We’re sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock. With the rapid growth of the iStock collection, we give valuable consideration to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all submissions.

This is called the "Subpar" rejection. Perhaps you're familiar with it. It means there's a certain something lacking from your illustration that is holding it back from the collection. But what does that mean, "not suitable"? What isn't suitable about it? What the h*ck is subpar around these parts? To help demonstrate some of the common causes for subpar rejections we sent our vector inspectors away with some homework. Each inspector created 2 illustrations of the same subject, one demonstrating common subpar issues. There’s just something about a subpar vector that’s easier to show than to explain. The second illustration then corrects the problems of the subpar version, making it suitable not just for stock, but for iStock.

Most of the time, subpar has nothing to do with your concept or subject matter: it has to do with how well you pull it off. Every little decision, even the ones no one notices, will impact your final illustration. So kick back and relax, and see if you can spot what makes the “good” vectors better than their subpar counterparts.

It's All About The Details (Bortonia)

Once upon a time vector files had a teeny tiny 270 pixel preview thumbnail, with no zoom feature. Happily those days are long gone and all new vector uploads boast the same zoomable preview image as their photo counterparts. Unfortunately this also means that your vectors are going to be scrutinized closer than ever before. That’s why it’s important to take a close look at your illustration before you submit.

Are the curves in your shape curvy, or choppy? Do your shapes meet up cleanly at the edges, or are there small gaps where you rushed while drawing? Sometimes a file will look fine from the preview but once it’s opened into vector editing software it suddenly won’t be as pretty. And yes, customers do notice rushed details.

Example 1 looks pretty nice from the thumbnail (what an adorable dog!), but zoom in a little and you’ll see all sorts of problems. The fur is rumpled like someone didn’t read the ‘dry clean only’ tag, and shapes are crossing over themselves left and right. Crossed shapes, while not a technical issue per say, tend to scream “rushed!” and “I haven’t learned to use the pen tool properly yet”! Fur shouldn’t look this gloppy, bedraggled and messy!

Example 2 is much, much cleaner up close. The fur is smooth and each hair ends in a tidy point. The eyes are perfectly round now and it’s easier to see the dog’s cute little mustache, since all the sloppiness of the first Example has been cleaned up. You might want to pass on petting the first dog, it looks like it may have fleas. Puppy number 2 is ready for adoption.

It's Still About The Details (Colonel)

Now please don’t think that tidy details are only important when you’re drawing something realistic. Attention to detail is important no matter what you’re drawing, even if it’s something as common as a seamless pattern.

From a distance, Example 1 doesn't look too different from the example next to it. But when we get up nice and close it’s just plain sloppy work that not even a mother could love. It’s as though a time limit was set for the completion of this illustration. The lines aren't smooth and in places the paths are crossing right over themselves. Everything looks rushed and sloppy. Look at the bud: the spaces between the emerging petals should be uniform but here they’re all over the place. Lack of care has killed this poor plant. It almost looks like a bad autotrace.

Example 2 isn’t too different from the other one right? Well wait 'til you get up close. The first pattern looked like the artist had several beers under their belt, while Example 2 was clearly created by a master craftsman. This file has smooth curves, uniform spaces between appropriate elements and sharp, clearly defined leaves. The shapes of the outer and inner curves are reciprocal. Paths aren't crossing over themselves. Good job... now you can have that drink.

Linework (72ppi)

Illustrator offers a few ‘default’ options for outlines. You get your simple, mechanical-styled strokes in whatever point size you choose. You also get nifty strokes that look like paint, or chalk; oooh, aah! Unfortunately, many designers have seen these default stroke effects used, over and over again. To stand out from the crowd you’ll need to take things to the next level.

We’ll admit, Example 1 isn’t a bad illustration at all. The proportions are good, the details are relatively clean and there’s some nice color happening. But it could have been a heck of a lot more interesting! You’ll notice all of the lines, while cleanly executed, are the plain ol’ boring 1 point default stroke ending in your typical, bland rounded ends. Every line in the file is the exact same weight. While using default stroke weights can work very nicely on subjects like diagrams and mechanical drawings, it’s not working so well on this hand. Even on mechanical and technical drawings you should still be customizing your stroke weights, or using several different weights to help differentiate between specific sections within the drawing. The line work here lacks both style and personality.

Example 2 is far more exciting. We’ve used what’s called ‘variable’ line weights, meaning the strokes travel from thick to thin. Variable lines are much more natural looking: Even though real-life objects don’t have outlines around them, if they did, we bet they’d be variable and not a consistent 1 point black stroke. Variable lines can be created by outlining your strokes and then playing around with the edges; you can create your own brushes to do the work for you. Working with variable lines can be daunting at first but it’ll elevate your illustrations from amateur to pro.

