Jump to content

Illustrations from photos and auto tracing rejections


Recommended Posts

Hello all!

Because I have absolutely zero artistic talent, I like to take my photos into something like Corel Painter Essentials and create illustrations or paintings from them.  I save them as Jpeg files and submit them to Shutterstock.

Recently these are being rejected due to the new auto tracing rules.  I have read all the information about them not being easy to edit, but my question would be is there a way around this?  Is there a way to use these paint programs on photos and not run into the auto tracing problem?  Using different tools in the paint programs?  Saving them as another type of file?

I do not really understand the technical explanation for why a Jpeg file of a painted photo becomes difficult to edit.  The attached Jpeg was just rejected.  I appreciate any info on this!

Thanks,

Dave

DP_DA_A_068.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Dave,

What I would like to know first of all is: Do you see more sales potential in such an image if it is digitally traced?

Is this a doorknob? Why is it digitally traced? Are you not happy with the photo? Do you think the traced image is better? Or - to put it another way: does the digital tracing increase the commercial value?

From my point of view, this is the most important question. One of the selectors at shutterstock may also be asking this question. If they don't find an answer, maybe that's why they reject it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Hello Dave,

What I would like to know first of all is: Do you see more sales potential in such an image if it is digitally traced?

Is this a doorknob? Why is it digitally traced? Are you not happy with the photo? Do you think the traced image is better? Or - to put it another way: does the digital tracing increase the commercial value?

From my point of view, this is the most important question. One of the selectors at shutterstock may also be asking this question. If they don't find an answer, maybe that's why they reject it.

 

Thanks for the response.  Besides being enamored with art and not being able to draw, and to be honest, I have had some problems with my photos in the areas of focus and noise.  Shutterstock rejects these as photos.  If I run them through a paint program, I can be really creative and bypass the problems with the photo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, oleschwander said:

Yes, I have read that, but I am still confused.  I brought the above Jpeg back into my photo post-processing software (On1 Photo RAW) and hand no problem editing it.  I was able to adjust exposure, contrast, and everything else in the development category.  I was even able to apply a B&W filter and export the file as a new Jpeg image (attached).  So I am confused as to just which kind of editing is difficult with this kind of file?

Dave

Testit1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DADPhotography said:

Thanks for the response.  Besides being enamored with art and not being able to draw, and to be honest, I have had some problems with my photos in the areas of focus and noise.  Shutterstock rejects these as photos.  If I run them through a paint program, I can be really creative and bypass the problems with the photo.

Dave,

the key question is: why should a buyer buy a picture - no matter if it is a photo, a traced photo, a painted picture or a vector graphic?

What does the image say? What might it be needed for? Is the content - the subject - of the image clear and identifiable? Does it have a content-related statement? Does it tell a story? Is it aesthetic? Is it topical? Can I change it for other purposes?

That is what microstock is all about.

Personally, I don't think it's going to get you anywhere if you recreate an image just because the original photo is bad.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I actually wanted to express: It doesn't necessarily matter that pictures are photographically/technically perfect. For landscape or travel photos, of course, that plays a big role. For other topics not necessarily.
I have here a snapshot in which nothing is post-processed. The photo is not beautiful, aesthetically or technically perfect. But it has a content that is immediately recognizable. It tells a story. And it sells.

 

destroyed-door-lock-symbol-burglary-600w-1528944131.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't draw (and have no inclination to learn), can't get shots in focus or get them right (and have no desire to correct) and aren't "artistically inclined", why are you selling pictures in the first place? Especially using long-winded digital tracing methods that are only going make your images look worse?

I mean, there are far better ways to make money or waste your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Helen Hotson said:

Doesn't the rejection apply to vectors only and not jpg illustrations?

Yes!  I have corresponded with Shutterstock (expert contributor) who told me that, and he said my Jpeg was probably rejected because it looked like an auto traced vector.  He gave me some hints as to what to include in my description to help the review process understand that I am submitting a Jpeg illustration.  I would have thought that the Jpeg extension on the uploaded file would have taken care of that.

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for all the responses, many of which I do not agree with.  I am a hobbyist and do not do this for a living.  I was simply trying to determine what was happening to a Jpeg photo when it is photo-painted that made it get rejected.  I found it out from another source here at Shutterstock, so I am good.  Regarding some of the above responses, they seem to me to be a little short-sighted.  My attached image is clearly a door knob, and a very old one at that.  To me it does tell a story, and with many millions of folks looking for images on Shutterstock I'm sure there are many who would agree.  I'm sure that people download images here for many reasons, many of which are not as limited as some of the responses above.  Backgrounds, screen savers, wall art, and much more.   Not everyone is looking for images to use for commercial purposes.

People buy prints of actual works of art like paintings and illustration, so what difference does it make if they see something they like that came from a photo?  Again, I am not looking to get rich, I simply enjoy the creativity of taking photos that are unique and interesting, and sometimes turning them into an illustration or painting can increase the uniqueness and allure.

I will end by attaching another very recent photo-painted image that was accepted and has already been downloaded once.

Dave

DP_DA_Aw_065.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

What will cause you trouble here is submitting something that immediately and intuitively looks like a photo, as an illustration, as that it will get rejected for being in the wrong category and/or cause frustration for customers looking for illustrations that look like illustrations.  If you can make a photo genuinely look like an illustration then there is no difference, but based on the two examples show so far I don't think you are doing that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DADPhotography said:

Thanks everyone for all the responses, many of which I do not agree with.  I am a hobbyist and do not do this for a living.  I was simply trying to determine what was happening to a Jpeg photo when it is photo-painted that made it get rejected.  I found it out from another source here at Shutterstock, so I am good.  Regarding some of the above responses, they seem to me to be a little short-sighted.  My attached image is clearly a door knob, and a very old one at that.  To me it does tell a story, and with many millions of folks looking for images on Shutterstock I'm sure there are many who would agree.  I'm sure that people download images here for many reasons, many of which are not as limited as some of the responses above.  Backgrounds, screen savers, wall art, and much more.   Not everyone is looking for images to use for commercial purposes.

People buy prints of actual works of art like paintings and illustration, so what difference does it make if they see something they like that came from a photo?  Again, I am not looking to get rich, I simply enjoy the creativity of taking photos that are unique and interesting, and sometimes turning them into an illustration or painting can increase the uniqueness and allure.

I will end by attaching another very recent photo-painted image that was accepted and has already been downloaded once.

Dave

DP_DA_Aw_065.jpg

Dave,

perhaps you should think about your contributor name. If it is as you write, wouldn't a pseudonym like DADIllustrator, DAD Digital Artist or something along those lines make more sense?

About your lines:

I don't have a crystal ball. If I did, I might be rich. Or maybe unhappy. Or panicking all my life.

Of course there are countless reasons why a image is bought. Of course, I have only picked out a tiny sample from the endless possibilities. Of course, that doesn't mean that your digital painting can't or won't find a buyer.

I myself buy many microstock images in my job. And someone else would buy completely different images than I would.

It is just my personal opinion that a photo that is difficult to sell in terms of content will probably not sell much better through digital alienation. But I make no claim to the correctness of my statement.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

If you can't draw (and have no inclination to learn), can't get shots in focus or get them right (and have no desire to correct) and aren't "artistically inclined", why are you selling pictures in the first place? Especially using long-winded digital tracing methods that are only going make your images look worse?

I mean, there are far better ways to make money or waste your time.

this^

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DADPhotography said:

Yes!  I have corresponded with Shutterstock (expert contributor) who told me that, and he said my Jpeg was probably rejected because it looked like an auto traced vector.  He gave me some hints as to what to include in my description to help the review process understand that I am submitting a Jpeg illustration.  I would have thought that the Jpeg extension on the uploaded file would have taken care of that.

Dave

Please share these hints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, DADPhotography said:

I will end by attaching another very recent photo-painted image that was accepted and has already been downloaded once.

Dave

 

So tell me, because I don't understand. You take a photo and then paint over it, or you take a photo and use filters and effects to alter it? Or you painted that image? You say it's not auto traced which is good, but I don't understand how you made them?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2021 at 7:37 AM, Emily Veinglory said:

What you have attached is to my eye, and probably the potential customer's eye, not a drawing but a highly modified photograph.  To sell as an illustration it first needs to look like one.

This is probably the best expalnation.  It doesn't really look like an illustration, it looks like a weirdly modified photo. You said yourself you did this because the focus wasn't good enough so you turned it into a terrible vector file and then saved that as a jpg version. Not really sure why you were expecting anything different? And if you are only doing this for fun, why does it matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...