pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejection due to banding from AI CS4 raster image? - COME ON!  (Read 16798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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
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