Autotraces (Bortonia)

Now that we’ve talked about some common mistakes from manual drawing, it’s time to discuss problems with the automated variety. Inexperienced illustrators often depend on autotrace features (like Streamline and LiveTrace), they’re so quick and easy and require almost no thought… Or so it seems. The sad fact is autotraces can really mangle an image. You need to prepare your source file very carefully or risk having your submission kicked back for lack of planning. In many ways it’s actually faster to draw the file by hand!

Example 1 shows an autotrace of a cowboy on a horse. The shapes are jagged and messy, and since the source photo was slightly overexposed the neck of the horse and the cowboy’s shirt are completely lost against the background (look at the random head floating in space!). Remember, if your source photo isn’t the best, chances are your autotrace will also suffer. This one’ll need a lot of tidying in order to pass inspection.

Our second file, Example 2, was traced by hand and took only 10 minutes longer than the autotraced version. The shapes are smooth and clean, and we’ve added lines around the horse’s neck and the cowboy’s shirt so you can see the shapes better. We’ve also been able to tidy up the horse’s tail and mane, removed the distracting leg bandages and simplified the details on the saddle to clean up the composition. Yeehaw, ride ‘em, cowboy!

Color And Composition (Mecaleha)

There are an awful lot of choices to make while creating a vector. We can decide exactly where each shape gets placed and what color it’ll be. This is a big advantage over photography, where you’re limited by what’s in front of your lens and your skills in Photoshop. The downside to endless choice is we often make the wrong ones when it comes to color and composition.

Example 1 simply isn’t making any sense. The shapes are all fighting with each other for the viewer’s attention, rather than integrating the way you’d expect a good composition to. There’s no clear flow to the placement of each shape so your eye just bounces around with nowhere to go. The shapes are roughly drawn and sloppy to boot. This background would be really tough for a designer to use: it’s cluttered, busy, and there’s nowhere to place their text.

Example 2 is much better. There’s a clear flow: all the shapes in the file help lead your eye towards the sphere. The composition is further reinforced by the placement of arrows on the right hand side of the page. The color scheme is unified and coherent, with a subtle vignette to help further draw you into the frame.

Cropping and Alignment (Jayesh)

There are countless ways to organize vector elements on an artboard. That’s one of the best things about vectors: It’s easy to break them apart and tinker with individual shapes, without the loss of image quality you often see when editing a raster file. That said, vectors can easily suffer from poor decisions when it comes to composition and cropping.

The elements in Example 1 have been aligned to the vertical or horizontal edges of each other. This creates awkwardly tight eye movements for the viewers, and makes things appear cut off.

Negative space is wonderful when used effectively. On the other hand, abandoning large areas of real estate within an illustration, or chopping off shapes without forethought, just shows poor planning, like in Example 2.

Clumping everything into the centre in Example 3 not only creates a rushed and unplanned composition, it is just bad feng shui.

With the final ‘corrected’ example we wanted to demonstrate a few key points. Notice how the items are grouped into three spaces: the foreground (the TV and TV stand), the mid-ground (the chair, end table and camera), and the background (the basketball poster on the wall). This divides and organizes the composition for our viewer and will allow their eye to travel through the each part of the illustration, just like telling a story. Not seeing it? Let us explain…

The foreground elements are an example of good overlapping. The shapes aren't tightly spaced and they don't touch each other at weird points. There is a small but healthy gap between the chair and the TV, which lets the viewer know that these two elements are engaged with each other but aren't the same part of the story.

In the mid-ground we’ve demonstrated a way to not overlap objects while still maintaining eye flow and perspective with the placement of the chair, camera and end table. This compositional trick isn’t for everyone, but we wanted to give the viewers time to breathe, and not go overkill on one particular way to show depth.

The poster on the wall is in the background, but we used the lamp as an aid for eye movement. The lamp points from the mid-ground chair and overlaps the poster just enough to let our viewers know it is there, but since it isn't a major part of the story, it quickly brings the eye back to the foreground (like a cycle).

Another thing to note is the cropping. The poster is running off the top of the page because otherwise it would have created an awkward division at the top of the composition. This would have detracted, rather then added to, the overall composition. The bottom of the TV stand also runs off the page on the same vertical plane as the poster. This commands the space and leads the viewer’s eye inward. One last thing: Take a look at the space between the edge of the TV stand and the edge of the picture. Cropping the stand in two places would have been awkward; instead we’ve left a healthy little gap that’s similar in size to the space between the chair and the TV.

Proportion (Jayesh)

Stylization and exaggeration of the human figure is way cool and we encourage it, however you still need to keep in mind where exaggeration works and where it doesn’t. Just remember that when stylizing you should still be paying attention to the basic rules of proportion.

We’ve used the classic ‘proportions of man’ to demonstrate. Example 1, on the left, shows a myriad of proportional mistakes. The head is too small, the arms are all different lengths, the hands and feet vary in size from honkin’ huge to miniscule, and the legs are too short. This is one weird looking dude, and it’s clearly not because of artistic license.

The man in Example 2, while highly stylized, follows an actual human’s proportions much more closely. The limbs are all the correct lengths and the hands are the right size (remember, a human hand is approximately the same size as a face). Here’s a great example of how to create a distinctive style and feel while maintaining an accurate human proportion.

The Little Things (Bortonia)

Small mistakes, like layers getting shuffled in the wrong order, mismatched perspectives or proportional inaccuracies can often mean the difference between acceptance and rejection. Before you go nuts and add tons of detail, take a long hard look at your base shapes. Is the perspective correctly applied to every object? Are all the shapes organized onto the correct layers? How are the proportions working out? The key here is to identify problem areas before you add the finishing touches.

Example 1 has a lot going for it: lovely colors, a nice composition and a useable concept. Too bad the proportions of the woman are so off! Her legs are different lengths/widths and there’s a lack of articulation in her wrists, elbows, knees and ankles Her curves are more angular than round and she looks stiff and awkward. Her hands are such clumsy mittens we’re amazed she can hold onto her martini (the contents of which are angled against gravitational pull, incidentally). No amount of nice shading and highlights can salvage this poor woman.

Example 2 has the exact same background, the same amount of detail and the same shading… But what a difference a correctly proportioned body can make! Limbs were angled into many different positions before striking the right balance between curve and angle. Once the body looked right the details were added. Bottom’s up.

Click of a Button? (from the team, with love)

Much like Photoshop, Illustrator’s filters can be activated with the click of a button to create things like fuzzy lines, puckered shapes, waves, swoops, bulges; the list goes on and on. Distort and Stylize filters can save you from blood, sweat and tears but only when used wisely.

Single-click effects don’t necessarily make great stock images when submitted on their own. People don’t like spending money on vectors that any monkey with access to a computer could create. Don’t be afraid to learn how to use your pen tool, leave the filters to the newbies.

The following effects were created with a single mouse-click… And it shows. Yawn.

A Little Planning Goes a Long Way (Chieferu)

Nothing will help get an illustration started off on the right foot better than sitting down with a pencil and a piece of paper, and carefully planning what’s going to go where. Sketching out your ideas can save a lot of time and heartache! It’s much easier to work around mistakes on paper than to muddle through a fully composed vector illustration. Sketching out your ideas lets you quickly experiment with different compositions long before you break out the pen tool in Illustrator.

Example 1 really suffers from lack of planning. There are unnecessary gradients all over the place, the details of the file are sloppy, and the line weights are inconsistent throughout (in fact some shapes don’t even have outlines, which is distracting). Compositionally, all of the shapes appear to have been plopped down at random. Oh yeah, perspective has also been completely ignored.

The elements that created clutter have been removed in Example 2, resulting in a much cleaner and more dynamic composition. The gradients have been minimized and there’s much more attention to detail: all the shapes meet up exactly at the edges. The curves are smoother. The colors were chosen with care to imply a mood (that of an old fashioned comic book), and outlines have been removed in favor of carefully drawn details. There’s now perspective to the planet’s craters, which ties the composition together and gives a sense of realism and depth.

Style (Bortonia)

There are lots of stylistic techniques you can use to add oomph to a vector and give an illustration your own personal flair. Color combinations, line weights, graphic simplification, shading and highlights, and texture can all be manipulated to create different looks and feels. The trick is to pick a style and stick with it: mixing and matching styles can get distracting quick unless handled by an experienced professional.

Each of the characters in Example 1 are great. The problem is they have nothing to do with each other, stylistically. We have the simplified cartoony ladies in the back, a comic-style outlined girl in striped socks, a realistic business man, and then a more detailed cartoony woman in the foreground. The overall effect is weird, disjointed, and distracting. While it’s tempting to reuse elements from existing vector files in a new composition you still need to ensure everything matches in the end.

In Example 2, all of the characters are drawn in the same style: simplified, geometric, and angular. The colors are all flat with no gradients or detailed shading, and the color palette plays on a warm/cool complimentary color scheme (red and green). Nothing jumps out as being out of place or at the wrong party.

