pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hi, I'm new  (Read 5446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 22, 2011, 05:26 »
0
and I don't speak english well :)
I need a little help. Beetween 6 days there's my next round to submit to IS for first time approval...I've been rejected 4 times and now I don't know what they want to see and...I'm afraid!!!
Can you help me to chose some good works to show them?
What do you think about these? What is ok for IS? I really don't know... :-\

...

Really, I don't have an opinion and I'm in confusion!
If I choose a strange work...it' too strange, If I choose a simple work...it's too simple :P :-[
Now I'm in anxiety :-\
I'll be very happy if you give me an opinion...
« Last Edit: January 22, 2011, 12:24 by Ellerslie »


« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2011, 10:38 »
0
None of those are really IS standard work.  If you want to do 3d, you will actually need to do better than those below, which are very simple, and the one looks like a out of the box poser render.

« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2011, 10:47 »
0
Thanks a lot for your opinion, so is it better I wait for a long time? I work only in 3D...only the woman is rendere in poser, other works are made in 3D studio max. May be they seem symple works but I've seen on IS much more simple works. In any case, this maybe isn't the right time for IS.
I'll be happy if you can give me more specific example about the kind of 3D work that is good for IS...I don't understand, really. :-\

« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2011, 11:01 »
0
You might do best requesting a critique on the Istock critique forum.  Some inspectors hang out there and might be willing to give you some input on the likelihood of success with these images and how you can improve/change them to get accepted.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=26&page=1

« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2011, 11:04 »
0
Oh, thanks!! I'll go there.
You're very nice.

« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2011, 11:12 »
0
It' s very interesting. Seems that now there're a lot of problems with 3D works. Thanks again.

« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2011, 11:44 »
0
Thanks a lot for your opinion, so is it better I wait for a long time? I work only in 3D...only the woman is rendere in poser, other works are made in 3D studio max. May be they seem symple works but I've seen on IS much more simple works. In any case, this maybe isn't the right time for IS.
I'll be happy if you can give me more specific example about the kind of 3D work that is good for IS...I don't understand, really. :-\


IS likes 3d work that is well rendered with good lighting, and has a good conceptual nature, or is more photo-realistic in a depiction of something.  Your "balls and spider" looks like a bunch of spheres around some sort of bug-ish shape.  With default lighting.  There's no message or real depiction there - it looks like you just modeled something for fun and uploaded it.  Same for the sky one - the lighting of the bg doesn't match the default lighting on the gold ball thing, and again, there's no coherent message there.

The poser one is also not lit well, and her hand is not correctly posed for that action.  It just looks like a videogame capture.

Read this: http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=813

« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2011, 12:01 »
0
So, they don't love fantasy or abstract works?
It isn't a good news for me :-\
Something like these?

But I've saw so many crowns!

p.s. What does it mind "bug-ish shape", I'm italian ;)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 08:39 by Ellerslie »

« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2011, 12:08 »
0
Something like these?

Nope.  I can see the polygons on that cord in the first, even in that thumbnail.  And the crown is not detailed enough.

Quote
p.s. What does it mind "bug-ish shape", I'm italian ;)

The spider thing.

« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2011, 12:20 »
0
Uff. Thanks Silo, they make me crazy :P!
I'll do something expecially for IS...and I'd look very very well their 3D works.

« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2011, 08:37 »
0
Please, can you give me another opinion?
I can't write on Istock forum, I don't know why and I've saw that you, sjlocke, are a great professionist and you know very well IS standard.
But I'm happy for all opinions. Beetween four days I'll do my upload and I'm working very hard because I really want to be an IS contributor...So, what do you think about these works?

I don't want to upload this one but this is the idea. Only I've selected another work with tennis balls and crown...
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 11:14 by Ellerslie »

Microbius

« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2011, 08:49 »
0
You need to practice a lot more before they are up to scratch for IStock.
Shutterstock is probably the right place for them for the time being.
As you have invested several thousand dollars for 3d Studio Max it must be worth a subscription yo Lynda.com to learn to use it well, no?

« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2011, 08:57 »
0
Yes, of course but if I understand what is the problem it's better ;)
So, isn't there hope? At least I know I'll be rejected again 8) :o
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 08:59 by Ellerslie »

Microbius

« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2011, 09:17 »
0
With these pieces, I would say no chance of getting approved at IStock yet.
But stock is more craft then art so just practice more and get to know your tools and you'll get there one day!

« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2011, 09:26 »
0
Thanks, I feel better  :-* One day is better than never :)

« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2011, 09:29 »
0
Did you read the article about IS standards I posted above?  If you compare these to things in that article, you will see that they are far too simple.  Luckily, SS seems to accept anything thrown at them, so I agree you are in the right place for now.

« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2011, 10:10 »
0
Maybe I'm a little bit confused because If I search, for example", "atomic structure" or "atom" I see very very simple work (I'm graduated in chemistry) but I'm sure that if I put an atomic structure...now It's really too simple and it'll be rejected. If I look at crowns I can see only a diffuse use of HDRI material.
But, of course, you are right when you say I must improve my technique and think about microstock, not about art.

(today my english is worse than usual  :-\. At least thanks a lot for your opinions. I'll wait for more time)

« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2011, 10:19 »
0
I just searched atomic structure and picked this one from newest:


It may look simple, but there is nice diffuse lighting, even a bit of color temperature variance from the global illumination, as seen on the floor.  There is some appropriate texture on the rings.  No aliasing on the polygons, and no polygons visable.  No spheres interpenetring.  It is simple, but well done.

No one is saying you cannot submit well done simpler work once accepted, but you need to show a degree of technical knowledge that isn't apparent in your examples so far.

« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2011, 10:22 »
0
^^^ Ouch! I don't even know what most of that means. I'll still to my camera. Much easier by the sound of it.

rubyroo

« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2011, 10:29 »
0
Same here... the world of 3D won't see any interference from me, for sure  :D

Good luck Ellerslie.  The fact that you're asking and listening to the answers suggests that you'll reach your goal in time.  Just keep working at it (and listening to SJLocke!) 

« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2011, 10:37 »
0
You're right, you've shown a very good work (and you have understood that my weakness is the illumination...* illumination!  ;))  even if I'm not sure that it's a good idea don't use antialising for the nucleus. If we want to be really really realistic, an atomic structure contains only a nucleus, then only a sphere in the middle. But I don't know how many people know chemistry so I don't think it's really important...I've shown most popular images and they are more simple than this one (more and more   ;)...but it's only to speak with you, I wanted to understand if the problem was the composition or the technique. Only now I've understood that the problem is the technical perfection and not so much the composition. I'll work about illumination I hate it  :-X :P). Thanks a lot.

« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2011, 10:39 »
0
Same here... the world of 3D won't see any interference from me, for sure  :D

Good luck Ellerslie.  The fact that you're asking and listening to the answers suggests that you'll reach your goal in time.  Just keep working at it (and listening to SJLocke!) 


Thanks Ruby, you are very nice. I 've learned a lot here ;)

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2011, 10:46 »
0
I just searched atomic structure and picked this one from newest:


It may look simple, but there is nice diffuse lighting, even a bit of color temperature variance from the global illumination, as seen on the floor.  There is some appropriate texture on the rings.  No aliasing on the polygons, and no polygons visable.  No spheres interpenetring.  It is simple, but well done.

No one is saying you cannot submit well done simpler work once accepted, but you need to show a degree of technical knowledge that isn't apparent in your examples so far.


great advice. to the OP, it took me close to a year to be able to use 3DS Max, let alone start uploading 3D images. Sean's advice above is as good as it gets. the example provided is also a great example of simple but well-executed 3D. personally I'm not a fan or colour temperature variance from the global illumination, so your own style is essential too. it looks realistic, but realism isn't necessarily the goal of 3D images.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors