Subscribe and save with our all-new image subscriptions.

Learn more
Close

SCAN: 17th century coats of arms

Displaying 1 to 20 of 20 matches.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:17AM
For the first few scans in this series, I inadvertently had the marquee tool set to a 20-pixel feather. Those were rejected as 'too feathered or too rough', and were re-processed with no feathering.

Another set also came back as 'too feathered or too rough', and I discovered that Photoshop had somehow contrived to add a one-pixel white margin down the right-hand edge. The margin was removed.

Nine or ten of these scans are now accepted, and this morning I have *this* 'too feathered or too rough' rejection. (The scan is over 20MB in size.)

I can't for the life of me see it. There is no feathering, and no one-pixel white margin. Any ideas, please?

General information: Each scan in this series is originally a line of five coats of arms. The isolation consists of using the marquee tool to move the last two shields to a position below the first three. This gives a more compact and visible thumbnail, and also allows the iStock watermark to cover more of the shields.

(Edited on 2013-02-25 05:02:31 by Whiteway)
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:26AM
I'm getting a 404 error when i click that link.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:35AM
^Thanks for looking, Kelvin. The original upload was corrupted, and I'm just experimenting with a replacement. It seems to be working now.

(Edited on 2013-02-25 07:09:31 by Whiteway)
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:00AM

Why didn't you upload as two images without any isolation?


No feathering is usually no good for iStock.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:10AM
^ Hi slobo. This series already amounts to 28 similar images. Also, five divided by two doesn't go. It's partly the maths that decided me to upload five at a time.

Of the 28, this is the only one that could possibly be objecting to sharp edges on the scanned objects. I can't see it as a valid objection, myself. As they stand, the two parts could be linked back together as the original row of five.
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:55AM
I see. Keep the original row of 5.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:07PM
^ The reason I didn't do that is in the OP, slobo. Also, I have nine or ten acceptances in this same format, three on top of two, and I don't want to break the pattern to have just one in a line of five. Hopefully, at the end of this, there will be 28 uploads, all accepted in the same arrangement.

I don't see what I can do to address the inspector's concerns.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:00AM
Any more ideas? I'm left with nowhere to go on this re-submission.
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:17AM
I seem to vaguely remember someone in the past who had a rejection for a scan of something getting rejected for being part cropped to the object, part white space. For what it's worth Roger, I'd have left a small amount of white space all the way round and feathered the edges by 2px. Failing that it's Scout.
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:50AM
I think it looks pretty ugly chopped up like that. I get the reasons for doing it regarding making a squarer thumbnail, but I don't really like it like that. I appreciate you've had similar ones accepted, but although it can be used as a design element, it's hard for me to think of a way it could be used as is, or without quite a lot of messing about.

As for the feathering, I'm not sure what would be appropriate for such an hacked up scanned image. I'm inclined to believe that the feathering doesn't matter much as whoever buys it and has a need of it in its current state, would surely have the necessary skills and software to manipulate it to meet their purposes.

If I were you I'd try Scout.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:43AM
^ Thanks, both.

I hadn't thought of it as a hacked-about design element, though that throws a different light on it.

To reconstitute the line of armorials just requires lifting the severed bottom section and re-attaching to the right. Having no feathering allows the entire line of five to be re-made.

I see this as five separate coats of arms, and a buyer's interest may be more to do with genealogy. The individual coats of arms are small, perhaps an inch or so in height, which is why I've had to think how to group them.

Thanks again – Scout it is. When I get a free ticket... With the current changes going on around raster images, my ticket allocation is gobbled up.

ETA: Scout's comments back up your opinion, Kelvin. I will break up this series into single-row twos, and deactivate the ones already accepted. Which is actually slobo's suggestion from above.

(Edited on 2013-02-26 09:55:21 by Whiteway)
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:08AM
UPDATE: I am re-scanning these armorials two-at-a-time. At the moment, there are 17 – plus a few scanned in 5s that will be deactivated anyway – in the Executive queue.

ETA: Minutes later, I have a first acceptance for this group. Hopefully a good sign. A bad sign is that the inspector removed the keyword [ Engraved Image (Illustration Technique)], and these are copperplate engravings.

(Edited on 2013-02-28 01:55:15 by Whiteway)
CaroleGomez
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightStrictly for the hardcore, this badge is only worn by Wiki Warriors from Way Back When. The ones that just Wiki'd for fun, before it was all cool and popular. The Old School.
Posted Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:07AM
Don't worry about them all going into the exective queue Roger, it's a little temporary work around we're having to employ for the new raster inspection process.

(Edited on 2013-02-28 04:07:48 by CaroleGomez)
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:30AM
^ Thanks, Carole. I was coming to the realisation!
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Mar 5, 2013 12:48AM
Thanks to everyone for their contributions. Mostly overnight, I have 75 acceptances for these coats of arms arranged as follows:

file_thumbview_approve

Scout confirmed that the arrangement in fives was too messy.

I would mention, though, that a rejection for 'isolation too feathered or too rough' was far from helpful in this case.

Still, the main thing is that the final uploads are of much better quality.

(Edited on 2013-03-05 02:39:19 by Whiteway)
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Tue Mar 5, 2013 2:33AM
Nice. Hope they do well for you.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Mar 5, 2013 2:41AM
Posted By kelvinjay:
Hope they do well for you. :)

You and me both! A fair amount of effort went into them.
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Mar 5, 2013 2:49AM
I can see it was a fair bit of work. Good luck with them Roger.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Tue Mar 5, 2013 12:23PM

Posted By Whiteway:

I would mention, though, that a rejection for 'isolation too feathered or too rough' was far from helpful in this case.



Indeed. A brief explanation would have made a world of difference here. I'll see what I can do to pass this along.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Mar 5, 2013 2:47PM
^ Appreciated, Donald.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 20 of 20 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)