pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Whats the deal with IS & 3D (rejection rant)  (Read 6253 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 09, 2011, 17:19 »
0
OK any marketplace has the right to choose what product it sells an perhaps IS is right and the rest of the world is wrong but how is that 100% of whats submitted is accepted by at least one of the other big 4 and 80%+ by all of them yet IS rejects virtually everything?  Here is the latest we feel the overall composition... etc, etc no resubmit (as if I would) that has sold on SS against, frankly, much stronger opposition than can be found on IS.
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/485545/485545,1304178086,1/stock-photo-rendered-digital-interpretation-of-*-crucified-with-beam-of-heavenly-light-76248700.jpg


« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2011, 17:55 »
0
Hard to comment without a full size to see execution.

« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2011, 18:07 »
0
True but it wasn't rejected for technical issues but for composition and (presumably) marketability. 

« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2011, 21:53 »
0
True but it wasn't rejected for technical issues but for composition and (presumably) marketability. 

With 3d, "composition" is really about everything, including execution.

« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2011, 13:42 »
0
Guessing YOU don't get too many rejects  ;D  In my vast experience  :-[ in these things they tend to flag execution problems and allow resubmit where they feel it salvageable seems like the equivalent of the SS LCV or DT Not quite what were looking for... .  In any case, this image isn't the point of the post.  It seems strange that the #2 site has such different criteria for 3d than sites 1, 3 & 4 where the criteria for photos and vector stuff seems similar (to judge from the number of threads on the subject especially in relation to SS). So is it the case that IS is the ONLY site that does this properly?

« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2011, 14:45 »
0
If it were me, I would probably be rejecting this based on uneven lighting. The lighting on the  figure doesn't really make sense to me, other than you might be trying to highlight a few things, particularly the cut by his ribs.

You have the light from the sun that looks right, then you have what looks like a beam of light coming down from Heaven which I think would illuminate his complete body, but it doesn't. Instead there is this strange shadow on his chest, and his feet are dark...and overall he isn't that bright to begin with...as I would expect with a bright light from the heavens....if that is indeed what it is.

What light there is on him...ie near the ribs, almost looks like someone on the ground is shining a flash light on him...just being honest.

Otherwise I think this image has great potential.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 14:49 by gwhitton »

« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2011, 17:49 »
0
im totally distracted by the ugly bushes in the bottom right corner and the uneven lighting.  im only commenting since you posted your image and wanted some feedback on it. Its a tough shot to pull off without a lot of time invested in it and i would never put that much time in it for micro prices.

« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2011, 20:15 »
0
Some honest crits, nothing personal:

- The sky looks flat, I assume this is just a high-res texture on a plane?
- The bushes look ugly and fake. And why are they partly illuminated? It looks like there's a light source next to the bush, out of view, yet that light source has no effect on the rest of the objects.
- The lighting is very uneven. The sun is shining from the back, yet there's a holy beam of light coming from above. It should illuminate Jesus in full, not just his stomach area.


I think Istock is right in rejecting this.

Noodles

« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2011, 21:57 »
0
Light is everything in 3D and can either make or break the scene's believability and realism. The composition and balance look fine and acceptable so just get the lightening right and you should be good to go. iStock are very strict with 3D work - as a buyer I'm happy about that, and as a seller I also have my problems with rejected 3D work   :)

Microbius

« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2011, 07:31 »
0
Honestly looking at your portfolio on the other sites the image you posted is one of your best and still looks a bit dated and middle of the road.
IStock just has much higher standards for 3D and illustrations than the other sites, so I wouldn't take it personally.

velocicarpo

« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2011, 09:40 »
0
Obviously you did the scene in Vue and putted a point light in front of the Figure to brighten up this part. This is the main Problem in the scene. I can understand the rejection. Be more careful with your lightning, it should be much less harsh...

« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2011, 15:49 »
0
So.. 
The answer to the actual question appears to be yes, IS are the only reviewers who know what they are talking about and all the other big sites reviewers are idiots
Lets examine this.  The vast majority of stock images (note: I say the vast majority, there are millions of exceptions) are technically excellent but aesthetically sterile and boring with zero artistic value but very commercial and, like top 40 music, they are simply product.  Therefore the role of the reviewer is to select product that is likely to sell.  If that product sells, the reviewer got it right, otherwise not.  On that basis, SS, DT, FT appear to have the edge.
Im quite aware of my limitations at this game but in terms of the image, which was just an example, not a request for criticism, the thinking was as follows (readily accept that if it needs explaining it has failed):
I wanted a low light, sunset situation with a beam of heavenly light illuminating the figure.   The bushes are actually backlit by the setting sun and the shadows on the figure are caused by a gel on the volumetric spotlight (velocicarpo,  close but not quite) to produce shadows as if this beam of light is coming through clouds.  The face is important but the chest isnt, hence the effect.  Didnt want to go very strongly on the volume as this would be interpreted as banding.  In other words, this is what I was going for. 
Microbius, yours is the only comment to which I take exception as nothing gets up my nose quite like condescension.  Can you post a links to some of your ports on some of the sites so that I can see your credentials.   Dated and middle of the road in comparison to what?  Ball headed stick figures? Youre obviously pretty successful but Id like to form an opinion on your creativity and quite prepared to eat humble pie if you are producing something more than the  ubiquitous visual muzak.  My middle of the road crap is at least a little different and in page 1 (mostly) on SS by most popular searches by subject matter.

« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2011, 16:06 »
0
From the link you provided, Jesus and the cross look really flat compared to the rest of the scene. The sharp difference in the lighting in the sky also throws me off.

« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2011, 17:32 »
0
From the link you provided, Jesus and the cross look really flat compared to the rest of the scene. The sharp difference in the lighting in the sky also throws me off.
Jaysus (seems like an appropriate expletive in the circumstances) 
Maybe it is, maybe it isnt, I dont know but IM happy with it and willing to stand over it. More importantly, no buyer has requested a refund (yet).  Again, and apologies for shouting, THIS IMAGE IS NOT THE POINT HERE!!
As an aside, why are most people hiding in the long grass?  An anonymous opinion isnt worth a whole lot.  You may be a Salvador Dali or a Leonardo Da Vinci or, simply, a tool with an opinion, how can I know?  I may not like Seans comments but its arrogance based on achievement and, therefore, valid.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 17:34 by heywoody »

« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2011, 19:36 »
0
Um, the image us the whole point ;)

« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2011, 20:09 »
0
My 4 year old draws pictures that she thinks are amazing. Should I demand that istock accepts those into their library because she says they are good enough?

« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2011, 20:19 »
0
I also think I'll go with " tool with an opinion." that will be my next blog title.

Noodles

« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2011, 21:12 »
0
As an aside, why are most people hiding in the long grass?  An anonymous opinion isnt worth a whole lot.  You may be a Salvador Dali or a Leonardo Da Vinci or, simply, a tool with an opinion, how can I know?  I may not like Seans comments but its arrogance based on achievement and, therefore, valid.


If you seriously want to achieve a level of work that's accepted by iStock then there are some excellent sites where you can post your imagery for critique and analysis. http://www.cgsociety.org/ is a good place to start. Good luck :)

« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2011, 21:32 »
0
Pretty sure he just wants to rant and posted in the wrong forum.

Noodles

« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2011, 22:00 »
0
Pretty sure he just wants to rant and posted in the wrong forum.

Rejection is part of the learning curve :)

Microbius

« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2011, 02:18 »
0
The answer to the actual question appears to be yes, IS are the only reviewers who know what they are talking about and all the other big sites reviewers are idiots

pretty much correct when it comes to illustration and 3D especially in the case of SS

Lets examine this.  The vast majority of stock images (note: I say the vast majority, there are millions of exceptions) are technically excellent but aesthetically sterile and boring with zero artistic value but very commercial and, like top 40 music, they are simply product.  Therefore the role of the reviewer is to select product that is likely to sell.  If that product sells, the reviewer got it right, otherwise not.  On that basis, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia appear to have the edge.
Well clearly you aren't getting sales on IStock for stuff  they didn't accept, it isn't on the site! Getting a couple of sales on SS, where the marginal cost per download is zero for the customer really doesn't prove an awful lot.

Microbius, yours is the only comment to which I take exception as nothing gets up my nose quite like condescension.  Can you post a links to some of your ports on some of the sites so that I can see your credentials.   Dated and middle of the road in comparison to what?  Ball headed stick figures? Youre obviously pretty successful but Id like to form an opinion on your creativity and quite prepared to eat humble pie if you are producing something more than the  ubiquitous visual muzak.  My middle of the road crap is at least a little different and in page 1 (mostly) on Shutterstock by most popular searches by subject matter.

 Dated and middle of the road in comparison to what is accepted and sells on IStock. I am being kind here by not giving you a critique on specific work in your portfolio with better examples from other artists. Ball headed stick figures can be well executed or poorly executed. I was referring to the quality of the craftsmanship, not the subject matter. You can choose to listen or not, I prefer not as it means a little less competition for me  :P

« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2011, 12:32 »
0
The answer to the actual question appears to be yes, IS are the only reviewers who know what they are talking about and all the other big sites reviewers are idiots

pretty much correct when it comes to illustration and 3D especially in the case of Shutterstock

Lets examine this.  The vast majority of stock images (note: I say the vast majority, there are millions of exceptions) are technically excellent but aesthetically sterile and boring with zero artistic value but very commercial and, like top 40 music, they are simply product.  Therefore the role of the reviewer is to select product that is likely to sell.  If that product sells, the reviewer got it right, otherwise not.  On that basis, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia appear to have the edge.
Well clearly you aren't getting sales on IStock for stuff  they didn't accept, it isn't on the site! Getting a couple of sales on Shutterstock, where the marginal cost per download is zero for the customer really doesn't prove an awful lot.

Microbius, yours is the only comment to which I take exception as nothing gets up my nose quite like condescension.  Can you post a links to some of your ports on some of the sites so that I can see your credentials.   Dated and middle of the road in comparison to what?  Ball headed stick figures? Youre obviously pretty successful but Id like to form an opinion on your creativity and quite prepared to eat humble pie if you are producing something more than the  ubiquitous visual muzak.  My middle of the road crap is at least a little different and in page 1 (mostly) on Shutterstock by most popular searches by subject matter.

 Dated and middle of the road in comparison to what is accepted and sells on IStock. I am being kind here by not giving you a critique on specific work in your portfolio with better examples from other artists. Ball headed stick figures can be well executed or poorly executed. I was referring to the quality of the craftsmanship, not the subject matter. You can choose to listen or not, I prefer not as it means a little less competition for me  :P

You'll notices bald headed stick figures...by the same artist...everywhere on the web, so apparently someone likes them, and in the end all that matters is the customers opinion.

« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2011, 17:24 »
0
Ah...  the perils of forum participation following a glass or 2 of a nice vino  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2622 Views
Last post October 31, 2008, 15:56
by mantonino
a rant

Started by jim_h « 1 2 3  All » iStockPhoto.com

56 Replies
15435 Views
Last post February 28, 2009, 12:31
by yecatsdoherty
12 Replies
4539 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 16:36
by madelaide
24 Replies
7356 Views
Last post February 12, 2012, 13:09
by CarolinaSmith
8 Replies
3860 Views
Last post December 16, 2023, 05:45
by Jasper965

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors