Author Topic: The overall quality of this rendering could be improved (Read 5840 times)

icefront · « **on:** October 11, 2011, 04:11 »

All the renderings form the last batch were rejected with "We found the overall quality of this rendering could be improved." But weeks ago all was accepted, my problem is that many files are from the same series, what suddenly happened with the quality... Last week everything was good (all accepted), this week everything is rejected.

Was there and announcement about rendering quality or IS doesn't accept renderings from non-exclusive contributors anymore?

I'm sorry about the time spent with their archaic upload system. For the 15% I can earn, it's better to sell my files with other agencies. They simply don't deserve quality images for the percent they give. And they still have the highest needs...

Anybody had mass rejection lately, related to the rendering quality?

Perry · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2011, 04:31 »

Show us some images to comment. Maybe your images need some improvement, maybe not - hard to tell without seeing the images.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2011, 04:33 »

^ bingo.

icefront · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2011, 04:56 »

Quote from: Perry on October 11, 2011, 04:31

Show us some images to comment. Maybe your images need some improvement, maybe not - hard to tell without seeing the images.

Ok, sorry. Thought you'll browse my content @ other agencies...

http://www.dreamstime.com/3d-white-man-holding-solar-panel-image20550488
http://www.dreamstime.com/3d-man-going-with-red-car-image20550478
http://www.dreamstime.com/nurses-running-with-broken-car-image20550473
http://www.dreamstime.com/white-man-running-with-puzzle-piece-image20550469
... and so on. I started uploading @ IS beginning with these images when the mass rejection started...

Noodles · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2011, 06:13 »

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=813

Quote

Overly Simplified Figures.

Our population of little stick figures with ball heads has grown to plague proportions. Members wishing to continue or begin creating these simplified figures will need to take it up a notch. The concept, modelling, lighting and texturing will need to be very strong for these little fellas to be accepted in the future. Spend time constructing your figure, look at proportions, examine appropriate textures, and let them convey strong concepts. On that note, what we are sadly lacking in the collection is more complex human figures. Not necessarily totally realistic figures, but stylised and cartoon figures with some detail and dare I say it, faces. Let’s breathe some life into the little critters!

icefront · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2011, 06:35 »

Quote from: Noodles on October 11, 2011, 06:13

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=813

Overly Simplified Figures.

Thank you!

I missed that article... As I read, yes, I have a lot of overly simple white man renderings but there are more complicated ones, than the given examples in the article. I think my level would be acceptable only as an exclusive...

Well... What offers IS in terms of percent, it doesn't worth the time... They simply ask for too much and they offer too less.
At other agencies, buyers are satisfied with my renderings (based on sales), so the problem is here the IS's taste not the final client's taste.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** October 11, 2011, 07:03 »

The article may not be referring to "quality" in your case, so we'll need a full size image or two posted.

icefront · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2011, 07:53 »

Thank you Sean, but now I'm clarified about the things... For IS, the white man (or other model) in overly simple form isn't enough.
I just missed the article above...

You can still view the quality of my file(s) at CanStockPhoto without being logged in:
http://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/white-man-red-car.html#file_view.php?id=6904546
Feel free to view my other images at 100%. I hope it's 100% magnified...

I wanted to reduce the original file to attach here, but I can't fit in the 500kb limit without heavy cropping or jpg artifacts...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2011, 08:11 »

Upload some to dropbox or somewhere - I'm not going to use a zoom function to critique...

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2011, 08:22 »

Quote from: icefront on October 11, 2011, 06:35

Quote from: Noodles on October 11, 2011, 06:13

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=813

Overly Simplified Figures.

I missed that article... As I read, yes, I have a lot of overly simple white man renderings but there are more complicated ones, than the given examples in the article. I think my level would be acceptable only as an exclusive...

There's no difference between acceptances from exclusives vs independents, but there are - sometimes big - differences between inspectors.

jamirae · « **Reply #10 on:** October 11, 2011, 10:30 »

Quote from: icefront on October 11, 2011, 06:35

Quote from: Noodles on October 11, 2011, 06:13

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=813

Overly Simplified Figures.

Thank you!

I missed that article... As I read, yes, I have a lot of overly simple white man renderings but there are more complicated ones, than the given examples in the article. I think my level would be acceptable only as an exclusive...

Well... What offers IS in terms of percent, it doesn't worth the time... They simply ask for too much and they offer too less.
At other agencies, buyers are satisfied with my renderings (based on sales), so the problem is here the IS's taste not the final client's taste.

hate to be harsh but are you wanting a critique or not? it sounds more like you are venting and if you don't like the percentage you are getting at IS then why are you even bothering? I understand the frustration but when you add "it doesn't worth the time" then I question why are bothering with them? There are plenty of other agencies to to sell your work. If IS has you upset then simply stop contributing to them and concentrate on the agencies that accept your work and you make more money.

ffNixx · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2011, 15:09 »

Icefront, your work is fine. Except for the first image in the batch you linked to, figurine holding solar panel, there seemed to be a problem with the hands. Your pictures should have got through and would have sold well. At least on the 'strong concept' premise. But the inspectors are quite robotic and will reject as soon as they see a figurine with a ball head. It's ironic that they are asking for more developed figurines, which experience teaches do not sell as well as the simplest ones. Better luck with the other sites.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #12 on:** October 11, 2011, 16:48 »

Quote from: icefront on October 11, 2011, 07:53

Thank you Sean, but now I'm clarified about the things... For IS, the white man (or other model) in overly simple form isn't enough.
I just missed the article above...

You can still view the quality of my file(s) at CanStockPhoto without being logged in:
http://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/white-man-red-car.html#file_view.php?id=6904546
Feel free to view my other images at 100%. I hope it's 100% magnified...

I wanted to reduce the original file to attach here, but I can't fit in the 500kb limit without heavy cropping or jpg artifacts...

I can't critique, I don't even do little ball headed men, but I wondered why the descriptions all say Stock Photography or Stock Image? Is that you or does CS add that to every image. I mean, it's a stock site, isn't the fact that it's a stock photo kind of obvious. What am I missing?

The little pedal car is nice and many of the others, from what I've read and what others have said, all you need to do is change the little guys and you're off and selling again.

Interesting too from Shady Sue, I didn't know that exclusives and Non's had a different review team. I do know that the standards are in theory, (we've seen some questionable examples otherwise) ...that the standards are identical for EX or Non. But looking at EdStock's recent collection, some standards aren't at all "standard".

Wait where's the person claiming that robots do the reviews, not humans? We haven't had that one in weeks.

icefront · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2011, 02:52 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 11, 2011, 08:11

Upload some to dropbox or somewhere - I'm not going to use a zoom function to critique...

This dropbox service is nice...
So to have a clear look @ some pieces of my work, here are some full size samples (saved at compression level 11):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44998518/1623.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44998518/1635.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44998518/1636.jpg

icefront · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2011, 03:00 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 11, 2011, 10:30

hate to be harsh but are you wanting a critique or not? it sounds more like you are venting and if you don't like the percentage you are getting at IS then why are you even bothering? I understand the frustration but when you add "it doesn't worth the time" then I question why are bothering with them? There are plenty of other agencies to to sell your work. If IS has you upset then simply stop contributing to them and concentrate on the agencies that accept your work and you make more money.

I understand your point but I'm not just black&white. Little money (percent) is infinitely more than nothing. Since I'm a full time contributor, everything counts. Of course, there's a line under what I can't contribute anymore. Yes the percent is the lowest, but there's a strong point I'm still contributing to IS: the amount of sales. Even if they pay the lowest percent, the total sum at the end of the month is greater that at some given agencies that offer ~30...50%. When this income will drop under a certain amount, sure I will not contribute anymore.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The overall quality of this rendering could be improved (Read 5840 times)

icefront

Perry

Sean Locke Photography

icefront

Noodles

icefront

Sean Locke Photography

icefront

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

jamirae

ffNixx

RacePhoto

icefront

icefront

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors