MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Uploading Non-Vector Illustrations on IS (frirendly whining post)  (Read 8135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 06, 2008, 23:28 »
0
Anybody have any success?

I've been doing ok uploading photos, even though I don't have patience to upload more than one or two at  a time and going through their upload process is an awful pain... :) Anyways...

NOT ONCE had an illustration accepted. I don't usually do vectors, but I do illustrations (which are not fractals or backgrounds) - and they are always accepted and great sellers on all other sites... and on IS I always get the "not suitable for stock". Really frustrating, especially given that whenever I browse through IS's collections some of its non-vector illustrations are even more awful than its upload process.... really frustrating. They are complex works, and I spend hours and hours developing master files, and then IS is just really horrible. I mean.. I am thinking of emailing reviewers with my files and links to some other IS illsutrations asking for an explanation about how come THOSE things are suitable.... arrrrghggg :))

Are there any IS reps lurking around here? ... hellooooo... !

Hehe, and now since I'm on this whining rampage -  did you see the quality of some explusive uploads? Tilted horizons, horrible composition, all sorts of exposure problems, anything else imaginable...of course not all, but the % of horrible quality images is quite high, in my opinion, just by scrolling through exclusive uploads there. Really disappointing.

Let's just say...well, I guess you all can quite well imagine what I else I might have to say :)

Ok, I'm better now, thanks a bunch for listening ! phew :)))


« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2008, 23:46 »
0
Ok, I'm better now, thanks a bunch for listening ! phew :)))
You're welcome!  ;D
I know, it's frustrating. But why don't you make vectors? They sell better anyway.

« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2008, 23:53 »
0
Ok, I'm better now, thanks a bunch for listening ! phew :)))

You're welcome!  ;D
I know, it's frustrating. But why don't you make vectors? They sell better anyway.


Well, I like painting and playing around with color and I like transparencies and blending modes and I am not too proficient in Illustrator I guess to know exactly how to get the color and effects I want, so I use PS for illustrations. And then I create things that aren't quite stretchable, like - I don't think I could create sth like this in illustrator (I mean, I could, really, most parts, but then the planet won't be stretchable... ok... may be I'd try, but I really don't see myself forcing myself to do things in Illustrator that I am more comfortable doing in PS... so, would the same thing sell if it were in Illustrator - probably more often, but the illustration would still sell... and well, i don't want to call it a double standard... but it does seem like one - when it comes to illustrations v. vectors and when it comes to quality among exclusives and non-exclusives):

« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 23:56 by ChasingMoments »

« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2008, 04:04 »
0
This is very nice  work.
But you must think not like a artist and more like a business woman. You work is great but imagine the people that buy your work, they are limited to what you create, if you do vectors the buyer can move and change color to make the illustration more like they need. This is one reason that IS claim to not accept this type of work, im also try...

« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2008, 06:58 »
0
Yes I have the same problem. I have managed to get a few accepted through scout reports though. And go figure those ones that were originally rejected for not being stock worthy are by far my best sellers on IS.  ::)
It is very frustrating indeed.

« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2008, 17:54 »
0
I also tried a couple of rasters images a while ago and IS did not take them.  In my case they were raster versions of vectors indeed.  I only tried the vector approval once, and I failed, and I never tried it again with some more elaborate images (curiously though, it's my less elaborate illustrations that sell more anywhere).

It's curious however if you see the current Image of the Week, which is a very beautiful artwork.  And the artist is not exclusive. 


Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2008, 05:24 »
0
This is one of the reasons why I think istock wont be the number 1 site in years to come.  They have rejected a few of my best sellers and I haven't bothered uploading the rest.

This policy costs us money and they lose money.  Other sites accept most of my non vector illustrations, so people who buy from istock will have to look on the other sites to see the rest of my portfolio.

I have applied for vector illustrations with 3 vectors that have sold lots of times on every other site but they were all rejected.  Perhaps if I took 6 months to work on improving my vectors I could get to their application standard but I am not doing that for 1 site.

« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2008, 05:40 »
0
Hi,

I had a number approved, then more and more rejected to the point that I have almost given up trying to get them through. I worked out that I uploaded 97 and got 15 of them on, 8 of which went through scout.  Unfortunately those they do accept sell well (not everyone has illustrator?).   My approval rating went from about 70% to 45% over a few months. So now I get 25 uploads a week, and I make sure no more than 5 or so are this type, and with luck 2 might on  (although I see I just got 4 out of 5 through this week, must be a nice reviewer).
(Funny I had this discussion the other day through sitemail. Other person was annoyed that their acceptance ratio is now down to 16% as this is there main stuff)


Phil

« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2008, 09:40 »
0
Hi,

I had a number approved, then more and more rejected to the point that I have almost given up trying to get them through. I worked out that I uploaded 97 and got 15 of them on, 8 of which went through scout.  Unfortunately those they do accept sell well (not everyone has illustrator?).   My approval rating went from about 70% to 45% over a few months. So now I get 25 uploads a week, and I make sure no more than 5 or so are this type, and with luck 2 might on  (although I see I just got 4 out of 5 through this week, must be a nice reviewer).
(Funny I had this discussion the other day through sitemail. Other person was annoyed that their acceptance ratio is now down to 16% as this is there main stuff)


Phil

Phil, thanks for the feedback, if I may ask you - what did your "note" to scout say? I sent the image above to scout, but I wasn't sure what to say... or whether whatever reasonining and explanation you may have will matter for scout.

« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2008, 15:26 »
0
Tell me about it.. everything i create (well, probably 98% or something) is done with photoshop. The reason? I love the flexibility of photoshop, the shades, the way it works.. illustrator just gives me a headache trying to make something i could do in 5 minutes with photoshop.

Anyway, the end result of iStock being overly picky is this:

iStock portfolio : 0
SS portfolio: Closing in to 4000

 ::)

« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2008, 21:58 »
0
Tell me about it.. everything i create (well, probably 98% or something) is done with photoshop. The reason? I love the flexibility of photoshop, the shades, the way it works.. illustrator just gives me a headache trying to make something i could do in 5 minutes with photoshop.

Anyway, the end result of iStock being overly picky is this:

iStock portfolio : 0
SS portfolio: Closing in to 4000

 ::)

Wow!!! compared to the scope of your "grievances" on this issue my whining appears quite insignificant...

I emailed scout saying that if there is a different standard or expectation of quality for non-vector illustrations, I'd like an explanation and clarification ... and I really would, because there's just nothing... can't get through period. Occasionally I send stuff in, just to check in and see if their policy on non-vector stuff is same old same old, and well - I've given up..

« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2008, 22:59 »
0
The standard istock reply seems to be some words about wanting images rather than finished designs - as you can pull vector designs apart and reuse them you can get away with murder there (or at least I have - so far no "not suitable for stock" rejections).

While that green one is sort of pretty it's a bit obvious in a "gosh I've got the flood filter and I'm not afraid to use it" kind of way (but that's a personal opinion - art is all about personal opinions which is why I think it's harder to get past not suitable for stock rejections when you do it)

 If you look at the raster art that is accepted at istock it comes mainly in two forms - really high quality (often quirky or amusing) photo montages -  like the prize winning image of the year; or scans of conventionally produced artwork ( I presume that's what this week's image of the week is although I guess it could also be painter or photoshop generated) . Almost never photoshop based artwork with obvious use of filters. You do sometimes see the odd photoshop or painter produced original painting. (emphasis on "original - styles that are recycles of common stock themes don't seem to get through)

I've no firm views on whether it's a good idea or not for istock to choose  to reject this large category of images. But there's no doubt in my mind that that is their policy.



graficallyminded

« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2008, 00:10 »
0
This is the reason why my acceptance rating is 15% and teetering towards 14 :)  But the ones I do get accepted - man do they sell...it makes it worth it for me to keep on trying.

How do you tell when scout is the one to review your batch?  I've heard a few people talk about that. 

What kills me is when I'll get an image approved, and then a slight variation that I submit later on of the same subject is rejected for "not suitable as stock" or something like that.  It's like hellooooo....look at the other one, it's got freaking flames.  I guess the reviewers don't care as much about making iStock as a company more money.  They'd rather reject it and get more money for themselves.  That's usually how reviewers are paid - more money goes to them when they reject images, than when they accept.  It's pretty standard.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2008, 00:18 by graficallyminded »

« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2008, 03:58 »
0
You can send 2 a month to scout after they have been rejected.  Scout is in the support section.

« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2008, 07:46 »
0

[/quote]

Phil, thanks for the feedback, if I may ask you - what did your "note" to scout say? I sent the image above to scout, but I wasn't sure what to say... or whether whatever reasonining and explanation you may have will matter for scout.
[/quote]

pretty much.

Hi, can this be reviewed please as it is selling very well elsewhere.  But it is pretty hit and miss (just got 3 back from scout saying no the reviewer is correct, one of them sold 69 times in the last days at shutterstock, first time I've had anything sell anywhere near that much).

Phil

« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2008, 07:52 »
0

How do you tell when scout is the one to review your batch?  I've heard a few people talk about that. 



on the email they send that basically says that think your image sucks :) (sadly it isn't hard to find in my inbox) is

"If you need more information please visit the pages (if any) listed next to the above issue(s).

If you require further explanation regarding this rejection, please contact Scout via Support link: http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php."

you click on this, enter the image number and why you think it is wrongly reviewed (they ask you not to just put 'please review' or it's selling well elsewhere (which is what I usually put :) although sometimes I have pointed out that there is a shortage of this subject matter in istock's database (but that depends on the subject). 

unless they have reduced the number, you can send in 3 per month.  also it can take anywhere from a week to 3 months! to be re-reviewed.

Phil

helix7

« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2008, 14:56 »
0

Scout doesn't take sales at other sites into consideration. Quite honestly, I'd avoid saying, "This image is selling well at other sites," when contacting Scout. Give an explanation as to why the quality or composition makes it suitable for the istock collection.



« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2008, 18:11 »
0
IS frustrates me, too! I was (finally!) accepted as an illustrator after my third or even fourth try but now that I'm in, I get almost all of my files rejected. Ironically, IS almost only accepts those of my vectors that do *not* sell well on other sites ... (And on IS either!) So far I haven't been able to figure out what they really want. They might accept an image, reject a similar one the next day. What bothers me most is that I am frequently asked to resubmit only to have my images rejected as "not suitable for stock" the next time. All the time spend on correcting the files is just wasted. Once I even had an illustration rejected as "not suitable for stock" while allowing me to resubmit at the same time.  ??? I just don't get it.

I'm constantly amazed that IS is such a good seller for many! For me, it doesn't even come close to SS, DT or FT. With my rejection rate, the upload limit and the long review times, it's a painstakingly slow process to build even a small portfolio ... with emphasis on "pain" - oh well, and "slow".

« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2008, 08:18 »
0
Thank you all for replies, it is somewhat of a consolation to know that some people have hit the the same wall on IS with non-vector illustrations.

Of course, i will keep working on improving my illustration skills and try again later. In  the meantime, an image from the series is among 'editors choice' on DT... hehe... c'est la vie.

As for the "i've got a flood filter and I"m not afraid to use it" remark - well, the flood filter is just a quick shortcut to create reflections, you can achieve the same result with simple photoshop steps - copy, paste, flip, ripple/motion/blur effects and you are done - same flood filter, just by hand. All filters are, in the end, basic photoshop commands condensed for convenient use into one, stand alone, operation. My images are more than just the flood filter - planets and details were created manually (not using some planet generating software0, and at 100% you see that the planet's landscape and mountains are shaped as clovers and shamrocks, of course there is no way to see this on the tiny preview, but anyways. As I said, more work went into my images than just the flood filter. And images are all 18-20mp, which means that designers have plenty of leverage to crop as tight as they wish.

I am really happy to be the editor's pick thought, it's my first on DT :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
7498 Views
Last post June 27, 2006, 12:02
by fintastique
9 Replies
7307 Views
Last post August 14, 2007, 19:06
by madelaide
3 Replies
4503 Views
Last post March 05, 2008, 18:00
by zymmetricaldotcom
17 Replies
26151 Views
Last post May 06, 2010, 09:26
by graficallyminded
2 Replies
4400 Views
Last post September 08, 2008, 22:03
by ironarrow

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors