It is vital that you sketch anything on paper first then draw over the scanned file in illustrator. That is the way, to get high quality results. That is why having illustrator is no enough because sketchin is still the heart of all good vectors.

Things done with automatic rotate and trace tools are so obviously simple. And will never get into IS.

I understand your point completely, though I can also understand why it's easy for some to miss. At istock forums alone, we are always getting posts like "Hi! I decided to submit vectors so I bought a copy of (insert any software title here). Can you tell me what to do?" or "Hi! I see the top sellers are always vectors so I want to submit some. I got a bootleg copy of Illustrator from my friend so I'm all set! Cross your fingers for me!"

There is a ton of information that one must know in order to become a photographer. It is possible to learn this information from a book. Having an artistic eye and good intuition about what makes good stock will be very helpful tools, but many people have become successful just copying the good ideas of others.

If you purchase a copy of Illustrator, it doesn't make you an illustrator. It will not teach you how to draw if you do not already know how to draw. It will give you the tools to draw in a different medium, but there are important basic skills that you need in order to create work that will be suitable at istock. (And before people start pointing fingers at all the lame icon sets and swirly backgrounds... I know, I know... but those did not get them ACCEPTED. Once you are accepted, the standards are different for what is actually added to the collection.) People with natural artistic abilities have usually spent years developing these skills in one way or another. People whose artistic abilities have yet not been discovered or developed are going to have a harder time and a longer learning curve. Some of these are the ones who get frustrated when istock rejects their first efforts, and the ones who post about how "stupid" istock is for rejecting their images that sell so great on the other sites.

My first advice to anyone who wants to submit vectors is to first spend some time learning how to draw on paper. Putting in the time and work will be more than worth it in the end. If someone is going to take the time to learn a vector program, why not set their goals a little higher than the low bar set by the crappiest collection?

So while I understand the point being made here, I would not tell someone to just give up if they are a "wannabe" but I would tell them that they should not expect to have it all handed to them on a silver platter just because they can manage to do the bare minimum and get it accepted somewhere. As with most things in life, greater opportunities will unfold for those who put in the greater effort.

There's nothing wrong with practicing and holding back until you're really competant.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say. 

Quote from: ironarrow on January 19, 2009, 10:58

It is vital that you sketch anything on paper first then draw over the scanned file in illustrator. That is the way, to get high quality results. That is why having illustrator is no enough because sketchin is still the heart of all good vectors.

Things done with automatic rotate and trace tools are so obviously simple. And will never get into IS.

I understand your point completely, though I can also understand why it's easy for some to miss. At istock forums alone, we are always getting posts like "Hi! I decided to submit vectors so I bought a copy of (insert any software title here). Can you tell me what to do?" or "Hi! I see the top sellers are always vectors so I want to submit some. I got a bootleg copy of Illustrator from my friend so I'm all set! Cross your fingers for me!"

There is a ton of information that one must know in order to become a photographer. It is possible to learn this information from a book. Having an artistic eye and good intuition about what makes good stock will be very helpful tools, but many people have become successful just copying the good ideas of others.

If you purchase a copy of Illustrator, it doesn't make you an illustrator. It will not teach you how to draw if you do not already know how to draw. It will give you the tools to draw in a different medium, but there are important basic skills that you need in order to create work that will be suitable at istock. (And before people start pointing fingers at all the lame icon sets and swirly backgrounds... I know, I know... but those did not get them ACCEPTED. Once you are accepted, the standards are different for what is actually added to the collection.) People with natural artistic abilities have usually spent years developing these skills in one way or another. People whose artistic abilities have yet not been discovered or developed are going to have a harder time and a longer learning curve. Some of these are the ones who get frustrated when istock rejects their first efforts, and the ones who post about how "stupid" istock is for rejecting their images that sell so great on the other sites.

My first advice to anyone who wants to submit vectors is to first spend some time learning how to draw on paper. Putting in the time and work will be more than worth it in the end. If someone is going to take the time to learn a vector program, why not set their goals a little higher than the low bar set by the crappiest collection?

So while I understand the point being made here, I would not tell someone to just give up if they are a "wannabe" but I would tell them that they should not expect to have it all handed to them on a silver platter just because they can manage to do the bare minimum and get it accepted somewhere. As with most things in life, greater opportunities will unfold for those who put in the greater effort.

Quote from: sjlocke on January 19, 2009, 10:54

There's nothing wrong with practicing and holding back until you're really competant.

This is pretty much what I'm trying to say. 

What a life:) What a post This is exactly what I am saying.. Sorry, I am not understood perfectly by everyone but this is my style of putting the ideas through.. I can be real rough at times.. I just do a little exaggeration when I am trying to make my point.. By all means they can practice, I am just trying to say it will take years and years.. Wannabes should keep practising as long as they believe they can stand practising for a long time without any return until they are really good.

If they have 10 years to spare they should not hesitate but practise.. But I am doing them a big GOOD by saying "If you were expecting to do great vectors in a short time, that is not the way it is"..... So, If indeed you expect to create best selling vectors in 6 months, give up.. Honestly:)

Oh, deep inside I'm a musician... so, I should quit photography?  but I love both  and I am just learning to make illustrations because I like it a lot and I think I can do it.
No kidding ironarrow. I understand you, but I like the attitude of Whatalife more. Anyway, I think we should let reviewers decide what is too simple for microstock and what is not. Our buyers are sometimes people who don't know how to change some illustrations color, no to mention more complicated things. I know some people that has been asked of buyers to draw the same illustration in other color.
The point is, we all don't have to be great artists to make some money selling vectors. There are very few singers in this world that I really love to listen, but I don't think all the rest should quit singing, because there is a great percent of people that won't hear flaws in their singing and they will buy their records. Some of those bad singers made world career by singing and selling their records.

Whitechild, I didn't point at you even if my attitude is bad  But you did get offended a little so I guess you consider yourself a wannabe. 

If your expectation in life is to become one of those singers on the side, you can. What I am saying there are believers who think they will become the greatest thing since the sliced bread without having the talent and without putting the necessary effort in it. My word is to them and They are whom I say should quit trying.

If you like to draw for fun, who can stop you   Do it all day long. I respect everyone's choices. I am just trying to be good by saying if your photos are better why not invest the time in photos instead of wasting it for vectors?

This type of post is called trolling, one posts controversial messages and gets tons of responses. I think it worked it this case :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Btw, when talking about vector stock, are we talking in terms of art, or illustrations aimed to sell well, therefore strictly within the boundaries of so called "suitable for stock" variations?

Aimed to sell or not! Regardless what it is for, we are talking about quality.

Sjlocke mentioned it in his post. He sums it up real good. Like 'whatalife' said, buying adobe illustrator doesn't make you an artist. It is only the tool.

Someone thinking those good illustrations are done by very good "adobe illustrator" knowledge are mistaken. It is like saying "I will buy a tennis racket and next year I will win the wimbledon"

An expensive tennis racket only works in the hands of the likes of Federer and Nadal. Not in my hands for sure. I will not become anywhere near a tennis player by buying a racket. But people somehow think "X software" does all the job and all people do is "to know" how to use it.

I could have become a very good tennis player if not great only If I put my life into it just like Federer did. Only if I was playing tennis since the age of 7 or something like that. It is too late for me just like it is too late for some to become an illustrator.

Yes with enough practice I believe people can do anything and I respect that. I never limit people and everybody is capable of doing anything under right circumstances. I would love to become a great gymnast that is for sure but I am way too old for that. B4 I know it I will be dead half way through my efforts.

I should have gotten the racket when I was 7 

Well, maybe we can agree that the quality of photos that sell differs a lot from the quality of vectors that sell. At least at IS, where acceptance of photos depends mostly on a technical quality, no matter if you're uploading whole bunches of business people and whatsoever isolated on white (that get accepted, of course, and sell very well).

I imagine the OP is aiming at the kind of thing you see on SS, like a vector heart with "LOVE" on the middle of it, or some really bad flag illustrations, or something.  There's nothing wrong with practicing and holding back until you're really competant.

Some of my impressive creations that sell well, even with ELs, at DT, FT, StockXpert and BigStock.  The first was created with Canvas, then I moved to AI.


and a few more ellaborate ones:


Regards,
Adelaide

Bottom line, no one out there has the right to tell any person what he/she can or cannot do. Really, it is not our concern if a photographer wants to create illustrations and upload them as vectors. It actually makes good business sense to be versatile and competent in as many areas as possible.

You sound like John Locke from "LOST" 

"Don't tell me what I can't do" I believe in this too. I am actually not telling anyone what they can not do. If you carefully read my first post, I do say please ignore this post if you don't think you are a wannabe, or you are a wannabe but believe you can become Van Gogh or Dali By all means, go for it

Mine is only an opinion which no one has to agree.

Quote from: abimages on January 19, 2009, 05:04

By the same token I see a lot of vector artists 'dabbling' with cameras. Going by your logic is that not the same?

It's exactly the same. And it is exactly the reason I don't try submitting photos. I know I suck behind a camera, so I don't think of myself as capable of selling photos. And I believe the world is a better place without photos from me taking up space on the web.

ironarrow, I get where you're coming from, but don't expect many friendly replies to your thread. I'm not going to say I fully agree with you, but I do see some of the god-awful stuff that makes it into the SS collection and I cringe along with you.

For me the fractals are even more nauseating than the vectors. The same old crap over and over again, and 10 versions of the same one to boot. In addition to upping the standards for vectors on SS, probably 90% of the fractal trash should be rejected. And then there is the whining about how fractals don't sell in the forum there. Gee, do ya think??

Full disclosure - yes I do have a good fractal program. I do play around with it. My uploads on fractals are minimal - only do it if it's something unique and colorful with good copyspace, not a dozen crappy gold flames on black in one shot.

Given I got accepted at istock first go I assume I therefore don't count as a wannabee! (despite my lack of formal training in Art post High School or Illustrator)
Personally I think istock tends to overemphasise the  arty rather than commercial in what it finds acceptable with illustrations. S'funny it's almost the opposite of their photos where technically correct but totally non commercial and unlikely to sell images are accepted. With illustrations simple commercial technically correct stuff is more likely to get rejected as not stock rather than the  never going to sell anything arty stuff. (I have enough of the latter in my portfolio to know about it - I couldn't do a commercial icon set to save my life as I'd die of boredom first - I doodle to please myself and occasionally some one buys it. I have no illusions about being a top seller)

The fact is, when you type "vector" into IS search form, one of most popular files are these files:
The fact is, when you type "vector" into IS search form, one of most popular files are these files:




I don't want to offend anyone, but I think these illustrations are not so complicated

Easy folks!

If I would consider be a wannabe something, I would want to be a wannabe National Geographic photographer. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: abimages on January 19, 2009, 05:04

By the same token I see a lot of vector artists 'dabbling' with cameras. Going by your logic is that not the same?

It's exactly the same. And it is exactly the reason I don't try submitting photos. I know I suck behind a camera, so I don't think of myself as capable of selling photos. And I believe the world is a better place without photos from me taking up space on the web.

ironarrow, I get where you're coming from, but don't expect many friendly replies to your thread. I'm not going to say I fully agree with you, but I do see some of the god-awful stuff that makes it into the SS collection and I cringe along with you.

Helix, that's the thing. We know what we are capable of. We know we are not Yuri Arcurs or Lise Gagne of microstock photography and that is why we don't take photos.

But hell yeah we could take photos If we were going to accept doing it at a standard some of the photographers do illustrations.