated images generated by rapidly evolving technology.
Real photos will remain real photos.
On the other hand, portfolios mixing images generated by AI and real photographs may pose a problem for them. Maybe some -enthusiastic, euphoric, and already constantly complaining immaturely- contributors should think about it.
204
« on: January 08, 2024, 04:23 »
I find my weekly upload of 25 images are reviewed in 1 week - However the last 2 weeks every single image has been rejected due to quality which is ridiculous as they are no different in quality from my other 8000 approved images and I have never had more than 1 or 2 rejections each week historically......will see what happened this week!
Had exactly the same thing. Last saturday I uploaded some AI-images in the same quality as some I did before (and which already sold on Adobe Stock). All of them were rejected about 12 hours later because of quality issues. This is very strange. They usually take weeks to review and now in the weekend they can review with in 12 hours?
GOOD NEWS! thx Only consider that the time of human AI prompters maybe already finished. Adobe knows they will propose directly AI generation in the hands of their customers, with real time quality evolution.
205
« on: January 06, 2024, 06:15 »
And now, few months later....collection is flooded with GEN AI "vectors".
I'm quite sure that Adobe accept them deliberately.
Considering that they are not declared as AI generated and fact that they are accepted in a collection as regular vectors is spitting in a face of a vector contributors .
Shame.....
+1 Yes, it's even scandalous. There is no longer any respect, no recognition, they wallow in greed. New generation values...
206
« on: January 05, 2024, 12:08 »
Wanna learn basis for real photography instead of typing on a keyboard to get generated images? 
207
« on: January 05, 2024, 11:11 »
.
208
« on: January 05, 2024, 10:33 »
Topic: You climbed to a higher level!
Here are the real steps... that microstock industry prepared for microstock historic human contributors. You are Welcome to lay on the highest level! 
210
« on: December 30, 2023, 18:30 »
Uploading a photo was throwing a drop in a pool. Now, throwing a drop in an ocean...
211
« on: December 23, 2023, 15:49 »
30 Million+
212
« on: December 23, 2023, 11:11 »
Okay. Yes i read this part.
No minor. Overweight man is adult and woman too.
If AI-image, no model release = account ban?
Overweight man = discrimination? Saw other images and videos after a quick search, online, so this should be okay. (?)
Maybe i just skip these topics. Still not 100% clear. Try & error (account gone) is maybe too risky for me.
There really needs to be a checkbox for things that you (I, and maybe everyone else) aren't sure about.
You choose virtual AI models, sorry, but you discriminate real living models. You discriminate organic true reality by choosing AI fake and irreality... When someone is mature, he abstains when there is a risk, right?
213
« on: December 16, 2023, 05:38 »
214
« on: December 15, 2023, 14:39 »
mass rejects have been reported for some time now in previous threads
Mass AI submissions also have been reported coincidence? 
215
« on: December 15, 2023, 14:18 »
So...
a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...
b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?
Thanks very much!
OOhhhh... prompting for genAI is Time consuming... A pity...  
Haha, glad you feel the sadness 
It's not the prompting itself... It's the actual editing to make sure it is a useable image. I realize of course not everyone does that - but, I do take the time to do that which actually makes it quite time consuming... Like brushing stuff out, 'adding' an extra finger where there should be one, etc... Quite time consuming, such that lol - almost seems faster to take regular photos.
BUT - if you read my post - it was ALSO for regular photography that got rejected, that was frustrating. High qualty cameras, good lighting, good subject focus, good subject, unique content, desireable/commercial value, and then just batch 'quality issues' rejections...
Maybe they reject all your "regular photographies" because they get tons of AI generated that they judge better quality... Just think that your AI generated do the same for regular photographies from others... Be sure Adobe makes no difference for both. They are unable. Brave new world...
216
« on: December 15, 2023, 13:07 »
So...
a) For actual photos (not genAI)... Do you "need" keep the meta data in the images? I submitted a batch of high quality photographs - and "all" were rejected... (I had cleaned out the meta data, i.e., what camera was used, and other details)... was that just laziness on the reviewers part (i.e., did they just "assume" it was genAI because of no meta data, so just rejected it), or what was going on - do I "need" to leave that data in? Extremely frustrating, as I had waited quite some time for them to be processed...
b) When I do some of the genAI,I do take the time to remove extra fingers, logos, make sure the composition is correct, etc... I realize there are probably many that don't (seeking 'genAI' riches with no work/editing/etc)... HOWEVER... it's also frustrating when it seems you get a lazy reviewer - that rejects 90%-95% of a batch that required a lot of time consuming editing to make sure it looked good... Matt, could you please fix that?
Thanks very much!
OOhhhh... prompting for genAI is Time consuming... A pity...
217
« on: December 13, 2023, 14:59 »
[...]
Ive listed the micros that Ive been following, and the partners that Ive identified (or have been suggested/claimed to be a partner), with a link to a confirmation or at least a discussion of the partner and its relationships to one of the micros. Im not following everyone and Im sure Ive missed lots of stuff, so Id welcome your input.
Canstockphoto
Opt out possible?
Fotosearch - Owns Canstock - http://www.microstockgroup.com/canstockphoto-com/canstock-portfolio-on-fotosearch/
Gograph.com Per luissantos84 in post #98 of this thread
Reflexstock - http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/reflex-stock/
Value Stock Images - owned by Fotosearch, confirmed by sitemail
[...]
Portion of old message from the forum here.
219
« on: December 11, 2023, 15:30 »
Only 4 approved out of 7 for my last batch. Seems to be that time when sites were accepting flood of low quality stuf is finished. Maybe not a so bad news. Now, they should clean the database too.
220
« on: December 10, 2023, 15:47 »
Adobe have serious issues which are preventing them from reviewing images in under a month and preventing them from not rejecting a whole batch at once, hopefully they sort their business methods out next year
It's ridiculous. Adobe has no problem, they sell, and don't need validation of new images to make a profit. On the other hand, yes, some contributors have problems not having a growing portfolio, to represent something other than a micro drop in an ocean of images.
But quality portfolios are still favored by algorithms, and that's good
The introduction with ridiculous is of course always a good argument and a good start for a discussion at eye level.
Many of my pictures are now in their third month on hold.
Summer landscapes and cityscapes from Holland that are not yet represented at Adobe and are doing well at other agencies.
So, your conclusion is to find ridiculous that Adobe don't review your pictures whereas they are doing well elsewhere... why not. personaly, I would not blame you.
221
« on: December 10, 2023, 13:46 »
It's ridiculous. Adobe has no problem, they sell, and don't need validation of new images to make a profit. On the other hand, yes, some contributors have problems not having a growing portfolio, to represent something other than a micro drop in an ocean of images.
But quality portfolios are still favored by algorithms, and that's good
How do I know if I'm favored or not?
Be sure that prompters flooding their AI will be very soon not favored... 
222
« on: December 10, 2023, 11:02 »
Adobe have serious issues which are preventing them from reviewing images in under a month and preventing them from not rejecting a whole batch at once, hopefully they sort their business methods out next year
It's ridiculous. Adobe has no problem, they sell, and don't need validation of new images to make a profit. On the other hand, yes, some contributors have problems not having a growing portfolio, to represent something other than a micro drop in an ocean of images. But quality portfolios are still favored by algorithms, and that's good
223
« on: December 09, 2023, 07:50 »
224
« on: December 06, 2023, 15:17 »
The thumbnail shows a screen placed on a stand which is off-center, against all logic.
225
« on: December 06, 2023, 15:09 »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 32
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
