MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: illustrations being refused  (Read 6959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 06, 2015, 05:03 »
+1
I'm rather new in the world of microstock, but with enough understanding reasons of some rejections of images I had. However, I started with illustrations (non-vectors) and started uploading them to DT, SS and Istock. As they all are allready been accepted at SS and pending on Istock, they were all refused at DT. All with the same reason of being "to simple" ("this illustration contains few elements or the subject is too simplistically represented. Adding more elements or improving the existing ones in terms of creativity and overall appeal will increase the sale potential of your image. Please note that long series of subjects like alphabet letters, world flags, web buttons and other such illustrations will not be accepted separately but only in sets. Please do not resubmit your work unless you improve it according to the above mentioned.")

The illustrations I made had different subjects (Christmas/black friday/cyber monday/ grunge/ abstract,...)and I made them in Photoshop with a lot of layers/effects/text. I know that if I'll add more, it'll ruin the illustration and it's meaning.

I don't know what to do with illustrations on DT, as I get more and more frustrated with them....But I'm considering to stick with photos on DT, instead of mixing with illustrations

Anyone with the same expierience?


« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2015, 05:16 »
0
Honest feedback is that they were right to refuse them. The Cyber Monday ones have potential but the font is dated. The rest just look super dated overall. I really like your earlier work with the text making up parts of the image, so you definitely have it in you to do better! I would say step back and take deep breath, I am sure if you take a look back in a few months when your skills are better you will see what I mean.

« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2015, 05:23 »
0
Honest feedback is that they were right to refuse them. The Cyber Monday ones have potential but the font is dated. The rest just look super dated overall. I really like your earlier work with the text making up parts of the image, so you definitely have it in you to do better! I would say step back and take deep breath, I am sure if you take a look back in a few months when your skills are better you will see what I mean.

I know I was a bit late with the "black friday" and "cyber monday", but before I made these I scanned the database to find similar ones (which I didn't find). But what do you mean with the font is dated?
I won't give up on illustrating and trying, but it's just that the last batch dropped my acceptance ratio to a 60% (still don't know what's it for, but I was hoping to stay at around 75%)

« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2015, 09:56 »
0
I've had a couple this month "too simple" for DT but not everywhere else apparently. I'm still learning but will be more selective in submissions to DT - fussy blighters.

Makes me wonder if Saul Bass or Paul Rand would make it these days - although "simple" works fine if you have a decent concept....take a look at the latest Amex advertising graphics and plenty of others besides.


« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2015, 18:27 »
0
I like DT and have submitted a lot of images there and have been there a long time (I earned my first microstock payout there 10 years ago this month). IMO, DT's 'too simple' rejection is idiotic. I would never add elements to an image which doesn't need them. Just deal with the fact that sometimes agencies do stupid things, and keep submitting.

« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2015, 20:22 »
+2
"But what do you mean with the font is dated? "

It looks like something they might have accepted in 2004.  And the Christmas font doesn't work with the surrounding elements.  And the mix of colors don't work - red with those blues don't say 'Christmas'.  The Black Friday ones don't make any sense to me with the ink splatters. 

Go online and see the kind of things and graphics companies are using today.  It isn't stuff like this.

« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2015, 20:38 »
+1
It looks like something they might have accepted in 2004.  And the Christmas font doesn't work with the surrounding elements.  And the mix of colors don't work - red with those blues don't say 'Christmas'.  The Black Friday ones don't make any sense to me with the ink splatters. 

Go online and see the kind of things and graphics companies are using today.  It isn't stuff like this.
Thanks for the advice, but I went online, searching illustrations for black friday, and saw most of the things I would create allready made or online, so I've tried something different.
Regarding the Christmas, I totally agree... I shouldn't used the blue and red together.
Should do some more research then and try a bit harder in the designing process before uploading.

« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2015, 21:12 »
+2
I'm not talking about some of the cheesy illustrations on stock sites.  I'm talking about what advertisers are actually doing with fonts and graphics.

« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2015, 21:20 »
0
ok sorry... misunderstood what you said :D
I'll look in to it for future references

hartlet12

  • Illustrator
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2015, 01:59 »
+2
I got more rejections in DT than SS,FT,IS and 123RF combined.

« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2015, 10:45 »
+1
One note:

You have 2 items with the text: "Cyber Monday Sales Shop 'till your mouse breakes". "Breakes" is incorrect and should be spelled "breaks". Why Shutterstock accepted those with spelling mistakes is a sad mystery. You may want to replace them with correct versions.

« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2015, 11:26 »
+1
One note:

You have 2 items with the text: "Cyber Monday Sales Shop 'till your mouse breakes". "Breakes" is incorrect and should be spelled "breaks". Why Shutterstock accepted those with spelling mistakes is a sad mystery. You may want to replace them with correct versions.

Thanks a lot for that... Completely overlooked it... Just edited and resubmitted them.

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2015, 14:57 »
0
One note:

You have 2 items with the text: "Cyber Monday Sales Shop 'till your mouse breakes". "Breakes" is incorrect and should be spelled "breaks". Why Shutterstock accepted those with spelling mistakes is a sad mystery. You may want to replace them with correct versions.

Thanks a lot for that... Completely overlooked it... Just edited and resubmitted them.
and it should be 'til, because it's short for 'until'. Till is a different word altogether.

« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2015, 16:42 »
+1
One note:

You have 2 items with the text: "Cyber Monday Sales Shop 'till your mouse breakes". "Breakes" is incorrect and should be spelled "breaks". Why Shutterstock accepted those with spelling mistakes is a sad mystery. You may want to replace them with correct versions.

Thanks a lot for that... Completely overlooked it... Just edited and resubmitted them.
and it should be 'til, because it's short for 'until'. Till is a different word altogether.

I looked that up too but was surprised to find:

Quote
Till, as a variant of until, is a preposition meaning up to the time of. Tillnot til, an unnecessary abbreviationhas been in the language for centuries, and theres no reason not to use it. To some it may sound less formal than until, but the two words are interchangeable in almost all contexts.

That's from the grammarist.com website.

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2015, 16:51 »
+1
Yes, till, but not 'till.
If you use ' in this context, it indicates missing letters; so it's either till or 'til.

« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2015, 17:10 »
0
Yes, till, but not 'till.
If you use ' in this context, it indicates missing letters; so it's either till or 'til.
My mistake, you're right. I was not thinking.

« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2015, 16:31 »
0
Back to the original question, I just got a "too simple" rejection for an illustration too. It was not too simple for other agencies though.
I was expecting something like "similar". I think it's just a new phrase on their rejection list, the old ones are boring.

« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2015, 17:44 »
+1
How about a link to these not simple illustrations?

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2015, 17:46 »
+1
Back to the original question, I just got a "too simple" rejection for an illustration too. It was not too simple for other agencies though.
I was expecting something like "similar". I think it's just a new phrase on their rejection list, the old ones are boring.

Flag the rejection emails and resubmit them in the future. Works all the time for me.

« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2015, 02:40 »
0
.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 02:43 by Chichikov »

« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2015, 02:43 »
0
Sorry, something went wrong

« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2015, 04:22 »
0
How about a link to these not simple illustrations?

Sorry, no link in here.  In case I need a second review or critique from forum members I'll post it to the critique section, no offense.
I just answered the question:
Quote
Anyone with the same expierience?

Back to the original question, I just got a "too simple" rejection for an illustration too. It was not too simple for other agencies though.
I was expecting something like "similar". I think it's just a new phrase on their rejection list, the old ones are boring.

Flag the rejection emails and resubmit them in the future. Works all the time for me.

Thanks, I will try that in the future. This one was a Christmas theme, too late to resubmit now.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
3964 Views
Last post April 03, 2009, 11:18
by Magnum
74 Replies
15924 Views
Last post July 10, 2013, 14:18
by marthamarks
15 Replies
3179 Views
Last post May 27, 2013, 21:21
by Mrblues101
12 Replies
2823 Views
Last post October 25, 2013, 18:06
by ShadySue
8 Replies
3254 Views
Last post March 15, 2016, 03:20
by Sammy the Cat

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results