MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Rejection due to banding from AI CS4 raster image? - COME ON!  (Read 16242 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 »

« 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....

alias

« Reply #50 on: June 22, 2009, 14:49 »
0
Sounds like you are making progress Kaycee. Maybe you should apply again soon as a vector illustrator. I bet you are close.

I think sometimes that raster 'illustration' might be mistaken for a photo which has been run through some photoshop filter. So that might explain some over-filter rejection.

« Reply #51 on: June 22, 2009, 14:56 »
0
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. 
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 15:03 by kaycee »

« Reply #52 on: June 24, 2009, 17:52 »
0
Great just received a note from the i stock scout....

My illustration got approved .......

Long live the scouts....

« Reply #53 on: June 24, 2009, 21:30 »
0
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  ;)


« Reply #54 on: June 24, 2009, 22:00 »
0
All professionall programs are orientated on print production (CMYK) and banding is allmost a little or non problem in print because you have more bandwith and less contrast.
In RGB the colours are more brilliant but have less bandwith, but in the meaning of "what you see is what you get" its not necessary to have any parameter for output a picture in any other way as it apears on your screen while you create it. If you create a picture for microwebsite, in RGB-Mode, you have to had a look at its appearence on your screen. Thats no mystical and hidden secret, it's just the idiot way of proofing any image.
If Microagencys would only take printablepictures you had to do a proofprint...i don't know if you know what this means, if you had the knowledge to do this and how this had to be handeld you wouln't shout out in the manner you did.
There're two simple ways to proof a picture for two different needs.
RGB-have a look at you screenapearence.
CMYK, calibrate your screen, do a proofprint

If you don't have any idea how difficult and physical different this two kinds of appearence of an image can be...you better never ever buy any program, buy a retraining on web-and printdesign, for beginners.

Ups...and not to forget: just as an idea of an humbleness rookie who never ever would like to lift his head over anyone like lisa or puravida, who are the rulers here.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 22:09 by werkmann »

Milinz

« Reply #55 on: June 25, 2009, 04:51 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 04:54 by Milinz »

« Reply #56 on: June 25, 2009, 05:10 »
0
As a side comment, does anyone have a good breakdown of the usage statistics for microstock sales split between print and screen use?

« Reply #57 on: June 25, 2009, 05:36 »
0
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.

Milinz

« Reply #58 on: June 26, 2009, 11:15 »
0
If that is true, then prices for web usage will soon go up!

Noodles

« Reply #59 on: June 28, 2009, 14:39 »
0
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.



Milinz

« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2009, 20:25 »
0
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.



Thanks Noodles!
I wouldn't bother with that just to satisfy iStock rewievers and their stupid standards... That image has very good sales on other places...

« Reply #61 on: June 30, 2009, 14:30 »
0
Yes, you wouldn't want to actually fix the problem when someone out there will take it.

Milinz

« Reply #62 on: July 01, 2009, 18:30 »
0
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...

« Reply #63 on: July 02, 2009, 08:04 »
0
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?

« Reply #64 on: July 02, 2009, 08:30 »
0
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?

Yeah, I can't figure out what position he is trying to take.

« Reply #65 on: July 02, 2009, 08:51 »
0
That image has very good sales on other places...

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

Milinz

« Reply #66 on: July 03, 2009, 05:48 »
0
Almost all my images are done in CMYK. So banding in RGB version is unavoidable. Just buy cheapest EPS of that image on any other site than Istock and print it... And you'll see that there is not much of problem as you trying to describe it.

Banding is not something possible to avoid on that image in that color used if RGB.

So, yes - there is banding which is not possible to avoid except changing light or color what is not something I wish to do.

Well.... It is great that you can't see actual number of OD and EL sales that image has... It would really surprise you.

« Reply #67 on: July 03, 2009, 13:15 »
0
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

« Reply #68 on: July 03, 2009, 22:12 »
0
Milinz , as you said you were rejected 6 times , is that "game" over or you have to wait for some time and try again ? If so how long ?

I'm in the same boat , only there were 5 times in my case , last time I had to wait 6 months I think ( cause that waiting time passed long ago ) but I still
don't dare to try my luck again , especially if that is my last try , so thats why I would like to know that.



Thanks



Milinz

« Reply #69 on: July 04, 2009, 03:18 »
0
@ 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.






Milinz

« Reply #70 on: July 04, 2009, 03:19 »
0
Milinz , as you said you were rejected 6 times , is that "game" over or you have to wait for some time and try again ? If so how long ?

I'm in the same boat , only there were 5 times in my case , last time I had to wait 6 months I think ( cause that waiting time passed long ago ) but I still
don't dare to try my luck again , especially if that is my last try , so thats why I would like to know that.

Thanks


6 months again... I believe that next rejection will take 12 months ;-)

What is the problem in this rejections is that they 'don't need' perfectly sufficient-quality and perfectly salable vectors. They need you to show them you have capability to create vectors with ONE STYLE used with consistency in execution. I don't do much of that kind of stuff... I use different styles and combine details with leaving some of them as NOT-FINISHED... They obviously have policy that 'open concept' is something they should reject in applications. But, they accept such stuff when you enter there once... I am stubbern and I don't want to loose my time for polishing image when I know that should do designer who buy tthat image! With polishing and consistency you get perfect image with lower sales potential. That is not microstock image at all!

That one my image accepted on iStock application is not much stock worthy as microstock image - it is more some kind of art image I sent them with consistency in exedcution... It is just one more minus for their application review process.


The other thing: I have over 800 'not istock quality' images on stockxpert which sold excellent on photos.com/JUI - even I got some quite big single sales on photos.com! So, it seems that their (istock) quality standards are somewhat too wierd.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 03:48 by Milinz »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2385 Views
Last post February 01, 2008, 15:22
by vonkara
1 Replies
2892 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 21:28
by helix7
1 Replies
4043 Views
Last post October 12, 2011, 17:35
by michaeldb
10 Replies
1337 Views
Last post April 11, 2013, 14:41
by click_click
7 Replies
1071 Views
Last post December 19, 2018, 21:22
by rod

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results