Gradients (Colonel)

We see this time and time again: new vector illustrators who are smitten with gradient effects. We’ve never been able to figure out why this is (though we’ll all admit, under pressure, that we were the same way when we first started illustrating).

Gradients can add instant depth and volume to a shape with the click of a button and make surfaces gleam. However, it takes a good understanding of how light works to turn a gradient into the powerful tool it can be in the right hands.

Example 1 is a simple file, which would work very well as line art or with some simple shading. But wait: let’s try to make it look nice and rounded with some neat-o gradients! Ouch. Wrong. The gradients here are way too harsh. Creating a gradient that transitions from a solid color all the way to white or black usually ends up looking pretty nasty. That cigarette filter looks horrible with that amount of contrast between the opposite ends of the gradient… After all, filters are made of colored paper, not chrome! The gradients are better on the white part of the cigarette because the contrast isn't as dramatic, but still they really aren't suited to the style of this illustration with its thick heavy outline. Besides, the surgeon general says smoking's bad for you.

We've kept the outlines the same in Examples 2 and 3, all we've changed is the interior coloring technique. The example on the far right is simple flat color, which is clean, bold and simple. The middle example uses a little shading to show a bit of depth, but it's nice and subtle and doesn't interfere with the style of the illustration. I'm still not saying you should light up but this cigarette would clearly be much easier on the eyes/lungs.

Let’s look at another example. Example 1: We’re going to try to use gradients to turn a simple line art illustration into something it's not (in this case a nice shiny 3D render). While gradients can be used to give the illusion of chromed metal, this time it just isn’t working. Again, the color graduation on the gradient is too contrast-y and unnatural. On the side of the padlock we have a sharp transition for no real apparent reason. Something that can give the impression of cheap 80s clipart (not that there's anything wrong with that!) is on the metal lock bar part of the padlock: The gradient of the lock goes from dark to light upwards, but the lowlight on the side goes the opposite direction. And what’s with the freaky angle of the gradient on the side of the padlock?

In Example 2, all of the gradients have been stripped away and replaced with simple flat colors, which is much more effective and appropriate for this style of illustration. There’s just enough shading and highlights on the top part of the lock to add a sense of volume, all achieved through flat colors that’ll print nicely. Now lock this file before you're tempted to add more gradients.

Gradients + Outlines + Highlights... Oh, My (Spotblind)

It’s easy to get carried away in the style department. You can add strokes, textures, gradients, patterns, you name it: why limit yourself to just one effect?! Well, it all comes down to consistency. Consistency is critical and the more you clutter your image with unnecessary elements, the more distracting and confused the final results will be. This is a key consideration to remember when illustrating for stock: The designer already has a message they need to convey… Your illustration will be used to support this message. Distracting and competing effects within a file can seriously detract from the usability of your illustration.

When planning your image you should start from the ground up and decide what the final look you want is: Light and delicate? Bold and strong? Shiny or matte? Comical, cute, whimsical, dramatic, serious? Once you’ve nailed the look and feel you’d like to aim for, every element you add should support the look. That’s not to say you can’t change your mind once you’ve started with a particular style. As long as you know what you’d like to convey to the viewer, chances are the end result will have a clear message and consistent look and feel.

Flowers have always been a popular subject to upload. Example 1 is pretty decent... But it could be a heck of a lot better, and with the amount of flower submissions this’d need some polish to get approved. The spirals are ragged and rushed, which doesn’t fit in with the soft gradients on the petals. The highlights are very sharp (perhaps this is a plastic flower?), and for some reason only 2 of the leaves have veins… Not very pretty veins at that, especially where they’ve cut right over the stem of the flower (on the lower right). The finished image is confused, cluttered, and not likely to attract any bees.

Example 2, on the other hand, is the kind of blossom you’d want to give that special someone. The distracting strokes from the first flower have been replaced with strong shapes that are subtly tinted to give a hint of depth and volume. The harsh gradients have been toned down and the highlights softened. We’ve removed the mismatched leaves and replaced them with 2 strong, simple leaves that are drawn in the same style. On the blossom itself some extra highlight/shadow shapes have been added to each petal, then carefully colored to look 3-dimensional… You can almost smell it.

Last But Certainly Not Least... (Borisz)

Finally, in the tradition of our ‘not suitable’ articles we'd like to congratulate borisz, for proving the old axiom "a picture is worth a thousand words". Nothing we could come up with illustrates the difference between subpar and stock better than these two gems: