@Noodles
I tried the action thing but for the Save As... command remembers the whole path and filename, and it doesn's save the EPS save dialog parameters. Too bad, this is the most important thing I want...
I'm checking the open paths inside the "Document Info" panel, bitmaps at the "Links" panel... Is there an one-click solution or this is the way?

@michaeldb
Viewing works fine with Total Cmd... It seems to me that %%Creator: Adobe Illustrator(R) 8.0 is written only for the v8, above v8 the actual version is written. So I guess you have CS3, this is why you posted %%Creator: Adobe Illustrator(R) 13.0. I analyzed an EPS coming from CS5, there is %%Creator: Adobe Illustrator(R) 15.0. This EPS is supposed to be V10-compatible.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=813

Overly Simplified Figures.

Thank you!

I missed that article... As I read, yes, I have a lot of overly simple white man renderings but there are more complicated ones, than the given examples in the article. I think my level would be acceptable only as an exclusive...

Well... What offers IS in terms of percent, it doesn't worth the time... They simply ask for too much and they offer too less.
At other agencies, buyers are satisfied with my renderings (based on sales), so the problem is here the IS's taste not the final client's taste.

All the renderings form the last batch were rejected with "We found the overall quality of this rendering could be improved." But weeks ago all was accepted, my problem is that many files are from the same series, what suddenly happened with the quality... Last week everything was good (all accepted), this week everything is rejected.

Was there and announcement about rendering quality or IS doesn't accept renderings from non-exclusive contributors anymore?

I'm sorry about the time spent with their archaic upload system. For the 15% I can earn, it's better to sell my files with other agencies. They simply don't deserve quality images for the percent they give. And they still have the highest needs...

Anybody had mass rejection lately, related to the rendering quality?

Maybe a caching algorithm would fix all that? We did that once the stats got large and now it refreshes let's say once an hour and only if you log-in. So If you come to the page often you get it once per hour, if you come once a day you'll get immediate results. And sure the previous months/years should be cached 'forever' until there's a change such as refund or so.

Vita

Actually the caching system saves a lot of server load.
Also the style of the earnings displaying system can be improved. Those who look frequently to the stats (robots, humans) are looking for the final sum (= the actual earnings). At 1234rf there's a huge table which completion really needs a serious database access. Instead of this, it's enough a single, hourly refreshed amount.
You may bury the very detailed stats to the 3rd level so contributors will check only if the actual amount is changing dramatically (slow)... Captcha is enough for this detailed table access...

Gold medal goes to Crestock. After changes at Crestock, regardless what I submitted, only 10% were accepted. Totally inappropriate rejection reasons.
Silver medal goes to Veer. Several really selling images were rejected something as 'does not appealing to Veer customers'
Bronze goes to DT. The editors will found everything similar that isn't. They over-complicate this similar thing. They simply remain without more images and choices for buyers.

Come on Crestock su..ed from day one of their existence!

Personally I had good feelings about CRE. At the beginning uploading was really fast, they were extra-responisve, fast approvals, etc. like every other agency that starts. After several months I had more revenue than at BigStock, CanStockPhoto, 123rf, etc., then they started to be extra-selective with no logic behind. Nowadays my sales are around $5-10 per month.
After reading hundreds of forum posts and contacting support a lot of times, my conclusion was that they may said to editors: "Don't accept everything from the photographers, because then they will start to upload a lot of crap... By being extra-selective, they also will become extra selective with their shots/themes" (Note that this is my own personal conclusion). CRE only forgot the fact that there are a lot of other, similarly-aged agencies who may offer to photographers what CRE don't. Good examples are CanStock, DepositPhotos, etc. The result: agencies CanStockPhoto and DP has a fresh, fast-growing image bank, even compared to the big 4.

After Crestock was acquired by Masterfile, it become worse than ever. These macro agencies have some kind of marketing ideas that doesn't work anymore. Their prices are too high, they live in the past.
After the purchase, Crestock turned into a very selective agency with stupid reasons, the result was a huge drop of earnings and a lot of contributors ending their relationship whit the agency. Nowadays I'm returning from time to time and read the forums. It seems to me that they are happy to close everyone's account and let him/her go. The admin is ready to answer anything that leads into the fact that you are stupid/don't understand/don't have/etc. the right collection of images that they want. It doesn't matter for a second what sells at the other places.

