pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejection due to banding from AI CS4 raster image? - COME ON!  (Read 16789 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2009, 11:27 »
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...


Ok well i have been reading through these forums for a while, but this post has finally made me register (probably foolishly) to get an opinion out there.
Can i ask why you're submitting this as a raster? What benefit is there to rasterize a vector when you're not doing anything to it that warrants it to be rastered. The way istock works is that illustrations have to be vectors, unless there is a reason for them not to be. I can't see a reason. You must be a glutton for punishment because you keep submitting the same things over and over, expecting 'the next time' to somehow be totally different.

Illustrator is a tool. Just paying for the worlds best car doesn't mean use it properly. Gradients in illustrator are devoid of all the things that make them look smooth in photographs, ie noise. So when you do a gradient from, say, pure black to 95% black, there are only a certain amount of steps of color that the computer can produce, which creates banding. Since you decided to convert to jpeg (which i can only assume was because your vector was a mess), you can add noise selectively to get rid of it (if the banding isn't too bad.)

Secondly, thinking you know best, and istock, (arguably the highest quality, most profitable, original microstock site,) knows nothing, really is showing your immaturity. They're system is tried and tested, they have set rules, and their rules have made them into a hugely successful international company, yes rejections are a pain in the ass (i should know) but to say that they are dumb and you are smart is confusing to me.

by the way i'm not some istock worshipper, they p*ss me off as much as the next guy, but if you're going to moan, make sure you have reason to moan. And also this is my first post, im not usually this much of a grump, i promise, so HI EVERYONE!! :)




bittersweet

« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2009, 11:28 »
0

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 raster it the same way it is shown ;-)

So now it is Adobe's error???  ;D :D ;D :D

You're so cute.

bittersweet

« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2009, 11:31 »
0

Can i ask why you're submitting this as a raster? What benefit is there to rasterize a vector when you're not doing anything to it that warrants it to be rastered.

Because he can't pass the application to submit vectors to istock.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. :)

m@m

« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2009, 11:36 »
0
Yeah Richie, welcome to the forum ;)

« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2009, 11:39 »
0
I am not saying it is correct, but could it be some problem in the gradient?  I think it gets banding sometimes, if you look closely.

« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2009, 11:43 »
0
Richie_Rich, good to have you here! 

Milinz

« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2009, 11:45 »
0
Welcome to the forum Richie!

I am sure you're right about that you are talking... But, I am not thinking I know best - only what is logical... And that is CS4 AI or EPS>JPG = Banding... So, why would I eliminate banding on background? To get my image approved to sell on 20% commission? To comply to 'best agency in sales'? Sorry dude - I have better things to use my time for.

And yes: They've rejected my application 6 times - so it seems I am bad enough for them.

Well... Their rules and my rules are quite different. That is why I sell on other places with 99% approval rate ;-)

Milinz

« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2009, 11:49 »
0

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 raster it the same way it is shown ;-)

So now it is Adobe's error???  ;D :D ;D :D

You're so cute.

You think you can make better raster from my EPS in CS4?

bittersweet

« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2009, 11:50 »
0
To get my image approved to sell on 20% commission? To comply to 'best agency in sales'? Sorry dude - I have better things to use my time for.

You keep saying this. Yet you've applied 6 times? Why do you continue to put yourself through it since, as you say, you have better things to use your time for?

You clearly have no respect for the inspectors or admins, no regard for the rules or their editing choices, and feel that they are wrong about pretty much everything.

Yet we are subjected to your endless rants about how they have once again rejected your glorious imagery.

I don't get it.

Milinz

« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2009, 11:55 »
0
To get my image approved to sell on 20% commission? To comply to 'best agency in sales'? Sorry dude - I have better things to use my time for.

You keep saying this. Yet you've applied 6 times? Why do you continue to put yourself through it since, as you say, you have better things to use your time for?

You clearly have no respect for the inspectors or admins, no regard for the rules or their editing choices, and feel that they are wrong about pretty much everything.

Yet we are subjected to your endless rants about how they have once again rejected your glorious imagery.

I don't get it.

The point: Proof to that about is it worth to be 6 times rejected? Is istock such seller as they say it is? There is my point... Nothing less or nothing more... Just to get inside and see if they can sell one file thousands of times like other agencies are so 'bad' and sell just hundresds of times....
BTW, Do you wish to try to rasterize my EPS file from CS4 and assure yourself that there will be banding at your raster too?

« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2009, 11:59 »
0
So what is the rule on banding? I've never gotten a banding rejection, but I assume many raster thumbnails have a little banding in them.

bittersweet

« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2009, 12:01 »
0

BTW, Do you wish to try to rasterize my EPS file from CS4 and assure yourself that there will be banding at your raster too?

Why would I want to do that? As Sean showed by bumping the levels, there is clearly banding in your file. As Richie explained, in certain cases, gradients will band when converted from AI to JPG. When it happens to me, I spend an extra 30 seconds to rasterize it in Photoshop instead.

What's the big deal? If you'd rather invest an hour arguing about how you shouldn't have to spend that extra 30 seconds, then I don't know how to help you.

cthoman, he is not referring to a vector preview thumbnail. He is referring to a vector illustration that was converted to jpg and uploaded through the photo queue.

« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2009, 12:01 »
0
I also wanted to say if you were ranting about istock's font rules, I'd be with you, but the banding thing... not so much.

« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2009, 12:04 »
0
cthoman, he is not referring to a vector preview thumbnail. He is referring to a vector illustration that was converted to jpg and uploaded through the photo queue.

Oh, don't they reject anything that could be created as a vector file submitted as a raster? I thought they wanted their raster collection to be unique from the vector collection.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 12:06 by cthoman »

Milinz

« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2009, 12:06 »
0

BTW, Do you wish to try to rasterize my EPS file from CS4 and assure yourself that there will be banding at your raster too?

Why would I want to do that? As Sean showed by bumping the levels, there is clearly banding in your file. As Richie explained, in certain cases, gradients will band when converted from AI to JPG. When it happens to me, I spend an extra 30 seconds to rasterize it in Photoshop instead.

What's the big deal? If you'd rather invest an hour arguing about how you shouldn't have to spend that extra 30 seconds, then I don't know how to help you.

cthoman, he is not referring to a vector preview thumbnail. He is referring to a vector illustration that was converted to jpg and uploaded through the photo queue.

Well... It is principle thing... And that is what will get istock down with that policy.

Milinz

« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2009, 12:07 »
0
cthoman, he is not referring to a vector preview thumbnail. He is referring to a vector illustration that was converted to jpg and uploaded through the photo queue.

Oh, don't they reject anything that could be created as a vector file submitted as a raster? I thought they wanted their raster collection to be unique from the vector collection.

Obviously they do reject - but with different reasons for different authors ;-)

alias

« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2009, 12:08 »
0
I also wanted to say if you were ranting about istock's font rules, I'd be with you, but the banding thing... not so much.

What about the font rules? You can use fonts in rasters and 3D renders. Right?

So is it the fact that vectors should not contain fonts? That makes senses surely because it would basically be like re distributing the font. Is that what you means?

bittersweet

« Reply #42 on: June 22, 2009, 12:13 »
0
I also wanted to say if you were ranting about istock's font rules, I'd be with you, but the banding thing... not so much.

What about the font rules? You can use fonts in rasters and 3D renders. Right?

So is it the fact that vectors should not contain fonts? That makes senses surely because it would basically be like re distributing the font. Is that what you means?

Yes, they are very picky about using fonts in vectors. But maybe that's a topic for another thread.

bittersweet

« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2009, 12:14 »
0
And that is what will get istock down with that policy.

You sure are mighty eager to jump on the Titanic.

Milinz

« Reply #44 on: June 22, 2009, 12:34 »
0
And that is what will get istock down with that policy.

You sure are mighty eager to jump on the Titanic.

That boat disaster killed about 1,513 people... I don't find that your comparation funny at all... At last - I am harsh, but you are overreacting with using death of 1513 people in such forum post!

Anyway, there are exclusives who will stay silent and 'save' istock no matter if they get 10% or less for their image sales ;-)


« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2009, 12:38 »
0
What about the font rules? You can use fonts in rasters and 3D renders. Right?
So is it the fact that vectors should not contain fonts? That makes senses surely because it would basically be like re distributing the font. Is that what you means?
I've had hand drawn text (with a reference sketch attached) rejected that was in a design. It seems bizarre that someone can submit a 3D file that just says 2009, but I can't scribble Xmas on a pattern with Santa, a snowman and half a dozen other elements. I don't want to highjack the thread, so that is all I'm going to say about it.

Milinz

« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2009, 12:40 »
0
What about the font rules? You can use fonts in rasters and 3D renders. Right?
So is it the fact that vectors should not contain fonts? That makes senses surely because it would basically be like re distributing the font. Is that what you means?
I've had hand drawn text (with a reference sketch attached) rejected that was in a design. It seems bizarre that someone can submit a 3D file that just says 2009, but I can't scribble Xmas on a pattern with Santa, a snowman and half a dozen other elements. I don't want to highjack the thread, so that is all I'm going to say about it.

You fit in it with 'COME ON'.... Yup they have really wierd and not logical rules... That is what I never can swallow!

« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2009, 13:58 »
0
I have also this kind of rejection reason: Overfiltered from it's original appearance....
The only thing I did was convert an EPS file to JPG file (just straight no filters no nothing)
The illustration is still pending in the scout area .....I hope scout knows what to do.

alias

« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2009, 14:10 »
0
I have also this kind of rejection reason: Overfiltered from it's original appearance....
The only thing I did was convert an EPS file to JPG file (just straight no filters no nothing)
The illustration is still pending in the scout area .....I hope scout knows what to do.

Why not upload it as vector ? Why convert from EPS ?

« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2009, 14:26 »
0
I have also this kind of rejection reason: Overfiltered from it's original appearance....
The only thing I did was convert an EPS file to JPG file (just straight no filters no nothing)
The illustration is still pending in the scout area .....I hope scout knows what to do.

Why not upload it as vector ? Why convert from EPS ?
Because I stock don't want my vectors....each time the same kind of rejection reason:not what they are looking for.
I know my vectors are not the best and I'm still learning the digital art stuff but as long as I stock don't approve my vector application I try to submit some of them as raster illustration. Only the one I think will do great  as raster illustrations....
I stock already accept two of my illustrations sofar I send  (I think if I send those as EPS they will get rejected again for :not what they looking for) 
But he you have to try something....


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2436 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
4160 Views
Last post October 12, 2011, 17:35
by michaeldb
10 Replies
1424 Views
Last post April 11, 2013, 14:41
by click_click
7 Replies
1770 Views
Last post December 19, 2018, 21:22
by rod

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results