pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejection due to banding from AI CS4 raster image? - COME ON!  (Read 16797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Milinz

« on: June 22, 2009, 10:09 »
0
We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled Pretty girl ( http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9717703/2/istockphoto_9717703-pretty-girl.jpg) for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:

+ Your image suffers from banding in the gradient colors. This is often a result of too much processing, such as saturation, curves and filters. Please submit a cleaner version if possible. We found this file over filtered from its original appearance/quality. For more information about iStock Standards, please visit:http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_1.0_account.php

+ Please assign proper terms from a Controlled Vocabulary to your keywords  

Once the above issue(s) with this image have been rectified, we will be happy to review it again for addition to our library. Please be sure to address ALL of the above issues prior to resubmission.Go to: http://www.istockphoto.com/resubmit_rejected_file.php?RejectedFileID=9717703 to resubmit.

This is dumbiest rejection EVER! Please inspector write to ADOBE due to this 'banding' so they can code their software better to comply to iStockphoto standards!

http://www.fotolia.com/id/14820876http://www.fotolia.com/id/14820876
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 10:18 by Milinz »


pieman

  • I'm Lobo
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2009, 10:16 »
0
No one can see your rejected file if it's in the rejected queue, sorry.

Milinz

« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2009, 10:19 »
0
No one can see your rejected file if it's in the rejected queue, sorry.

Added link to that image in my edit of OP.

BTW, This is THE BEST REJECTION EVER from as most DUMBIEST inspector I got.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 10:21 by Milinz »

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2009, 10:20 »
0
You said you are a reviewer. I am shocked that you do not respect another reviewer's judgement for the agency they work. This is what I meant on the other site when I said - the culture of a site . It's not crap, it's what the site tells their reviewers the criteria of what is wanted and what is not.
As whatalife mentioned there too, if you disagree, you can always stop uploading to IS, or Veer, and perharps, upload to the site you review. This way, you don't have to keep crapping on how everyone is unfair to you here on MSG.

« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2009, 10:22 »
0
It's never your fault is it!

Banding can be quite common in bitmap illustrations, especially when gradients are involved. IS picks it up more than most, and when they do, it is there if you look. I've tried quite a few things to put it right in the past when I have got the rejection, but with no success. I normally let it go.

I wonder if I had moaned in a forum IS may have changed their view and accepted the image, maybe I should have tried.

bittersweet

« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2009, 10:25 »
0
Looks like you failed to disambiguate your keywords as well.

Here's the image in case anyone wants to view it (again).



After all the ranting you do about rejects, it's really becoming very clear where the problem lies.

Milinz

« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2009, 10:30 »
0
You said you are a reviewer. I am shocked that you do not respect another reviewer's judgement for the agency they work. This is what I meant on the other site when I said - the culture of a site . It's not crap, it's what the site tells their reviewers the criteria of what is wanted and what is not.
As whatalife mentioned there too, if you disagree, you can always stop uploading to IS, or Veer, and perharps, upload to the site you review. This way, you don't have to keep crapping on how everyone is unfair to you here on MSG.

I respect reviewers - but this rejection is worse than random rejections on Crestock. But this reviewer really have some compatibility problems... Or standards are moved up so much that I must order special software from ADOBE to make for me so I can work for iStockphoto reviewers... It is plain export in BEST QUALITY from Adobe Illustrator CS4... So, 'Banding' is there as ADOBE default rasterizing algorythm. They simply can not ask from authors that they do better than software can provide!

Anyhow, that is what I meant when I said they 'don't need' my images on iStock... And it is not crapping on them - IT IS THE CRAPPING!

Anyway - this with 'not original appearance' makes me ROFLMAO.

pieman

  • I'm Lobo
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2009, 10:30 »
0
I wonder if I had moaned in a forum IS may have changed their view and accepted the image, maybe I should have tried.
We only review rejections via the Scout queue or the Critique Request Forum. However, it couldn't hurt to bring your rejections up in the ACTUAL iS Forums(Critique Request Forum) so you can get some feedback. You never know unless you try.

For the record, the iS inspectors don't frequent this forum so the chance of them seeing any barbs thrown here isn't likely. It's a pretty simple process though to get your file reassessed:

file = rejected >>> Critique Request Forum/Scout >>> resolution.

Either your file will be overturned or you will be further informed on why it was rejected.




Milinz

« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2009, 10:33 »
0
Looks like you failed to disambiguate your keywords as well.

Here's the image in case anyone wants to view it (again).



After all the ranting you do about rejects, it's really becoming very clear where the problem lies.


You're right! I am bad and I don't deserve to sell via iStock ;-)

alias

« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2009, 10:34 »
0
When you are having a problem identifying banding there is a good chance that it is down to your monitors. Perhaps you are using TFTs with TN panels ? Even with identical high quality graphics monitors, a cool trick is to calibrate one slightly in favor of the highlights, the other slightly in favor of the blacks. For comparison.

Milinz

« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2009, 10:36 »
0
When you are having a problem identifying banding there is a good chance that it is down to your monitors. Perhaps you are using TFTs with TN panels ? Even with identical high quality graphics monitors, a cool trick is to calibrate one slightly in favor of the highlights, the other slightly in favor of the blacks. For comparison.

Come on - This is raster from CS4 direct export! So, ADOBE fails to iStockphoto standards?

bittersweet

« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2009, 10:37 »
0
You seem to assume that because YOU are having problems that somehow iStock has these unreasonable standards.

Other contributors seem to be managing just fine.

« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2009, 10:40 »
0
I wonder if I had moaned in a forum IS may have changed their view and accepted the image, maybe I should have tried.
We only review rejections via the Scout queue or the Critique Request Forum. However, it couldn't hurt to bring your rejections up in the ACTUAL iS Forums(Critique Request Forum) so you can get some feedback. You never know unless you try.

For the record, the iS inspectors don't frequent this forum so the chance of them seeing any barbs thrown here isn't likely. It's a pretty simple process though to get your file reassessed:

file = rejected >>> Critique Request Forum/Scout >>> resolution.

Either your file will be overturned or you will be further informed on why it was rejected.





Thanks for the info, but this was an attempt at sarcasm. You get one blue pie heart.

bittersweet

« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2009, 10:42 »
0

Thanks for the info, but this was an attempt at sarcasm. You get one blue pie heart.

I think he saw your sarcasm and raised you one elementary explanation, in case there are thread participants who are in desperate need of some education on the matter.

« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2009, 10:44 »
0
Milinz, you MUST find a site which accepts everything you submit. Or else you will get a cardiac arrest   ;D

alias

« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2009, 10:47 »
0
Come on - This is raster from CS4 direct export! So, ADOBE fails to iStockphoto standards?

Yes when a JPEG is output, or even sometimes a tiff is output, that process can create banding. Without looking at your entire workflow there is no way of being certain what is causing your issue. I've seen that. Happens with 3D. Happens with AI. Why not post a link to the image full size at the IS forum. They have a special section for that. The forum members there may well be able to help you identify the issue.

Milinz

« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2009, 10:48 »
0
You seem to assume that because YOU are having problems that somehow iStock has these unreasonable standards.

Other contributors seem to be managing just fine.

Well... I always am against stupid rules... Some rules on iStock are so stupid that overcomes reality and sense for why iStock is there at all...
Anyway, I just wanted to see what would happen with that raster there - I don't have any hope to work with them because they ask for such standards that images sold there should be priced at $100 or more ;-)

RASTER=RASTER - it is inperfect in pixel quality and color anyway!

That standards they want for selling through Getty's sites and 20 cents for download are very funny to me... Anyway, we have other standards, and if I payed for AI CS4 full price - then I expect that I have PRO SOFTWARE which will not make any 'banding' and not standards which need you to extra work to make some agency reviewers happy...

I can handle that 'banding' with ease... Avoid gradient and voila... But, I won't do it because that image should look as it look now and that is my author standard with used ADOBE CS4 software in BEST QUALITY to produce!

The trick can be with rasterizing original EPS in photoshop... But, That is what I don't intend to try for iStock anyway... 'Banding' Blah...
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 10:53 by Milinz »

bittersweet

« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2009, 10:59 »
0
But, That is what I don't intend to try for iStock anyway... 'Banding' Blah...

Promises, promises...

pieman

  • I'm Lobo
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2009, 11:02 »
0

Thanks for the info, but this was an attempt at sarcasm. You get one blue pie heart.

I think he saw your sarcasm and raised you one elementary explanation, in case there are thread participants who are in desperate need of some education on the matter.
That was my intent ;)


Milinz

« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2009, 11:05 »
0
But, That is what I don't intend to try for iStock anyway... 'Banding' Blah...

Promises, promises...

Yup - that image will be available everywhere else except on Getty sites ;-)

Milinz

« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2009, 11:06 »
0

Thanks for the info, but this was an attempt at sarcasm. You get one blue pie heart.

I think he saw your sarcasm and raised you one elementary explanation, in case there are thread participants who are in desperate need of some education on the matter.
That was my intent ;)



Road to failure is filled with 'good' intentions ;-)

pieman

  • I'm Lobo
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2009, 11:08 »
0

Thanks for the info, but this was an attempt at sarcasm. You get one blue pie heart.

I think he saw your sarcasm and raised you one elementary explanation, in case there are thread participants who are in desperate need of some education on the matter.
That was my intent ;)



Road to failure is filled with 'good' intentions ;-)
Capslocks is cruise control for awesome.

Milinz

« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2009, 11:12 »
0

Thanks for the info, but this was an attempt at sarcasm. You get one blue pie heart.

I think he saw your sarcasm and raised you one elementary explanation, in case there are thread participants who are in desperate need of some education on the matter.
That was my intent ;)



Road to failure is filled with 'good' intentions ;-)
Capslocks is cruise control for awesome.

W H A T ?

« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2009, 11:21 »
0
Without the full size, complaining is pretty useless.  However, I can see the banding in the thumb, and here, I've pushed it for you, so you can see it too.


Milinz

« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2009, 11:25 »
0
Without the full size, complaining is pretty useless.  However, I can see the banding in the thumb, and here, I've pushed it for you, so you can see it too.




Yup - I know that it is there... But what is the point? It was direct CS4 export to JPG in best quality... I won't correct some ADOBE errors - It is not my job to do that - not for few cents or dollars anyhow!

Also, I don't find it as problem due to that designers can buy eps file and rasterize it the same way it is shown - ON BACKGROUND - LOL ;-)
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 11:32 by Milinz »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2438 Views
Last post February 01, 2008, 15:22
by vonkara
1 Replies
3046 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 21:28
by helix7
1 Replies
4161 Views
Last post October 12, 2011, 17:35
by michaeldb
10 Replies
1425 Views
Last post April 11, 2013, 14:41
by click_click
7 Replies
1774 Views
Last post December 19, 2018, 21:22
by rod

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results