Subscriptions are what's killing it, everywhere.  With a subscription sale, we don't know what the buyer "paid" because the money is in the up front subscription fees.  Any link between sale and commission is gone - the payment to the photographer becomes a mere token.   

In a different approach, subscription is a certain revenue. Regardless of what offers a given agency for a per-photo-sale, subscription revenue can be considered stable.
If we took the example of SS, this idea really works. Playing with different factors, like buyers don't download all available images per day, extended licenses, not-so-extended licenses, etc., our revenue can be extremely stable and predictable. Another example is Depositphotos, - with the latest photo gathering offer - it seems to me that they are focused on more and more images to offer better subscription base.
With the amount of today's flow of high quality stock images, I may say, the future is subscription-based. With constantly rising prices, quality needs, etc. we may reach even $1 revenue per subscription sale. (This will mean the $1/image sale what they talked about in the dawn of microstock).

there'll comes a time, when all kind of photos are there and we can't submit anything anymore, they reject everything.
whatcha gonna do?  

I was thinking about...
I will post kids playing around and ugly woman outdoors, looking left, up, right, down.

I also have some words about LCV: It depends...
There are truly LCV images in any portfolio. For some of my 4+ year old images I'm wondering, how it's possible it wasn't sold, for some other I'm happy that I don't see them anymore in my portfolio.
But I have also LCV rejections that really hurt. At Veer I uploaded 3 (three) times the same image, always got rejected as LCV. Summed I have more than 1000 sales of that image (also extremely unique 3d-illustration-photo combination). What kind of Martians are the veer buyers? (I guess, the Veer reviewer was right...)

people are repeating themselves constantly and in severall threads. IS exclusives, frustrated and angered are venting their frustration about the same old thing over and over again and then trying to tone down every little bit of criticism against IS and in a very nice and polite way,  thinking nobody will notice?

The whole forum represents the kind of a microstock contributor.
I talked with many people who found my job interesting but only 0.1% of them become contributors. They are like all of us.
So what's the problem if frustration is one of our main subjects? (I was crying many times to my mother but she simply doesn't understood the IS rejects. So I came here)
BTW I said many times, life will be better and I will be more balanced and happy if I don't watch the TV and I don't read the MSG forums anymore. The TV is out, I'm half happy.

Quote from: eggshell on August 09, 2011, 13:42

Are you sure you can even apply for a photographer's account with 3d renders ?

AFAIK 3D images are considered photographs at IS. Sean?

Sean may be working or sleeping, but I try to guess: everything pixelated is considered photograph. Those scalable rasterized-when-displayed are the vectors.
BTW it's nice to see 3d, illustration, etc. categories at different agencies but what about 3d renderings combined with real photographs? Which category to pick?

Comments are based on my personal experience:
bal_atom_var: although nice materials and render, there is nothing to do with an atom or anything stock-related, from the point of view of a designer. It's only a nice, wallpaper-like image. (= where do you see your image used?? If there's one or two, it's not enough)
cam8: too much useless detail, cropping and banding in background, anti-aliasing of lines is very low quality
case_2: can't see
eagle on red: good stock photo! Be careful, there's too much banding on eagle and background!
high_cam8: useful, but as in case of cam8.jpg, too much useless detail, anti-aliasing problems.
kapitel_n: very beautiful details, but please make a composition more suitable for stock. (examples: designers can (virtually) support something with, or can hold something on the columns)
rect_2: good abstract, although iStock may not accept, others may found usable
Speed_4: It may be good, but I can't see the usefulness
tel_7: the most useful rendering. Pay attention again to the banding on the image!
water_cam1: that aren't water molecules, maybe something organic, but then you may want to use different colors for carbon, oxygen and hydrogen molecules, and make something realistic (=relevant organic molecule of sugar or something)

Note on banding: save 16-bit lossless format from the 3d app, so photoshopping will not introduce banding. Keep this format in 16-bit and don't touch, by making corrections with adjustment layers. Save as jpg for uploading.