MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Newbie Discussion => Topic started by: Deepsees on September 21, 2009, 15:15
-
Never have done this before.....
I have been working on a theme of 3D images and have been rendering the individual images to 1440 x 1080. They are approx. 16 x 19 inches as measured in photoshop. They are sized for art competition. When jpeged down... they run about 320kb. if you care to see them.... they are at photobucket under my screen name Deepsees.
Are these images suited for submission as they currently measure?
Deepsees
-
Never have done this before.....
I have been working on a theme of 3D images and have been rendering the individual images to 1440 x 1080. They are approx. 16 x 19 inches as measured in photoshop. They are sized for art competition. When jpeged down... they run about 320kb. if you care to see them.... they are at photobucket under my screen name Deepsees.
Are these images suited for submission as they currently measure?
Deepsees
Wouldn't that depend on the submission requirements for where you are submitting? BTW, "16 x 19 inches" means nothing when submitting. It is all about pixel size.
-
Deepsees,
The dimensions you see in Photoshop have nothing to do with site requirements. What they ask is pixel size. Most require at least 4Mpix - roughly 2550x1700pixels - so the image you are producing is not big enough. Don't be tempted to change its size inside PS, as the upsized image often lacks quality. Can't you recreate the render in a larger size?
-
I usually render out images at 3000x3000. It's large enough for most sites. I'd suggest rerendering your images at a larger size.
-
Thanks for the information. As I stated, I rendered these images to 1440 x 1080 (based on HDTV display) which generated a certain image size for going to print from PS.
I can render to any size. Normally my res is 300 dpi on anything that I expect to print. With that said, shouldn't I be able to increase image size by going to 72 dpi?
-
Thanks for the information. As I stated, I rendered these images to 1440 x 1080 (based on HDTV display) which generated a certain image size for going to print from PS.
I can render to any size. Normally my res is 300 dpi on anything that I expect to print. With that said, shouldn't I be able to increase image size by going to 72 dpi?
No. If you print at 72 dpi you will get a bigger print than if you print at 300 dpi (for the same number of pixels), but that doesn't make the pixel dimensions any bigger. Forget dpi for digital files (unless you're actually printing them).
-
^^^Very well explained Averil... :D
-
You are using textures not big enought in your renders even at the size you rendered, so forget render them at biger size.
You should always use big enough textures to the size you are going to output the render, otherwise it will shaow the pixelation as happened in these cases.
-
Link: http://s949.photobucket.com/albums/ad332/deepsees/ (http://s949.photobucket.com/albums/ad332/deepsees/)
Those images are too low of quality (modeling, texturing, lighting) to get into iStock, even if they were at a higher resolution with well done textures. Sorry. Keep working at it.
-
Deepsees, what site or sites did you want to submit to?
You've never said exactly what you hope to do with your work.
-
Obviously I am not to the submission level yet.... I did not have a target. Gathering knowledge at this point. Most of the images were rendered to 72 because they were to go on a fishing web site and were not intended to go to print. The latest ones are designed to print and fit a 1440 x 1080 screen. It is my impression that images for the net should be at 72 dpi for bandwidth issues. As my CPU power has increased over the years so has my ability to render effectively at higher resolutions. With a dual core things are now "sudden" compared to the older processors.
With the evolution between film and CCD imaging, I am learning what the stock business is morphing into. Used to slides were submitted... now digital parameters require a little more knowledge before submission. Couple that with 3D animation and rendering software... and it gets tech quicker.
I am a sponge at this point and appreciate the candor and input! Getting one's nose punched teaches one to duck much quicker! I have a thick skin and deep value the punch!
-
Most of the images were rendered to 72 because they were to go on a fishing web site and were not intended to go to print.
Stop discussing dpi (72). That is irrelevant to submitting to stock sites. Discuss pixel resolution instead 1440x1080.
-
I was under the impression that 1440 x 1080 was pixel resolution. Apparently confusing that with dpi. I don't mean to stink up the place. Thanks.
-
1440 x 1080 is the pixel dimension.
I came from a print background and was a bit confused at first about using pixels instead of inches and dpi.
-
If you're doing renders for a website then what you have may work, but I
started on Dreamstime in 2006 and got accepted with 3d renders of 2,304 x 1536
or 3.5MP.
Your renders of 1440 x 1080 are 1.5MP or the size of some LCD monitors. They
probably should be at least 2000 x 2000 or 4MP for stock sites.
Buyers are looking for images they can use in their own work. Something they
could fit into a brochure, book, greeting card, tv ad or even a billboard.
If you want to submit to stock sites, you have to be thinking of how your work
can fit into such things.
Check out Dreamstime or Shutterstock and see what they are selling. You can use
the search functions to search for 3d work as well and see what is available.
Don't let us discourage you, though. Most of us started out without any idea of what
this is all about.
-Jerry
-
I was under the impression that 1440 x 1080 was pixel resolution. Apparently confusing that with dpi. I don't mean to stink up the place. Thanks.
Yes, it is, but you keep mentioning the dpi(72) as well. You don't need to concern yourself for that in this area.
-
You guys are great.... this kind of instruction is normally expensive. I feel like I have been in munchkin world and have just been told to follow the yellow brick road... at least it's the right track.
-
You will be learning also a lot by looking at 3D rendered images at any give stock image site you can see on the right hands side of this forum.
Check Istockphoto, Shutterstock and Dreamstime to see what your "competition" is doing and how good the quality is.
If you want to produce stock material rendered on your computer, you need to meet certain criteria to make it worthwhile.
First you need to develop an eye for what is considered "stock". Once you get some concepts together of what you can render you need to meet the file requirements to be even considered for an application.
The bigger the file size the better. I have 3D renders over 6000x6000 pixels or 12 MB in file size. Some of those took me over 24 hours to render on a Quad Core PC with 4GB of RAM which is almost considered a joke by now.
I'm also taking photos so I don't have to rely on producing only one image a day!
The more realistic your image looks like (realistic lighting) the longer your computer will take to render it nicely. Many times people who can model objects nicely forget about the importance of proper lighting to make it look perfect.
You will see the most successful 3D renders on Istock which have been approved lately are of very high quality. That should be your goal. There are a lot of people out there doing the same thing so it's a tough competition. You need to stand out in order to be successful.
So study your field, render very high resolution and make sure you get the lighting right!
Good luck!
-
Thanks Click.... I am no stranger to 3D... I have been doing 3d sculpting and animation for thirteen years and some of my single-image- to-print files are 200 mb+ I have been using Strata products for the past three upgrades. My longest animation is two minutes that took nearly two years to render using a Mac 7100. Presently I am running two mac duals. Their performance is very good and re-adjusting already generated models to rer-render to greater res is not a time problem. It is why I have two.
Stock image is a new idea I am looking into and am finding it interesting. I am more into original concepts than trying to do art to fit. If my images are unique enough perhaps they will do well... if not, it is not a crimp to my income. It is rather like fishing... the right bait gets the hit. The more casts you do the better the odds of a hit.
Having said all that... I know the value of input from the good people in this forum and it is greatly appreciated.
-
Thanks Click.... I am no stranger to 3D... I have been doing 3d sculpting and animation for thirteen years and some of my single-image- to-print files are 200 mb+ I have been using Strata products for the past three upgrades. My longest animation is two minutes that took nearly two years to render using a Mac 7100...
Don't forget that in this business you have to upload new images constantly. The more you upload (the more you can render) the better.
I'm only investing so much time into some renders because I know from experience that they will sell often enough to pay me back for the time.
Other really successful 3D artists are actually using 6 computers simultaneously to be able to produce enough content to stay competitive.
It's not far fetched to rent a render farm online for certain projects.
Good luck!