© Photographer: Devonsun | Agency: Dreamstime.com
Showing posts with label illustration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illustration. Show all posts
35 files on Dreamstime
35 images live and for sale on Dreamstime as of tonight. Not even a milestone really.. well maybe a mini-milestone. It certainly seemed a long way off when i started back into this game. I guess the next target is 50 and although i would love to reach that before the end of the month.. with only 6 days left i doubt i will get there. But i'll try to get closer at least. Here is number 35 (a valentine theme):
© Photographer: Devonsun | Agency: Dreamstime.com
© Photographer: Devonsun | Agency: Dreamstime.com
Rejected at Veer
Looks like i will be doing some research tomorrow to find out what is needed to be approved for Veer. 10 submitted, 10 rejections.
From the looks of the images approved from other contributors it is a whole new ball game to what i have been reading up on for the last few months. There's an artistic feel to the site. Less white backgrounds and pearly teeth staring out from the screen but darker images that wouldn't go amiss in a children's illustrated book of some kind.
Looks like i will have to change my approach to get in with Veer and will post back if (when) i am finally accepted along with what images they do like.
From the looks of the images approved from other contributors it is a whole new ball game to what i have been reading up on for the last few months. There's an artistic feel to the site. Less white backgrounds and pearly teeth staring out from the screen but darker images that wouldn't go amiss in a children's illustrated book of some kind.
Looks like i will have to change my approach to get in with Veer and will post back if (when) i am finally accepted along with what images they do like.
Editorial on Shutterstock
I came up with an idea for an illustration based on the Olympic logo and thought after checking that it would be ok as an editorial on shutterstock.. I figured it would pass as i had found other images of the logo (which is copyright/tradmark protected) on SS.
Graphic Leftovers stated very quickly after i emailed them that such an image would be ok if it was very abstract (which mine wasn't.) So i just submitted it to SS and DT where i have previously found Olympic non-abstract images.
It was approved on DT but rejected at SS on the grounds that "Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement--not editorial."
© Photographer: Devonsun | Agency: Dreamstime.com
I emailed Shutterstock support over a week ago to get clarification on the matter but i haven't had a reply from them yet:
"Need some clarification on a recent rejection reason please. File ID: *******
Understood copyright aspects so submitted for editorial after finding similar
images on SS:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-44659942.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-40801201.html
But "Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement--not editorial." was the refusal reason.
Is there a difference between illustrations and photographs when it comes to
acceptance for editorial?
Thanks. David"
Based on the reply from SS i may make "Olympic Construction" exclusive to DT. In any event i think i will have to contact SS again to get an answer.
Graphic Leftovers stated very quickly after i emailed them that such an image would be ok if it was very abstract (which mine wasn't.) So i just submitted it to SS and DT where i have previously found Olympic non-abstract images.
It was approved on DT but rejected at SS on the grounds that "Trademark--Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement--not editorial."
© Photographer: Devonsun | Agency: Dreamstime.com
I emailed Shutterstock support over a week ago to get clarification on the matter but i haven't had a reply from them yet:
"Need some clarification on a recent rejection reason please. File ID: *******
Understood copyright aspects so submitted for editorial after finding similar
images on SS:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-44659942.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-40801201.html
But "Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement--not editorial." was the refusal reason.
Is there a difference between illustrations and photographs when it comes to
acceptance for editorial?
Thanks. David"
Based on the reply from SS i may make "Olympic Construction" exclusive to DT. In any event i think i will have to contact SS again to get an answer.
Dreamstime Review Process
I hate to moan about rejections... we all get them. But when it's due to inconsistent reviewers at the same agency it's hard not to get slightly annoyed by the whole affair.
On Dreamstime they are very fussy these days about silhouettes and want extra confirmation during the submission process that you hold the copyright to the image. Personally, i think that the fact that we sign the agreement when we register should be good enough but you can't blame them for wanting to cover themselves.
It's fair enough (although the other agencies are not asking for added similar assurances, yet,) but after submitting silhouettes and putting a note in the editors box stating "i own the copyright" etc those images have been approved. So, i figured that was good enough for all future similar submissions. Apparently not though...
... after submitting a silhouette of a horse and carriage and having it rejected twice (after adding the note on copyright for reviewer) i have emailed Dreamstime to ask for an explanation (below):
On Dreamstime they are very fussy these days about silhouettes and want extra confirmation during the submission process that you hold the copyright to the image. Personally, i think that the fact that we sign the agreement when we register should be good enough but you can't blame them for wanting to cover themselves.
It's fair enough (although the other agencies are not asking for added similar assurances, yet,) but after submitting silhouettes and putting a note in the editors box stating "i own the copyright" etc those images have been approved. So, i figured that was good enough for all future similar submissions. Apparently not though...
... after submitting a silhouette of a horse and carriage and having it rejected twice (after adding the note on copyright for reviewer) i have emailed Dreamstime to ask for an explanation (below):
"I have previously submitted silhouettes and they were approved as i added a note in the 'comment for editors' box along the lines of "i confirm this is original artwork and i own all copyrights etc."
That was good enough before to get approved but now i have submitted the same image twice, and been rejected because: "This illustration appears to be traced from another source. etc".
I am quite happy to submit the original photo (taken while on holiday) but why does one reviewer accept written confirmation of originality and another not?!
Image ID: *******
It's a shame as, until now, i had 100% approval for Feb.
Also at what point do i submit the original photo in future (if required)? As 'additional format'?
Thanks,
David"
That was good enough before to get approved but now i have submitted the same image twice, and been rejected because: "This illustration appears to be traced from another source. etc".
I am quite happy to submit the original photo (taken while on holiday) but why does one reviewer accept written confirmation of originality and another not?!
Image ID: *******
It's a shame as, until now, i had 100% approval for Feb.
Also at what point do i submit the original photo in future (if required)? As 'additional format'?
Thanks,
David"
So, lets see what comes back. I had already read their statements about wanting the original photo along with silhouette submissions but i had read on the forums that placing a note stating originality was sufficient and that 'had' been my experience until now after previously receiving the "This illustration appears to be traced from another source" comment.
If they hadn't approved previous images without that photo i would have known better what the process was. So one reviewer is letting them through and the other isn't?!
What about the Tudor warship silhouette that i had approved recently? I made that up as i went along.. no photo exists for it so therefore a comment in the editors box is the only 'proof' i have of originality. Unless DT have a machine that can read the images in my head! ;-)
Be interesting to see what DT have to say.
Still better than the rejections of the medical infections signs i submitted a while back that were rejected because the reviewer didn't know that C.Diff and M.R.S.A were medical terms for hospital infections. Until i re-submitted them along with a link to a government website to prove they were real words and not "mis-spelt". ;-)
If they hadn't approved previous images without that photo i would have known better what the process was. So one reviewer is letting them through and the other isn't?!
What about the Tudor warship silhouette that i had approved recently? I made that up as i went along.. no photo exists for it so therefore a comment in the editors box is the only 'proof' i have of originality. Unless DT have a machine that can read the images in my head! ;-)
Be interesting to see what DT have to say.
Still better than the rejections of the medical infections signs i submitted a while back that were rejected because the reviewer didn't know that C.Diff and M.R.S.A were medical terms for hospital infections. Until i re-submitted them along with a link to a government website to prove they were real words and not "mis-spelt". ;-)
Reply from Shutterstock
Well it took them a while to get back to me regarding my question about the Olympic Rings illustration and why it was rejected.
Seems my initial thoughts were correct and well, read for yourself in their reply:
Seems my initial thoughts were correct and well, read for yourself in their reply:
"Hello David,
Yes there is a difference. The Olympic Rings you cited in the images below are actual newsworthy editorial shots of the Olympic Rings taken by submitters.
Your Olympic Ring illustration you submitted would not be considered true editorial as you created them yourself and it is certainly prohibited from being licensed for royalty free commercial use.
For more information you may see the following forum post:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76361"
Yes there is a difference. The Olympic Rings you cited in the images below are actual newsworthy editorial shots of the Olympic Rings taken by submitters.
Your Olympic Ring illustration you submitted would not be considered true editorial as you created them yourself and it is certainly prohibited from being licensed for royalty free commercial use.
For more information you may see the following forum post:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76361"
Actually, after reading (again) that post they mention, it doesn't really give a clear indication of their policy on such matters. All it says is "All Olympic logos and torches are trademarked designs. Unacceptable for commercial use."
It doesn't say "it's ok if you take a photo for editorial but not if you make it up from scratch" which would have been more helpful. But hey ho.. never mind. Dreamstime approved that image and now have it exclusively.
It doesn't say "it's ok if you take a photo for editorial but not if you make it up from scratch" which would have been more helpful. But hey ho.. never mind. Dreamstime approved that image and now have it exclusively.
Feb Earnings + Updates
February was a better month again and the earnings total beat January with a total of £7.45 ($11.29).
At long last a sale on Canstock. (Actually 4 sales). That's been a long time coming. A.R there is 80%.
A little slow on Dreamstime during Feb. AR now 71.4%
Another sale on GraphicLeftovers and one for Istock (which i tend to get every once and while. Not bad when you consider only 4 images online with Istock.)
I can't, currently, add Vectors (EPS) files to sites like Fotolia and Istock etc due to the fact that Inkscape can't retain blurs and transparencies when saving as EPS. Hopefully that will be resolved in a later release.
First sale on BigStock netted me approx £0.32p. AR still 100%.
Shutterstock downloads a little less than hoped but still an increase at 12D for the month.
Still no sales yet on, Yaymicro, 3DStudio, Picturenation, Alamy, FeaturePics (although plenty of views there) or any of the others.
So, Feb was certainly a best month ever (BME) and i am really hopeful that with some quality submissions and some creative thinking i will push into double figure earnings for March... watch this space.
By the way. I tidied up the chart. Hope it looks more intersting and visually clearer.
At long last a sale on Canstock. (Actually 4 sales). That's been a long time coming. A.R there is 80%.
A little slow on Dreamstime during Feb. AR now 71.4%
Another sale on GraphicLeftovers and one for Istock (which i tend to get every once and while. Not bad when you consider only 4 images online with Istock.)
I can't, currently, add Vectors (EPS) files to sites like Fotolia and Istock etc due to the fact that Inkscape can't retain blurs and transparencies when saving as EPS. Hopefully that will be resolved in a later release.
First sale on BigStock netted me approx £0.32p. AR still 100%.
Shutterstock downloads a little less than hoped but still an increase at 12D for the month.
Still no sales yet on, Yaymicro, 3DStudio, Picturenation, Alamy, FeaturePics (although plenty of views there) or any of the others.
So, Feb was certainly a best month ever (BME) and i am really hopeful that with some quality submissions and some creative thinking i will push into double figure earnings for March... watch this space.
By the way. I tidied up the chart. Hope it looks more intersting and visually clearer.
Canstock Keywording
Just a quick mention about a matter regarding Canstock's keywording.
I noticed on my images after logging in that my illustrations included words such as 'Vector' and 'EPS'. They were not added by myself as i don't have true vectors for sale, only Jpegs and so i asked Canstock about it:
"Hi - I see there are keywords added to my images that i didn't put there. Like EPS and VECTOR.
I wouldn't have put those as it doesn't apply to my images (not true vector or EPS available, only JPEGS).
When trying to edit them out (not wanting buyers to be mislead) those words vanish from the checkbox list of words to remove and i am unable to delete them.
Thanks, David"
Reply:
"Thanks for contacting us.
These keywords are automatically added by our system for the benefit of external search engines (Google), so that your images rank higher in search engine searches.
Rest assured that these keywords are NOT used for internal searches. If you search "EPS" or "Vector" on our site, your images will not come up.
Duncan - CSP Admin"
I noticed on my images after logging in that my illustrations included words such as 'Vector' and 'EPS'. They were not added by myself as i don't have true vectors for sale, only Jpegs and so i asked Canstock about it:
"Hi - I see there are keywords added to my images that i didn't put there. Like EPS and VECTOR.
I wouldn't have put those as it doesn't apply to my images (not true vector or EPS available, only JPEGS).
When trying to edit them out (not wanting buyers to be mislead) those words vanish from the checkbox list of words to remove and i am unable to delete them.
Thanks, David"
Reply:
"Thanks for contacting us.
These keywords are automatically added by our system for the benefit of external search engines (Google), so that your images rank higher in search engine searches.
Rest assured that these keywords are NOT used for internal searches. If you search "EPS" or "Vector" on our site, your images will not come up.
Duncan - CSP Admin"
Other Microstock Agencies
A little posting on my experiences with other stock sites i haven't mentioned very much, if at all, to date.
Yaymicro:
A nice clean looking site. Haven't had any problems with them and their upload process is smooth and easy. No sales but after getting over 50 images approved i am starting to get more views. AR 100% so far.
3DStudio:
Sells 3D images as well as 2D, textures, stock illustrations and photos. Uploading has been fine and their method is for your image to become 'live' and viewable as soon as it's uploaded where it has the status of 'editorial only' until it is reviewed and, if good enough, will then go into the 'RF - can be used commercially' category.
No sales there yet but a massive amount of views (over 4000) so there is certainly a lot of activity there. AR 100% to date.
Featurepics:
A nice site. Friendly communications and a healthy number of views per image. No sales to date but 100% AR.
ScandinavianStockPhoto:
I haven't had any problems here but i think their site needs a little fine tuning. It looks a bit simple and lacks character. Their FAQ only contains 5 questions/answers and views per image are few and far between. I will continue to upload images though as it's an easy process. AR currently 100%.
StockphotoPro:
All i can say about SPP is that i submitted my initial 10 images (to be accepted as a contributor) upon registering on the 27th Jan this year and its now 14th March and they are still pending review. Doesn't inspire confidence.
The site looks and feels ok although there are pages such as 'my images' in the 'quick links' menu that are extremely slow to load for some reason. We are talking minutes. (In fact i timed it at 3mins 31secs for the page to load.) Perhaps it doesn't like Firefox but as other pages are generally ok i am assuming for now it's down to the site and not my imac or browser choice.
I'll post an update if/when my images are ever approved/rejected.
ShutterFarm:
I have views on SF although no sales to date but my main problem with them is that their system doesn't automatically read meta data therefore i have to manually type in title, description and keywords (up to 20 max). This is very annoying and time consuming as well as leaving open the possibility of making a typing mistake. This happened recently and for the life of me i couldn't figure out how to edit the title (where the error was) so emailed SF via their online form to find out how to do so. I also asked when they would support automated EXIF/IPTC data retrieval. That was a good week ago and no reply from them as yet.
I'll continue to upload for now but they are currently way down the list of priority sites to add to.
ImageStoreUK:
Having problems with this site. Getting logged out every time i try to edit an image (after submitting and getting an initial four sample illustrations approved.) I think their site is a bit 'wonky' but i have emailed them for advice/suggestions. Could be a firefox and/or camino problem. I'll update when i know more.
WorkingTitleImages:
Got approved as a contributor after submitting initial 3 sample images and although i have tried to upload the bulk of my portfolio i am unable to do so due to an error page popping up. The site is still in BETA stage and obviously has some teething problems and i know from an email received at the end of Jan that their official site launch could be delayed.
I have tried to contact them using their 'contact us' link but that too gives an error message of 'email not sent' so it seems their site has a way to go before it's up and running properly. I'll up date if the situation changes.
MostPhotos:
I nicely laid out site. No problems uploading but i feel more of a photo community rather than a site that's going to bring in a great deal of sales. It's good to see comments on your images and fun to leave feedback or click 'like' on other peoples images you admire and enjoy viewing. Having said all that there are sales to be had and as it's an easy site to use and navigate i suspect i will continue to add my illustrations there. I'll let you know if i ever get sale.
That's it for now... there are a few others i am registered with but I'll save those for another post. :-)
Yaymicro:
A nice clean looking site. Haven't had any problems with them and their upload process is smooth and easy. No sales but after getting over 50 images approved i am starting to get more views. AR 100% so far.
3DStudio:
Sells 3D images as well as 2D, textures, stock illustrations and photos. Uploading has been fine and their method is for your image to become 'live' and viewable as soon as it's uploaded where it has the status of 'editorial only' until it is reviewed and, if good enough, will then go into the 'RF - can be used commercially' category.
No sales there yet but a massive amount of views (over 4000) so there is certainly a lot of activity there. AR 100% to date.
Featurepics:
A nice site. Friendly communications and a healthy number of views per image. No sales to date but 100% AR.
ScandinavianStockPhoto:
I haven't had any problems here but i think their site needs a little fine tuning. It looks a bit simple and lacks character. Their FAQ only contains 5 questions/answers and views per image are few and far between. I will continue to upload images though as it's an easy process. AR currently 100%.
StockphotoPro:
All i can say about SPP is that i submitted my initial 10 images (to be accepted as a contributor) upon registering on the 27th Jan this year and its now 14th March and they are still pending review. Doesn't inspire confidence.
The site looks and feels ok although there are pages such as 'my images' in the 'quick links' menu that are extremely slow to load for some reason. We are talking minutes. (In fact i timed it at 3mins 31secs for the page to load.) Perhaps it doesn't like Firefox but as other pages are generally ok i am assuming for now it's down to the site and not my imac or browser choice.
I'll post an update if/when my images are ever approved/rejected.
ShutterFarm:
I have views on SF although no sales to date but my main problem with them is that their system doesn't automatically read meta data therefore i have to manually type in title, description and keywords (up to 20 max). This is very annoying and time consuming as well as leaving open the possibility of making a typing mistake. This happened recently and for the life of me i couldn't figure out how to edit the title (where the error was) so emailed SF via their online form to find out how to do so. I also asked when they would support automated EXIF/IPTC data retrieval. That was a good week ago and no reply from them as yet.
I'll continue to upload for now but they are currently way down the list of priority sites to add to.
ImageStoreUK:
Having problems with this site. Getting logged out every time i try to edit an image (after submitting and getting an initial four sample illustrations approved.) I think their site is a bit 'wonky' but i have emailed them for advice/suggestions. Could be a firefox and/or camino problem. I'll update when i know more.
WorkingTitleImages:
Got approved as a contributor after submitting initial 3 sample images and although i have tried to upload the bulk of my portfolio i am unable to do so due to an error page popping up. The site is still in BETA stage and obviously has some teething problems and i know from an email received at the end of Jan that their official site launch could be delayed.
I have tried to contact them using their 'contact us' link but that too gives an error message of 'email not sent' so it seems their site has a way to go before it's up and running properly. I'll up date if the situation changes.
MostPhotos:
I nicely laid out site. No problems uploading but i feel more of a photo community rather than a site that's going to bring in a great deal of sales. It's good to see comments on your images and fun to leave feedback or click 'like' on other peoples images you admire and enjoy viewing. Having said all that there are sales to be had and as it's an easy site to use and navigate i suspect i will continue to add my illustrations there. I'll let you know if i ever get sale.
That's it for now... there are a few others i am registered with but I'll save those for another post. :-)
Earnings Report March 2010
Well, March was pretty good and better than Feb.
I had slightly less downloads on Shutterstock than i would have hoped for considering the larger portfolio size in comparison to the previous month but still had the most ever downloads of 13.
I was very surprised to get a large sale on Canstock via fotosearch which netted me $19.80 (aprox £13.25) as well as my first sale at Scandinavian Stock Photo which sold for 3 Euros (my commission being 1 Euro/90p/$1.37).
Sadly no sales at Graphic Leftovers this month or any other site not shown below but i am currently uploading (finally) jpeg illustrations to Fotolia and Istock and getting views there as well as working on more images to get my portfolio to that all important 100 file milestone as quickly as possible.
I had slightly less downloads on Shutterstock than i would have hoped for considering the larger portfolio size in comparison to the previous month but still had the most ever downloads of 13.
I was very surprised to get a large sale on Canstock via fotosearch which netted me $19.80 (aprox £13.25) as well as my first sale at Scandinavian Stock Photo which sold for 3 Euros (my commission being 1 Euro/90p/$1.37).
Sadly no sales at Graphic Leftovers this month or any other site not shown below but i am currently uploading (finally) jpeg illustrations to Fotolia and Istock and getting views there as well as working on more images to get my portfolio to that all important 100 file milestone as quickly as possible.
Istock's tough criteria
Well, after getting four photographs approved a good 18 months ago and with this new found urge to get back into this micro-world i have been submitting jpeg illustrations for approval to istock.
Their approval time seems to be one of the slowest (not counting Crestock which personally i feel is going to go down the drain due to something not working behind the scenes as i have previously mentioned.)
Sadly out of 6 submitted only one image has so far been approved and is live with two pending and the rest rejected. Various reasons for rejection most of which i can not grumble about. They have their criteria and i can live with that:
"overall composition of this file could be improved"
"....visible polygons, jagged lines, banding..."
"...posterization from excessive adjustments..."
At least their emails try to be polite and i am free to re-submit many if i can correct the problems they are seeing in the images. I am not sure that i will though but instead try to improve and create even better images altogether.
Still a few more uploads that might be worthy though so i will endeavor to persevere :)
Their approval time seems to be one of the slowest (not counting Crestock which personally i feel is going to go down the drain due to something not working behind the scenes as i have previously mentioned.)
Sadly out of 6 submitted only one image has so far been approved and is live with two pending and the rest rejected. Various reasons for rejection most of which i can not grumble about. They have their criteria and i can live with that:
"overall composition of this file could be improved"
"....visible polygons, jagged lines, banding..."
"...posterization from excessive adjustments..."
At least their emails try to be polite and i am free to re-submit many if i can correct the problems they are seeing in the images. I am not sure that i will though but instead try to improve and create even better images altogether.
Still a few more uploads that might be worthy though so i will endeavor to persevere :)
Blender 3D magic
OK, so this is the last book on the subject of creating images (in one form or another) that i wanted to share with you folks. Unless i buy another book (which does happen on occasion, honest!) this will be the last book review for a while.
Blender is open source (meaning free) 3D software for budding graphic artists and professionals. Actually it is touted as a viable alternative to commercially available software and although i am but a novice and have no training as a 3D or graphic artist of any kind all i can say is that Blender certainly has the 'feel' of a very professional piece of kit.
This means that it 'feels' complicated and yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's not for beginners. It just means, like me, you have to be methodical and take your time to learn all it's innumerable variations.
If you look at the book reviews on amazon (click the image below this post and it will take you to the Amazon.co.uk page) you will notice that, for the most part, the main complaint regarding this book is the very poor quality greyscale images that accompany the lessons and tutorials. This is true. The images are next to useless and although it detracts from the book design it should not put you off teaching yourself how to use Blender like a Pro.
To explain: this is not the kind of book you would (generally) read in bed or on a train without your computer screen right in front of you. If you are serious about learning Blender and dedicated then the fact that the image previews are so very bad won't make any difference as you will have the book propped up in front of your computer screen (with a fizzy drinks can and a jar of marmite if you are like me) whilst you are learning and when the book says move "x" here or press button "y" there, you will see the result on the screen in front of you.
Then the poor quality images in the book that is trying to show you the same result will be evident (and of course not needed because you just did the same move on the screen!)
My advice after playing around with Blender for a couple of months last year is to take things very slowly and don't bite off too much too soon. As you learn a new keyboard shortcut (those shortcuts are essential by the way if you eventually want to work at a fairly good pace) then write it down on a large piece of paper and pin it up next your computer. Each day learn a little bit more.. and i emphasise a little bit more.
Once you have learnt something new don't simply move on but go over what you have learnt. Each day, learn something new even if it's just pressing a couple of buttons and moving the mouse slightly. But once you have that in your head and you sit down the following day for an hour or so then go through (again) what you learnt the previous days. (Remembering to write down each new method on your piece of paper that's pinned up on the wall in a short and concise sentence.) Eventually this repetition will start to sink in and you will no longer need to look at the book but will do it all by yourself.
Start with the simple basic stuff like this cube i made with a star background for instance:
Once you are confident you know exactly why the cube is that shape (instead of a sphere), how to re-size it, move it and change aspects like colour and shading then (and only then) move on to something a little more complicated.
Also, don't forget to make the most of what the internet has to offer including tutorials on youtube (some are better than others) and any other resource to help you learn a little bit more each and every day. The blender site itself should be your first port of call though: Blender.org
Blender has real potential in the right hands to create amazing images or just subtle images that look very natural like grass for instance:
Yes i know, my grass needs cutting as well as some lawn feed to make it thicker. I'm working on it! ;)
I realise i haven't really talked about the Blender book specifically like chapter titles and content etc but really there are plenty of reviews on amazon about what the book contains and my thoughts in writing this post were not to go into that which has already been covered by others but to hopefully reassure those that may have been put off by the concerns regarding the book images that you shouldn't worry too much about the lack of pretty pictures in "The Essential Blender Guide" but go for it regardless. If you want to learn 3D software and are willing to put a little effort in each day even for just half an hour then you will progress and who knows what you will one day create.
You probably have more knowledge about graphic design/art than i have but i managed to start creating more complicated images following this book and a few tutorials online. Like this guy for instance:
Yes he needs work too and a professional 3D artist might have a lot to say to me about anatomy but I'm still learning and hopefully i will have a decent looking guy in his own 3D world that i made for him.
So why i am looking at 3D more than 2D these days? Because 3D seems to be more and more popular on the microstock sites. At least that's what it looks like to me. Also, once you have created your 3D image you can move it around or adjust it's colour or texture, take a jpeg and upload it for approval a lot faster than 2D. Maybe you think otherwise and that's OK if it works for you as you might be (probably are) more competent than I at getting those 2D images via inkscape or another platform churned out.
For me though i struggle to get 10-15 images ready for adding to my microstock portfolio a month and that is just too slow for my liking. That's why i am looking more closely at sometime in the near future at producing high quality and saleable images via a better understanding of Blender. I'll keep you posted on any progress made.
In the mean time i hope this post has made you think more about the potential of Blender in relation to image creation and microstock possibilities and that although initially it may seem a daunting prospect (it was to me) that with a little patience and methodical work you can learn what at first glance seems a complicated program.
Don't forget to check out these useful tutorials which really helped me progress much faster than i otherwise would have: DavidAllenWard.com
Good luck and enjoy!
Blender is open source (meaning free) 3D software for budding graphic artists and professionals. Actually it is touted as a viable alternative to commercially available software and although i am but a novice and have no training as a 3D or graphic artist of any kind all i can say is that Blender certainly has the 'feel' of a very professional piece of kit.
This means that it 'feels' complicated and yes, it is, but that doesn't mean it's not for beginners. It just means, like me, you have to be methodical and take your time to learn all it's innumerable variations.
If you look at the book reviews on amazon (click the image below this post and it will take you to the Amazon.co.uk page) you will notice that, for the most part, the main complaint regarding this book is the very poor quality greyscale images that accompany the lessons and tutorials. This is true. The images are next to useless and although it detracts from the book design it should not put you off teaching yourself how to use Blender like a Pro.
To explain: this is not the kind of book you would (generally) read in bed or on a train without your computer screen right in front of you. If you are serious about learning Blender and dedicated then the fact that the image previews are so very bad won't make any difference as you will have the book propped up in front of your computer screen (with a fizzy drinks can and a jar of marmite if you are like me) whilst you are learning and when the book says move "x" here or press button "y" there, you will see the result on the screen in front of you.
Then the poor quality images in the book that is trying to show you the same result will be evident (and of course not needed because you just did the same move on the screen!)
My advice after playing around with Blender for a couple of months last year is to take things very slowly and don't bite off too much too soon. As you learn a new keyboard shortcut (those shortcuts are essential by the way if you eventually want to work at a fairly good pace) then write it down on a large piece of paper and pin it up next your computer. Each day learn a little bit more.. and i emphasise a little bit more.
Once you have learnt something new don't simply move on but go over what you have learnt. Each day, learn something new even if it's just pressing a couple of buttons and moving the mouse slightly. But once you have that in your head and you sit down the following day for an hour or so then go through (again) what you learnt the previous days. (Remembering to write down each new method on your piece of paper that's pinned up on the wall in a short and concise sentence.) Eventually this repetition will start to sink in and you will no longer need to look at the book but will do it all by yourself.
Start with the simple basic stuff like this cube i made with a star background for instance:
Once you are confident you know exactly why the cube is that shape (instead of a sphere), how to re-size it, move it and change aspects like colour and shading then (and only then) move on to something a little more complicated.
Also, don't forget to make the most of what the internet has to offer including tutorials on youtube (some are better than others) and any other resource to help you learn a little bit more each and every day. The blender site itself should be your first port of call though: Blender.org
Blender has real potential in the right hands to create amazing images or just subtle images that look very natural like grass for instance:
Yes i know, my grass needs cutting as well as some lawn feed to make it thicker. I'm working on it! ;)I realise i haven't really talked about the Blender book specifically like chapter titles and content etc but really there are plenty of reviews on amazon about what the book contains and my thoughts in writing this post were not to go into that which has already been covered by others but to hopefully reassure those that may have been put off by the concerns regarding the book images that you shouldn't worry too much about the lack of pretty pictures in "The Essential Blender Guide" but go for it regardless. If you want to learn 3D software and are willing to put a little effort in each day even for just half an hour then you will progress and who knows what you will one day create.
You probably have more knowledge about graphic design/art than i have but i managed to start creating more complicated images following this book and a few tutorials online. Like this guy for instance:
Yes he needs work too and a professional 3D artist might have a lot to say to me about anatomy but I'm still learning and hopefully i will have a decent looking guy in his own 3D world that i made for him.
So why i am looking at 3D more than 2D these days? Because 3D seems to be more and more popular on the microstock sites. At least that's what it looks like to me. Also, once you have created your 3D image you can move it around or adjust it's colour or texture, take a jpeg and upload it for approval a lot faster than 2D. Maybe you think otherwise and that's OK if it works for you as you might be (probably are) more competent than I at getting those 2D images via inkscape or another platform churned out.For me though i struggle to get 10-15 images ready for adding to my microstock portfolio a month and that is just too slow for my liking. That's why i am looking more closely at sometime in the near future at producing high quality and saleable images via a better understanding of Blender. I'll keep you posted on any progress made.
In the mean time i hope this post has made you think more about the potential of Blender in relation to image creation and microstock possibilities and that although initially it may seem a daunting prospect (it was to me) that with a little patience and methodical work you can learn what at first glance seems a complicated program.
Don't forget to check out these useful tutorials which really helped me progress much faster than i otherwise would have: DavidAllenWard.com
Good luck and enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
