photoshop illustration rejection

Forum » Image Evaluations » photoshop illustration rejection
Posted February 6, 2008 00:03 Report | Quote
Hi guys, Can someone please explain to me in a little more detail what is exactly wrong with this image?

If it's created in photoshop and it's not a photograph then it's clear there will be visible photoshop editing as it's a photoshop image that was created in photoshop and yes.......guess what?......edited in photoshop.

Does the reveiwer think I have my very own personal super large space telescope that i can photograph nebulae with then reflect it on water in photoshop later? ;)

An exact reason of where this image falls down would be greatly appreciated as I really kind of like it.

Thanks

Antony:)

sumners
Toronto, Canada
Posted February 6, 2008 09:20 Report | Quote
I think the reviewer feels the Photoshop filtering - or the water effect - limits the usefulness of the file. This water effect (in my opinion anyway) is way overused and ruins already good stock images. The image of space that you had before the filter was applied is good stock material, as long as it isn't from NASA, or any other free online galleries of space imagery. Crestock will reject any image that is from these sources unless it is completely altered and incorporated into another image. I'm not sure where your image came from because I can't see your picture closeup without the image number - or maybe it's a render?

Anyway, these Photoshop filters can be easily applied by a buyer, so Crestock will reject images that are heavily filtered. In your case half the image has been filtered so it really limits it's usage.

I wasn't the inspector that reviewed this file, but I would think that this is their general thinking.

Thanks,
Ron
Posted February 6, 2008 09:54 Report | Quote
The nebula image is mine, created by me from scratch in photoshop and not stolen from nasa or any other site. Thanks for the explanation though. Even if I don't agree with it I respect the decision.
Posted February 6, 2008 11:01 Report | Quote
Could you also explain why these were all accepted?

http://www.crestock.com/image/471482-Flooded-world.aspx

http://www.crestock.com/image/424291-Aurigae-on-Horizon.aspx

http://www.crestock.com/image/424293-Aurora.aspx

All these images have the same concept as mine but at least I took the time to create my own nebula!

Seems like double standards or favouritism to me?

joshDK
Århus, Denmark
Posted February 6, 2008 13:35 Report | Quote
There is no double standards or favoritism, least of all to any of the photographers you've provided links to.

The standards, in particular regards to the water photoshop effect, are something that are reviewed periodically. This means that some images that were approved 6 months ago, will not necessarily be approved today.

Crestock decided sometime ago to not approve certain images with the mentioned photoshop effect because it simply doesn't pertain to the creative content that we would like to market to clients.

http://www.crestock.com/images/200000-209999/200619-xs.jpg

Here's an example where the effect can be better used.

Regards,

Josh Hodge
The Crestock Team
PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Maestro
Secured by Thawte
Stock Photo & Image Bank Crestock has the stock photography industry's highest standard in royalty free stock photos & images
and also offers a daily free stock photo via RSS. Additionally, Crestock features design and stock photography forums as well
as a popular design & photography blog with resources, expert advice, commentaries, tips & tricks.