Jump to content

Shutterstock Has Made Uploading Vectors Easier Than Ever


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 690
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here's a great vector from Ecco. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/big-collection-spring-summer-colorful-flowers-1301017918?src=pdxYEDqm-1P8UpFlOpwRWA-1-7 Here's the illustration ins

Posted Images

All this "we are doing it for you" is a sweet tale, business is always a business, and it's ok. But when I try to find a business reason for such a decision all that is coming to my mind is the following. Some vector artists do not upload raster copies of their files as illustrations, some just don't know about this option, and Shutterstock doesn't want to lose that money anymore. If true reason lies there than the easiest way to solve this problem is setting the size of the jpeg preview to not less than 4mp (or even more) and automatically upload it to the illustration section. In this case, everybody will be happy.
And one more thought. 4mp is very small, I personally generate raster copies at 25mp and I don't want to lose customers who need bigger resolution jpegs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Shutterstock!

I think the new rules are a very bad idea. Some vector files with a size of 4 mp will be larger than 50 mb. Shutterstock has always been a place where it was possible to develop and do something new. But now you impose your requirements on the authors. As a result, the authors will not be able to draw highly detailed pictures with mesh, blend. Everyone will have to draw only simple pictures. Please leave both ways to upload images: old and new. 

123.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 11:18 AM, cobalt88 said:

Hello! I have a few examples from my portfolio: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1334446475, after resizing eps = 1,235 Gb, http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1246466296, after resizing eps = 1,279 Gb.

Best regards to all - its my first post here ! :) BTW more then 10 years on Shutterstock, more then 500 000 DL. Please Shutterstock team dont do these changes!.

Hello Cobalt,

 

I feel in your same situation! I'm also here since 2009 and I'sold over 599000 images here! If you just browse my portfolio I'm sure that 90% of my vectors will occupy hundreds of MB in size if upsized to 4MP. I'll simply be forced to quit the upload of new complex vector here... ( even if in the last 3 heres sales drastically dropped down allover in this industry...)...

And why shall we all have to struggle to attach keywords to the eps ? When a jpg preview is fine and we already do that for all other agencies?

Honestly I don't believe that other contributors asked to upload vectors without jpg... if that's true they are for sure not-professional ..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most terrible innovation! I have been working at Shutterstock since 2011 and I am disappointed that the authors were not even asked what their opinion on this was, but simply put before the fact. I make a realistic image and with a size of 4 megapixels and they are much larger than 50 megabytes. I do not understand who and why this is necessary. There are no problems with creating jpg files, as this is done for all microstocks. Why not leave it as it is or leave the authors a choice?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also oppose these totally unnecessary changes. You're not making things easier this way for us, so stop saying that you are. Cancel the plans and keep the old upload system in place. It saves us extra work, it saves your programming team extra work, it saves you money.

i WANT to upload a JPG because I prefer to add metadata to the preview. The new system messes up my workflow so I'll refrain from uploading until the changes are reverted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of complaints here, and they are all well founded,  but has anyone asked the question of why  they are doing this?

Here's what  I have a problem with wrapping my head around.  Increasing the physical size of a vector does absolutely nothing,  nada,  zilch,  to increase the quality of the final product.  It just  doesn't--what it does is add a whole bunch of numbers to the empty space between points,  thereby  increasing the file size,  with  no  effect what-so-ever,  NONE, on the end quality of the images.  

Someone higher up,  that has absolutely no idea how a vector image works, made this decision based upon faulty reasoning.  Period,  that is the only real scenario  that I can envision. 

Some of my mesh  gradients that  I have posted in the past have actually had to  be sized smaller(physically) in order to be uploaded here. 


You see,  that's the disconnect that is happening.  The people that  made this decision have no idea what  they  are even talking about.  A vector the size of a postage stamp can be scaled up  to  the size of the moon, and still  be the same exact vector as it was when it was postage stamp sized, and not lose one iota of quality. So  there is literally no  reason to  do this.  

Again to  be as perfectly clear as I can possibly be.....

Increasing the size of a vector has absolutely no  effect on the actual quality of the image!

...if you think that,  then you don't understand how vector images work, and if you don't understand how a vector image works, then you have no  business making these decisions,  step  back and let someone with the actual qualifications and knowledge to  make those decisions lead the way. Seriously.  

There is another stock  site that also requires very large vectors,  they sell  for more, and at first I didn't understand why  they did that, and then I realized they allowed raster effects to  be applied to  their vectors,  but now if you have a raster effects applied to  a vector,  you don't really have a vector image anymore do you? You have a hybrid that is unworthy of the title 'Vector'....

...in the meantime, this other site,  sells my images for a lot more, and they do  sell,  but  and I say  this with all  the weight that  you should come to understand,  I quit uploading there because it was far too  difficult to upsize even flat pen&ink style line art to  that  size.  I literally quit posting there because of the incredible strain it put on my system to  get my files to a point that they would be accepted.  It  simply wasn't worth it to post there. 

Think about that long and hard because you're literally going to lose the majority of the people posting vectors overnight,  and you gain absolutely nothing.  Not one single image will increase in quality,  Not one.

You are literally alienating the majority of illustrators in order to gain absolutely nothing-NOTHING. 

Edited by Weiesnbach
I kant speel write et all
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Weiesnbach said:

....

Increasing the size of a vector has absolutely no  effect on the actual quality of the image!

...if you think that,  then you don't understand how vector images work, and if you don't understand how a vector image works, then you have no  business making these decisions,  step  back and let someone with the actual qualifications and knowledge to  make those decisions lead the way. Seriously.  
 

We know how vectors work, and we understand that the size of the vector has nothing to do with the quality. Vectors are not pixel based, they are mathematical. Rasterized jpegs based on those vectors, however, are pixel based. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jeff D. said:

We know how vectors work, and we understand that the size of the vector has nothing to do with the quality. Vectors are not pixel based, they are mathematical. Rasterized jpegs based on those vectors, however, are pixel based. 

in that case surely you should have programming that will create the vector at the size required and then rasterize ... rather than this situation that will cripple the work of so many people!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff D. said:

We know how vectors work, and we understand that the size of the vector has nothing to do with the quality. Vectors are not pixel based, they are mathematical. Rasterized jpegs based on those vectors, however, are pixel based. 

Rasterized JPEGs resolution can be 1 million megapixels based on a 100x100 vector file without any loss of quality, did you know that? Rasterized image megapixel count or quality does not depend on the vector file artboard size. So there is absolutely NO reason for this new requirement. This is what we the artists all understand, but some one who made up this new requirement, clearly does not. Why a person without any basic knowledge of how things work in converting vectors to raster JPEGs is even allowed to make such decisions in a company like Shutterstock? You alienate your authors right now, making it impossible for them to work with your site.

 

P.S.: if your current programmers team is unable to do an EPS scaling procedure, then maybe you need to hire someone else for the job. I work full time for a graphic design company and we have this technology on our website since 2012. A company as huge as Shutterstock can do it too, if you hire the right guy. Don't turn Shutterstock's vector collection into a set of primitive and basic images by not letting artists to upload good quality complex illustrations just because your programmers can't do the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff D. said:

We know how vectors work, and we understand that the size of the vector has nothing to do with the quality. Vectors are not pixel based, they are mathematical. Rasterized jpegs based on those vectors, however, are pixel based. 

Maybe give you the contacts of NORMAL programmers who can solve the problem of generating jpg from a vector of any size? I am sure there will be such friends among all the authors who wrote here. 

But in reality there is no need for it at all.
We have already written above: the contributor does not have a problem with the creation of jpg preview! THIS IS NO PROBLEMS!

It would be better if you threw all the forces in search of a good hr manager. 

-------------------------------

Please sign the petition to show SS how many contributors are not agree with their "innovation": https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-the-limitation-of-eps-files-to-4-megapixels-on-shutterstock  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that increasing vector files to 4 mp allows Shutterstock to do a simpler algorithm for automatically creating jpg. And there is a chance for servers to handle the amount of computation.
If my guess is correct and this is the only reason of changes, I don't know what to say. It's a madness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff D. said:

We know how vectors work, and we understand that the size of the vector has nothing to do with the quality. Vectors are not pixel based, they are mathematical. Rasterized jpegs based on those vectors, however, are pixel based. 

I think your team has some kind of “deadline” to launch “something” for some achievement or another reason. Everyone here tries to share the pros and cons of what will happen. The fact that you should not ignore.

 

I think you also know that the problem came from rasterized jpegs that your team cannot make it as high res enough to sale with small EPS, then you just threw the big problem to contributors instead of finding the new one who good at mathematical to solve the problem. Is this better to make it happen first before any smooth transition? The fact is so simple if you can’t rasterize high-res jpegs, this means your team not ready yet, so why not make it happen first?

 

At least, do the real-world EPS extensive test with 2000 x 2000px in every kind of vectors from basic flat to the complex one that available in the market now, every possibility, every angles as much as possible. I am 100% sure that you will find the answer that's why everyone here takes the time to feedback.

 

if you want to test my EPS, please let me know, I am more than happy to send you a small size similar to the one that selling on the market now, then you can try upscale to 2000 x 2000px and then let me know how can I do to fit for your new implementation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello friends
In light of the new requirements on the shutter, a question arose about the size of the file. I work in Corel usually exported in a4 size ai format. then he opened it in the illustrator and kept in size without problems. Now I am making the size A1 in Corel somewhere 9 by 9 thousand pixel in Corel. In the illustrator it opens already with a size of about 2 per 2 thousand pixels. It's enough? Who decides how 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff D. said:

We know how vectors work, and we understand that the size of the vector has nothing to do with the quality. Vectors are not pixel based, they are mathematical. Rasterized jpegs based on those vectors, however, are pixel based. 

So, you know that the question is not about bounding box size, but about Shutterstock's coders. And the solution that has been proposed is totally non competitive with microstock agencies who already has such opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Oleksii Arseniuk said:

So, you know that the question is not about bounding box size, but about Shutterstock's coders. And the solution that has been proposed is totally non competitive with microstock agencies who already has such opportunity.

Exactly. Just because their coders are not qualified enough to implement this properly, this is "Easier Than Ever" to just make artists do this, and if they can't do this for obvious reasons ('cause no quality illustration would fit in 50Mb), this becomes a truly "Easier Than Ever" uploading process - you just don't upload. Easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aleksandr Sadkov said:

The only way to make them think again is stop uploading new vectors.

All these complains here are useless, they never listened and don't like to accept that they are not right.

I agree! Moreover, not only not uploading new works, but delete old works. Starting from most ugly, of course)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeff D. said:

Vectors are not pixel based, they are mathematical. Rasterized jpegs based on those vectors, however, are pixel based. 

Then  when you make your JPEGS on this side,  scale them  upwards before you rasterize, why in the world would you ask  your contributors to to do it on their side--in the vector file itself, which can  easily lead to complex vectors being in the 100s of megabytes? That's what everyone has a problem understanding here.

You need rasterized files at a certain  size(I get that),  so  rather than implementing a strategy that allows you to produce the size you need, from any vector uploaded(this would be the most efficient route-by far),  you're putting the burden  on the contributors, and asking them to do, what in their minds, is flat out ridiculous and makes absolutely no  sense. 

Why  not save everyone the headache  and figure out a way  to  determine the dimensions of an uploaded file(I bet you're already doing that),  and then determine the degree to  which it needs to  be scaled to meet your requirements, and then simply scale it on your end before rasterizng it?  Simple,  straightforward,  gets the job done.

I will  gladly submit a JPEG along with my vectors that is in the 4mp size(no problem),  but a mesh gradient at that size would be enormous(I could easily see it approaching the gigabyte range), and there's the problem.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...