Author Topic: iStock illustration rejected (Read 5298 times)

meganclare · « **on:** October 02, 2015, 05:49 »

Hi everyone,
I'm really sorry if this is the wrong place to post this but I'm totally new here! I am an illustration contributor at iStockphoto, and I've uploaded a few illustrations over the years, but trying to get back into it. It seems as if iStock has changed a LOT since I became a contributor, and I can't seem to access the 'Contributor Community'.

I submitted this image of a chef with various cooking accessories and it was accepted: newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/chef-with-accessories-74986003 [nonactive]

But then I uploaded a similar illustration of a ballerina as with accessories, as I was going to do a series on various professions:

So despite the fact that the illustrations are fairly similar (similar idea anyway) I was surprised when the ballerina was rejected for this reason: 'We're sorry but we found the overall composition of this file lacking in visual impact and therefore not suitable as stock. With the rapid growth of the iStock collection, we give valuable consideration to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all submissions. Please don't take it personally. This isn't necessarily a reflection of your skill, rather a decision by iStock to determine commercial applications for you illustration as royalty-free stock.'

The problem with this response is that it's so vague. It could be something about the illustration which doesn't work. It could be that they've got too many ballerina images. It could be a huge number of things, but I don't know how to correct it. So should I carry on with the professions series or not? I'm a little confused - any help or critique would be most appreciated. Many thanks.

Curvabezier · « **Reply #1 on:** October 02, 2015, 07:08 »

The criteria between reviews will always differ from one inspector to another. On this case, I would try to improve the hands on the ballerina just a bit. That low level of detail might have worked for the chef, but on the ballerina their relevance to the illustration is bigger. You can always check this by comparing them to other body features. They should be more a bit more detailed (and maybe a bit more delicate?). Hope they sell, good luck!

Shelma1 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2015, 07:21 »

It's difficult to say without seeing the illustration that was approved for contrast. But I agree; making the hands more detailed might help; also softening the very square shoulder and adding more dimension to the tiara? on the bottom (it's hard to tell what it is, but I'm guessing tiara).

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2015, 07:25 »

I'm not sure about the sharp angle on her shoulder and neck in particular. They look stiff on the chef, but IMO incongruent on a ballet dancer.

The forums have moved. If you didn't get an email about this, you can write to CR.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2015, 07:38 »

The chef looks better because his hands are less visible. The ballerina seems to have paddles instead of hands, dancers hands often make very elegant shapes, I'd work on those personally. ( and the shoulder)

meganclare · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2015, 07:40 »

Thanks so much for your critiques! I really appreciate the feedback.

meganclare · « **Reply #6 on:** October 05, 2015, 10:42 »

I've made some changes, can you let me know your thoughts? I've added more detail the ballerina mostly, but also to the other objects. Thanks in advance!

john_woodcock · « **Reply #7 on:** October 07, 2015, 04:45 »

Much better, the shoulder is a big improvement. If you Google 'Dancers hands' you'll see some great shapes that dancers hands make. You've improved the illustration but the hands still don't look convincing to me, not helped by the fact the wrists are thicker than the elbow, which adds to the slightly clumsy look in that area.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #8 on:** October 07, 2015, 04:55 »

I've knocked this out very quickly, just to try and show what I mean, amending the right hand and arm, not as accurately as I might like, but just to give a rough idea.