To be honest, I uploaded only 4 vectors before, last spring. So I don't remember how I did it then, but now I did next:
I made them in AI and saved as:
SVG profile 1.1
fonts: SVG
Images location: Embed
CSS properties: Presentation attribute
Decimal places: 3
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8)
Output fewer <tspan> elements is checked

My files don't contain any fonts or open paths, don't contain transparency. Contain only simple shapes, gradients and simple fills

When I upload my SVG file, size 277kb, I get this message in the end "fall.svg Unable to upload file". When I upload it using flash plugin the process goes normally, and file is uploaded, but it doesn't appear in my files. The same with ftp. I already have few svg files uploaded, but I never had this problem. What I did wrong?

Just a point to bear in mind - a clipping path is only available for the largest size image. As soon as a smaller jpg is made from a large one, the clipping path is lost.

averil, does it mean that if you have clipping path on your images, there is more possible that you will sell more L and XL files because of usefulness of clipping path?

The object is shinny metal surgical scissors. So I isolated it. It had pretty dark shadow below some parts, and flares all over the paper which I used for white surface...

I would like to know what you guys think about adding a shadow to isolated objects in PS. What reviewers like more, isolated objects with light shadow or isolated objects without it? And do designer really like more objects with shadow? I am asking this because I usually make images of isolated objects without shadow, but I think I saw somewhere, in some thread which I can't find anymore, that designers buy more isolated objects images with shadow because they are more useful. So, I don't know what to do....to add shadow, or not to add shadow
If I were a designer, I would personally buy more images without it, because I could place objects from image on any other surface, and apply any kind of shadow from any angle...
What you think? What should I do? Help! I am working on this image 2 hours already and I can't decide

Quote from: saniphoto on November 13, 2008, 07:39

Thank you Whitechild. Regarding your other post, I think you should analyze why there are those different results and if you don't came up with any satisfactory answer, then maybe that's just it... FT is less good for you!  sometimes life is simple...   
Just go with the other agencies and try harder there, eventually.

saniphoto, congrats to you and your spouse. good news.
also for your very good idea...."just go with the other agencies ,... if FT is less good for you!"
i think that's really true, and also what you mentioned. stay faithful with one site and study their sales.
we all have different styles and not all sites are the same.
like many here complain how other sites appreciate their images while another simply crap on them .
so really, the best thing is to pick that one site which want your images, and which they find you sales growing , slowly but regularly. and keep them supplied with the new images.

as a newbie of 6 months, i discovered that recently. now i actually make one site my priority, simply because they are giving me 100% approval and getting me sales . ironically, it's that one site that many complain they don't like.
so once again, it proves your point saniphoto! 

here's hoping one day i can post in this forum to say the same thing you just did, and say... Xxx became my nr.1 .

Yes hali, but.... maybe in few years half of reviewers on some agency will change, or maybe a policy of that agency will change, and we will realize that all our analyzes of the agency don't apply anymore. So, I am afraid if I stick to one, or few agencies I am at big risk that one day some other reviewers from the agency won't like my work and I will realize that I spent few years on analyzing something that isn't like that anymore.
So, I guess it's better to develop your own style than trying to match a style of some agency. Agencies could change their style in time matching the needs of their buyers. So, maybe one day, buyers on FT will start buying my images like crazy

Thank you saniphoto. Well, I almost never had this kind of rejection on fotolia, and my acceptance rate there is pretty fine. Just this time I had this kind of rejection 8 in a row. I guess it's about reviewer rather than me. I don't consider FT as good seller of my photos, so I don't bother with them a lot. I mean, I never resubmit my photos there. I am focused on ss dt and is

Quote from: whitechild on November 12, 2008, 11:28

Today, all (eight, and maybe ninth will be the same) my rejections on fotolia were type: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality." So, I am asking my self, are my photos really so ugly, or maybe this is some new reviewer, or he has only one button for rejection, he's right and other reviewers on other sites don't know what is good photo, or it's maybe something else? 
 

how in the world we can answer to your question, when you didnt provide samples of rejected files? maybe they were that ugly. we dont know until you show them to us.

Oh Peter, it's not important really. I just commented the rejections, because, honestly, it's small probability to have 8 ugly images in batch of 13 if you are in stock business almost a year. It can be for poor lighting, or artifact, or noise or something like that... but 8 ugly images... I would be an idiot to submit that. I guess I know by now what is an ugly image, and reviewers on other sites know that, and buyers too.. It's not so hard to write real reason, but to click "your image is ugly" is just a sign of a lazy reviewer who didn't do his job correctly. He is doing it superficially.

Yeah guys The good thing is I really don't get so upset like before, when started with stock photography. I don't even correct my images anymore. Just leave it like that and submit new photos. I wanted to post it here because it's really funny when you get rejected because your images are ugly...all of them  

I stopped upload there because of insane rejections. They are too choosy for my taste, plus they pay only 25 cents per sold image.

I tried it and it's still not the same. It's better, but still not like CNX. Light colors are lighter than in CNX. I see difference between very light colors in CNX, bu in Camera Raw those differences are less visible. Specifically in white wall and very light shade. In CNX this shadow is much more visible than in Camera Raw

Thank you! I joined too!