Hard to comment without a full size to see execution.

True but it wasn't rejected for technical issues but for composition and (presumably) marketability. 

With 3d, "composition" is really about everything, including execution.

If it were me, I would probably be rejecting this based on uneven lighting. The lighting on the  figure doesn't really make sense to me, other than you might be trying to highlight a few things, particularly the cut by his ribs.

You have the light from the sun that looks right, then you have what looks like a beam of light coming down from Heaven which I think would illuminate his complete body, but it doesn't. Instead there is this strange shadow on his chest, and his feet are dark...and overall he isn't that bright to begin with...as I would expect with a bright light from the heavens....if that is indeed what it is.

What light there is on him...ie near the ribs, almost looks like someone on the ground is shining a flash light on him...just being honest.

Otherwise I think this image has great potential.

Some honest crits, nothing personal:

- The sky looks flat, I assume this is just a high-res texture on a plane?
- The bushes look ugly and fake. And why are they partly illuminated? It looks like there's a light source next to the bush, out of view, yet that light source has no effect on the rest of the objects.
- The lighting is very uneven. The sun is shining from the back, yet there's a holy beam of light coming from above. It should illuminate Jesus in full, not just his stomach area.


I think Istock is right in rejecting this.

Honestly looking at your portfolio on the other sites the image you posted is one of your best and still looks a bit dated and middle of the road.
IStock just has much higher standards for 3D and illustrations than the other sites, so I wouldn't take it personally.

So.. 
The answer to the actual question appears to be �yes, IS are the only reviewers who know what they are talking about and all the other big sites� reviewers are idiots�
Let�s examine this.  The vast majority of stock images (note: I say the vast majority, there are millions of exceptions) are technically excellent but aesthetically sterile and boring with zero artistic value but very commercial and, like top 40 music, they are simply �product�.  Therefore the role of the reviewer is to select product that is likely to sell.  If that product sells, the reviewer got it right, otherwise not.  On that basis, SS, DT, FT appear to have the edge.
I�m quite aware of my limitations at this game but in terms of the image, which was just an example, not a request for criticism, the thinking was as follows (readily accept that if it needs explaining it has failed):
I wanted a low light, sunset situation with a beam of heavenly light illuminating the figure.   The bushes are actually backlit by the setting sun and the shadows on the figure are caused by a gel on the volumetric spotlight (velocicarpo,  close but not quite) to produce shadows as if this beam of light is coming through clouds.  The face is important but the chest isn�t, hence the effect.  Didn�t want to go very strongly on the volume as this would be interpreted as banding.  In other words, this is what I was going for. 
Microbius, yours is the only comment to which I take exception as nothing gets up my nose quite like condescension.  Can you post a links to some of your ports on some of the sites so that I can see your �credentials�.   �Dated and middle of the road� in comparison to what?  Ball headed stick figures? You�re obviously pretty successful but I�d like to form an opinion on your creativity and quite prepared to eat humble pie if you are producing something more than the  ubiquitous visual muzak.  My �middle of the road� crap is at least a little different and in page 1 (mostly) on SS by most popular searches by subject matter.

From the link you provided, Jesus and the cross look really flat compared to the rest of the scene. The sharp difference in the lighting in the sky also throws me off.

Jaysus (seems like an appropriate expletive in the circumstances) 
Maybe it is, maybe it isn�t, I don�t know but I�M happy with it and willing to stand over it. More importantly, no buyer has requested a refund (yet).  Again, and apologies for shouting, THIS IMAGE IS NOT THE POINT HERE!!
As an aside, why are most people hiding in the long grass?  An anonymous opinion isn�t worth a whole lot.  You may be a Salvador Dali or a Leonardo Da Vinci or, simply, a tool with an opinion, how can I know?  I may not like Sean�s comments but it�s arrogance based on achievement and, therefore, valid.

My 4 year old draws pictures that she thinks are amazing. Should I demand that istock accepts those into their library because she says they are good enough?

As an aside, why are most people hiding in the long grass?  An anonymous opinion isn�t worth a whole lot.  You may be a Salvador Dali or a Leonardo Da Vinci or, simply, a tool with an opinion, how can I know?  I may not like Sean�s comments but it�s arrogance based on achievement and, therefore, valid.

If you seriously want to achieve a level of work that's accepted by iStock then there are some excellent sites where you can post your imagery for critique and analysis. http://www.cgsociety.org/ is a good place to start. Good luck

Pretty sure he just wants to rant and posted in the wrong forum.

Rejection is part of the learning curve

Quote from: heywoody on May 11, 2011, 15:49

The answer to the actual question appears to be �yes, IS are the only reviewers who know what they are talking about and all the other big sites� reviewers are idiots�

pretty much correct when it comes to illustration and 3D especially in the case of Shutterstock

Quote from: heywoody on May 11, 2011, 15:49

Let�s examine this.  The vast majority of stock images (note: I say the vast majority, there are millions of exceptions) are technically excellent but aesthetically sterile and boring with zero artistic value but very commercial and, like top 40 music, they are simply �product�.  Therefore the role of the reviewer is to select product that is likely to sell.  If that product sells, the reviewer got it right, otherwise not.  On that basis, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia appear to have the edge.

Well clearly you aren't getting sales on IStock for stuff  they didn't accept, it isn't on the site! Getting a couple of sales on Shutterstock, where the marginal cost per download is zero for the customer really doesn't prove an awful lot.

Quote from: heywoody on May 11, 2011, 15:49

Microbius, yours is the only comment to which I take exception as nothing gets up my nose quite like condescension.  Can you post a links to some of your ports on some of the sites so that I can see your �credentials�.   �Dated and middle of the road� in comparison to what?  Ball headed stick figures? You�re obviously pretty successful but I�d like to form an opinion on your creativity and quite prepared to eat humble pie if you are producing something more than the  ubiquitous visual muzak.  My �middle of the road� crap is at least a little different and in page 1 (mostly) on Shutterstock by most popular searches by subject matter.

 �Dated and middle of the road� in comparison to what is accepted and sells on IStock. I am being kind here by not giving you a critique on specific work in your portfolio with better examples from other artists. Ball headed stick figures can be well executed or poorly executed. I was referring to the quality of the craftsmanship, not the subject matter. You can choose to listen or not, I prefer not as it means a little less competition for me 

You'll notices bald headed stick figures...by the same artist...everywhere on the web, so apparently someone likes them, and in the end all that matters is the customers opinion.