Quote from: whatalife on June 22, 2009, 10:37

You seem to assume that because YOU are having problems that somehow iStock has these unreasonable standards.

Other contributors seem to be managing just fine.

Well... I always am against stupid rules... Some rules on iStock are so stupid that overcomes reality and sense for why iStock is there at all...
Anyway, I just wanted to see what would happen with that raster there - I don't have any hope to work with them because they ask for such standards that images sold there should be priced at $100 or more ;-)

RASTER=RASTER - it is inperfect in pixel quality and color anyway!

That standards they want for selling through Getty's sites and 20 cents for download are very funny to me... Anyway, we have other standards, and if I payed for AI CS4 full price - then I expect that I have PRO SOFTWARE which will not make any 'banding' and not standards which need you to extra work to make some agency reviewers happy...

I can handle that 'banding' with ease... Avoid gradient and voila... But, I won't do it because that image should look as it look now and that is my author standard with used ADOBE CS4 software in BEST QUALITY to produce!

The trick can be with rasterizing original EPS in photoshop... But, That is what I don't intend to try for iStock anyway... 'Banding' Blah...

Ok well i have been reading through these forums for a while, but this post has finally made me register (probably foolishly) to get an opinion out there.
Can i ask why you're submitting this as a raster? What benefit is there to rasterize a vector when you're not doing anything to it that warrants it to be rastered. The way istock works is that illustrations have to be vectors, unless there is a reason for them not to be. I can't see a reason. You must be a glutton for punishment because you keep submitting the same things over and over, expecting 'the next time' to somehow be totally different.

Illustrator is a tool. Just paying for the worlds best car doesn't mean use it properly. Gradients in illustrator are devoid of all the things that make them look smooth in photographs, ie noise. So when you do a gradient from, say, pure black to 95% black, there are only a certain amount of steps of color that the computer can produce, which creates banding. Since you decided to convert to jpeg (which i can only assume was because your vector was a mess), you can add noise selectively to get rid of it (if the banding isn't too bad.)

Secondly, thinking you know best, and istock, (arguably the highest quality, most profitable, original microstock site,) knows nothing, really is showing your immaturity. They're system is tried and tested, they have set rules, and their rules have made them into a hugely successful international company, yes rejections are a pain in the ass (i should know) but to say that they are dumb and you are smart is confusing to me.

by the way i'm not some istock worshipper, they p*ss me off as much as the next guy, but if you're going to moan, make sure you have reason to moan. And also this is my first post, im not usually this much of a grump, i promise, so HI EVERYONE!!