Hope I will achieve it soon and see what happens at I stock.
And if they not approve my application next time I will try again and again and again... LOL

No serious, I feel more comfortable drawing in illustrator as a couple of months ago....
one time I will reach a level that I  know every feature in illustrator and be able to use them perfectly....but for now a lot of practise.(and I don't mind) I'm lucky most agencies accept my vector/illustration stuff .
I think in the past months my digital art has improved it will only get better in time. 

Banding problems in gradients are very very visible on new LCD screens which rewievers have but its is no visible in common use for NOW.
See my post
http://www.microstockgroup.com/computer-hardware/new-designer-monitor/msg104806/#msg104806
We are working for dimes and every time sucked from new reviewers with they new optics and additional contrast improvementl of their new screens.
When I look on my old cloudscape images which are on IS few years and now on my old CRT an parallel LCD I see banding on my LCD.
For that time they are accepted but now on LCD you see banding if 1% difference in magenta is in cloud on LCD???
eg 90% Cyan and 40% magenta and if you make another stripe with 1% magenta more this bunting banding anyhow is only visible on LCD??? (on paper issue is good old tolerance of 5% from zero to anything)
Blue color is especially nicely crap for banding.
What to do with that?
Nothing?!?
Adobe cant handle with that, from them it is mathematicaly corect but on new sheety LCDs and on IS you will have 50% aproval ratio with that anyhow.
Maybeee...........
As I see you must be more wisely in making illustrations and think about that new fcking banding "problems" (talent hand for IS is not enough but when I see what kind of traced stuff they have they make me sick).
Maybe IS want from us to make flat plain illustrations because they are Microstock and they Daddy dont like that you submit you work which he dont own or have on his bigger stock 

Thanks Suljo and Werkmann! Congrats Kaycee!

About monitors and prints:

I am working on a job position where I am responsible for quality of our agency services. Print is something I am familiar since 1992. There are thousands of various runs I've participated as project lead, designer, copywriter or just illustrator or photographer - depending of circumstances and budget available for specific jobs...

It was in early 1999 when I've made one of designers big mistakes:
I've used photograph from other author and scanned it... Then I've done resizing and making calendar... There was some big black surface on original photograph and it all appeared very good on my monitor... The prints was disaster! There was banding on that black surface!

The main cause is relying on CRT display appearance of design without making proof print before production run. Total loss due to that mistake: about $5000.

When analyzed that error there was banding from unvisible 1-5% and up to 20% which was very visible on prints... We tried to make black surface more black on film, but that just made banding smoother because black was CMYK black and patch was applied only on black layer.

Expirience is that up to 5% changes on any design for cmyk print run is not possible to visualize without use of magnifying glass.
So, now someone is talking about 1%-5% banding with default tollerance in Adobe software is bad quality?

As a side comment, does anyone have a good breakdown of the usage statistics for microstock sales split between print and screen use?

I haven't seen any stats as such, but I'm reading more and more frequently that images for web use are increasing and images for print are in decline.

I am working on a job position where I am responsible for quality of our agency services. Print is something I am familiar since 1992.

As anyone (well almost anyone) in the printing industry knows, banding is sometimes unavoidable. The best method to hide it is using a small amount of noise to those channels which show the most banding. If you don't wish to add noise then you need to shorten the length of the gradient or simply don't use a gradient.

I always add a little noise myself and inform the reviewer it was required to reduce banding - iStock will accept that.

Yes, you wouldn't want to actually fix the problem when someone out there will take it.

Quote from: sjlocke on June 30, 2009, 14:30

Yes, you wouldn't want to actually fix the problem when someone out there will take it.

No! I don't think banding is problem at all! That is what differs my oppinion from reviewers and yours on this topic. Since there is no problem what I have to fix? Banding? It is unavoidable on this image and that is all...

Are you saying there is no banding in the image OR you can't see the banding in the image OR you think an image with banding is completely acceptable?

That image has very good sales on other places...

Happy to hear that, good for you. Wish I could see it somewhere actually selling.

iStock is the pickiest.  Didn't you already know this?
If you search on the forum, you will see threads on this subject. Tons of them.

And?

iStock has only 1/5th of our portfolio.  They rejected our Man series.  It's our best selling series.  Oh well, it sells other places, so I know it was a viable series. 

As much as you want to complain about it, we've heard it before.  EVERY site in the top six have said that they have their own standards, and accept images that THEIR customers will find usable.

You said the series sells other places? GRATS!! I'd be pretty happy with that.  If you feel they are unreasonable, then you can delete your portfolio there. No worries, I'm sure they'll smile and pat you on the head.

Gebbie

@ Gebbie:

There are complaints from iStock buyers regarding VETTA collection: They complain to high prices of VETTA collection and using specific words that they would like to buy macro images under micro prices. That is what iStock is making wrong in their business: making unloyal competition to Getty, Corbis and Alamy... That is why I don't comply to their standards and that is why I sell my images on all other places... I very well know what standards and types of images are for microstock and what are for trady or mid-stock sites.

Standards on iStock are too high for microstock, crippling portfolios of independent authors and that is what is wrong. I am sure that they have images of same or lower quality than that I or you or anyone else create... But, that quality images placing is reserved for their exclusives. My vision is that iStock 'don't need' any image that their exclusives can produce as well they don't need 'similar' images to already accepted because they need to protect their exclusives.
In this way we'd need to create images (vector) which can be sold on other places way up than miserable sale price they offer. For example: There are places where you can sell your eps file for $100 and similar! So, why would I comply to macrostock standards selling vector images for $1 on istock?
And NO - istock is not pickiest! Their review is based on policy - not on quality of images. Anyhow, I sell via FOTOSEARCH and they earned me much more money with much less frustration than some other so called micro sites together.