Author Topic: Anyone succeeded with an iStock application with 3D? (Read 5601 times)

Fibonacci · « **on:** November 28, 2010, 17:06 »

Hi Guys,

Really need someone who succeeded with the initial application at iStock with 3d images.
I do concept stuff, lots of them isolated on white and all in 3d. I tried once, but I was rejected.
As you can guess, iStock needs to see a lot more diversity, so I am preparing some images especially for this application.

My first try was a couple of months ago and since then I am reading books, forums, blogs, etc, etc...just to do things right and avoid another rejection.

I am preparing a concept, an interior design and a exterior with satellite dishes and a base station. I have some other ideas for a backup. I am considering posting them here for critique as soon as I finish them.

Meanwhile, I was wondering if I could find here someone who succeeded with 3d in the initial application to give some advice. I'd like to learn what is most important in the initial application with 3d images besides the subject, composition and lighting. How could I impress them most?

Magnum · « **Reply #1 on:** November 28, 2010, 17:35 »

It´s possible to submit photos also. Even if you´re planning to make 3d. It´s not like illustrations. Photos and 3d are in the same queue. And some reviewers really hate it, unfortunately...

Simple clean stuff, no jagged edges. High res materials / maps is important. The rest is up to u...

dk · « **Reply #2 on:** November 28, 2010, 19:17 »

You might want to read this - istock 3d standards pt1

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

heywoody · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2010, 08:24 »

What the other guys said.

Any hint of a visible polygon, banding or anything that might be interpreted as pixellation / artifacts will be rejected. I've also found that what is accepted needs to almost "look like" a photo rather than an illustration. Much simpler on the other big 4 sites where renders are classed as illustrations.

I get very few rejections on the other sites but always amazed when something is accepted on IS.

Fibonacci · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2010, 14:38 »

Quote from: heywoody on November 29, 2010, 08:24

What the other guys said.

Any hint of a visible polygon, banding or anything that might be interpreted as pixellation / artifacts will be rejected. I've also found that what is accepted needs to almost "look like" a photo rather than an illustration. Much simpler on the other big 4 sites where renders are classed as illustrations.

I get very few rejections on the other sites but always amazed when something is accepted on IS.

Thanks, that is really good to know.

Fibonacci · « **Reply #5 on:** November 29, 2010, 14:40 »

Quote from: dk on November 28, 2010, 19:17

You might want to read this - istock 3d standards pt1

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

Thanks, I read it already. Can't wait to see part II

I think Mark Evans is great.
I just wasn't sure if they only look for these problems in the initials.

Fibonacci · « **Reply #6 on:** November 29, 2010, 14:49 »

Quote from: Magnum on November 28, 2010, 17:35

It´s possible to submit photos also. Even if you´re planning to make 3d. It´s not like illustrations. Photos and 3d are in the same queue. And some reviewers really hate it, unfortunately...

Simple clean stuff, no jagged edges. High res materials / maps is important. The rest is up to u...

Yes, I read somewhere in the iStock forums that they hate 3d in the initials.
I already figured it out that 3d and photos are in the same queue, although in my opinion they should be separated. I mean, iStock do have different standards for 3d.....But are you sure it's ok if I apply with photos and then upload only 3d?