Jump to content
Anna Shutterstock

Shutterstock Has Made Uploading Vectors Easier Than Ever

Recommended Posts

I feel like people who are responsible for this kind of changes completely not understand contributors and how they work and upload content. I hope they will listen to us.

 

PS: In 2018 my income from Shutterstock increased +10% in the same time and with the same portfolio my income from Adobe Stock increased +200% and now on a par with Shutterstock. I am happy that my income less depend on Shutterstock because I don't trust it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Shutterstock,
I experimented and increased the size of the vector files, which are now sold on Shutterstock to 4MP. New files began to weigh more than 300MB. I beg you to please do not enter the requirement that EPS files at least 4 MP. This requirement will not allow to create detailed, realistic vector images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Separisa said:

This is absolutely unacceptable change. There is a huge problem on Bigstock (which is owned by Shutterstock if i'm not mistaking) with auto exported preview - wrong colors on every 2-3 illustration (despite RGB etc.). Blue falls into green shades, beige into yellow, people look like zombies and bright pictures become dirty brown. Not saying about pixels-noise-glitch export style of anything more complicated than basic flat illustration (I'm writing to their support with question if this ever be fixed three years or even longer and every time i receive reply oh yes we know but we work hard to fix this issue). And not saying about "4MP" and "50Mb" are not going to be together in any other case than, again, basic flat illustration (or another mega pack of shitty garbage quality icons). You wanted synthwave in 2019 Trends - there will be no synthwave that fit 50Mb on 4Mp quality, forget about it. Gold effects, neon signs, metal textures, and literally half of everything we saw in the "wanted by people" article is impossible now, because of irrelevant random change.

Can we see, please, the content that was tested, as administrator wrote earlier? What art was tested exactly? Were there complex mesh Christmas or spring designs that are so loved by clients and Shutterstock self promo team? Or textures? Or anything with more that 15 shapes in it?

If there is a problem to satisfy huge volumes of demand of clients who want to buy big jpegs auto-extracted from eps files (as Shutter already does for a long time) because the heavy vector is packed into small 100x100 artboard and therefore exports with glitches - leave 50Mp limit and make the minimum art sizes 500x500 points in vector file. Or ask to fing the compromise someone who is smarter than the person who suggested these changes (or at least understand the minimal basics of how vector graphic works). Don't squish authors even more to receive more money for yourself, at least leave everything as it was if you don't want to change to real "easier than ever" things. 

I would understand innovative approach of experiments, but this thing is not new and experienced contributors of 5 to 10 years of vector drawing already saw the results on other platforms - they didn't survive as successful microstocks and died. And I'm not even start now about the announcement that was cowardly given three days before switching on pretty major changes and looks like all the ugly things made earlier by other once popular microstocks which eventually lost their contributors, received boycotts and then just died. 

Shutterstock is already not the main money source for major part of stock contributor, with those endless algorithm changes, terrible dashboard redesign that kills any possibility to track and analyse workflow. There are other sites (we all know which ones) who grow fast and already bring more than SS (with its fixed monthly sells and disappearing royalties). The last straw can break very easily, but probably shutterstock really accumulated too much of content already and not interested in new.

I agree with every word. It doesn't make my work "easier" at all.. Who comes up with all these stupid ideas? Shutterstock doesn't even listen the authors who makes your money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Composite illustrations in the style of "realism", which are now popular, with 4 megapixels will have a size of more than 50 megabytes several times.

What to do in such cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of something I won't be able to upload anymore... With dimensions 2000px*2000px it's about 92 Mb (All details removed). Well Istock sells it better anyway.

 

orange_crown_test.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello dear Shutterstock management!

4MPx is definitely a bad decision for my portfolio and works. Automatic jpg generation and adding metadata to eps files on the contrary is good.

  1. Proportions! Not all of our artwork have same proportions (e.g. 1:1), so we would need to calculate sizes for each image which is time consuming or add background to meet new size requirements to save time. I think it's easy to predict that in some time most of new vector Shutterstock uploads will have opaque backgrounds instead of transparent backgrounds.
  2. File size! A small but definitely important precent of illustrations using complex geometry with blend and/or mesh will be thrown out or must be simplified. See example attachment. To resolve this issue I see only one option — up the eps standard higher than eps 10.
  3. Automatic jpg generation is great news, but it's easy to predict errors on your side while exporting vectors with complex blend modes to jpg's. Hope I'm wrong. 
  4. Exif data in eps files is also good in my opinion.

Really hope you will hear us and will not implement 4MPx size limitation.

Best Regards,
Your long time contributor Max Popov

file-size-comparison.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shutterstock, are you ready to kill your business with your own hands?? All the AWESOME and COMPLICATED works would be sold through Adobe and Istock. And on your site we will be selling simple icons and very flat and primitive images. Good job! Very nice idea... NOT! 👿

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These new "exiting" improvements will destroy my entire stock workflow. Instead of drawing I will spend much more time calculating pixels and preparing files individually for Shutterstock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Voin_Sveta said:

Dear Shutterstock,

I feel that you're NOT RESPECTING people who are making money for you, as you warned us just 3 DAYS before.

1) I will need to spend a lot of time changing lots of files that are already drawn. Contributors usually draw content not for tomorrow, but for months ahead, you know.

2) I need to throw away all the complex art I already drawn and draw some icons for you.

It will not fit in your "increased" 50Mb in 4Mp.

3) I need to write metadata by hand for each file just for SS.

You know, it's written in JPEG file, that "You will no longer need to provide when you upload". And you didn't invent any alternative, so to say something false like this makes me remember 1984 of Orwell, when they increased dose of chocolate. You cannot say "WE MADE IT EASIER", if you just deleted something and didn't give alternative. Anyway we're making it for all other micro stocks, so no profit for us in this "innovation".

4) I will need to make special BIG files for SS. 

This one new EPS file will take much more space in my Mac than 2 files that were before. But actually now I will need to make 3 files. One BIG for you, and 2 ordinary EPS and JPEG for others.

5) We don't know how it will convert EPS to JPEG.

Others spoil colours completely. Looking at your innovation style, I can predict that it will be even worse.

IN TOTAL: this DOESN'T look as convenient innovation at all. And you're forcing us to use it anyway. So tell at least what you will get for this?

P.S. If this is not a late 1 April joke, you're just putting a spoke in wheel of our bicycle and I cannot understand why. We're the ones, who pedal this bicycle, but you're also riding it! If you will fall and break it, we will ride further on another one even though we did like this one more.

Аbsolutely agree! It's terrible updates! I hope fervently for the SS command will change their mind and will not do any changes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Удивительные инновации от такого большого магазина.
Вы уверены, что за это нововведение отвечает специалист и он понимает основные термины и размеры?
Вы знаете, сколько места на жестком диске займет архив с такими размерами?

Ваши акции, наверное, основной доход приносят портфели с простым, выполненным и весомым контентом (штриховые рисунки, иконки ...)?

Этим «улучшением» вы уничтожаете весь рабочий процесс ваших авторов.
Я думаю, что вы, Shutterstock, ждете много открытий, когда самый модный контент исчезнет из нового.
Альтернативой вашему «улучшению» было бы загрузить опцию jpeg, и это для конечного пользователя другого качества и формата ...

Я был среди авторов живописи акварелью и помню, что ваше «улучшение». Я помню вашу неспособность пойти на компромисс.
Я не верю, что вы передумали сегодня.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear SS,

I cannot see any benefit for EPS with artboard 4MP, Could you please explain more specific for what the major benefit between 200 x 200px and 2000 x 2000px ? Do you really need 2000 x 2000px with very big file size while the 200 x 200px can do the same with much smaller size ? I just curious what exactly idea behind 4MP ?. Very big file size, slowdown working time, take more time to upload, and take more time to adjust the file size <=50MB (i am quite sure that some kind of work is impossible with 4MP, 50MB) , I just curious that your team really working on a vector by yourself and not just the simple triple stars with flat color like the topic image, Did you really try to make the complicated one with 4MP artboard already ? I think it's quite clear by itself and Anna will not said "Easier Than Ever", because it's totally different.  For me, this is not an improvement, but to immediately reduce number of vector works from contributors.  Not practical, and really bad news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Eminor b5 said:

Dear SS,

Could you please explain more specific for what the major benefit between 200 x 200px and 2000 x 2000px ? Do you really need 2000 x 2000px with very big file size while the 200 x 200px can do the same with much smaller size ?

They just can't do the upscale of vector inside the box. You have to be very smart to upscale. Almost a genius. There's no such scientists in the world anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the authors will prepare the works first for Istock, Adobe, etc., and then redo the file for you (may be). Your competitors will have new and interesting works before you. They will thank you,Shutterstock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everybody,

Thank you for all the details and feedback you’ve provided.  I’ll offer some answers to your common questions below.

1: Why make this change? 
In our original post, we didn’t really clarify WHY we’re making these changes. My bad! 

For years, vector contributors have been asking us to allow uploading of an EPS file on its own with no JPEG preview. After we looked at the survey of feature requests from vector contributors, the ability to upload EPS with no JPG was always near the top of the list. (The other top request was more general: “make uploading easier”.) The core reason we are making this change, is because contributors asked us to.

The JPEG we generate from your EPS will be salable on Shutterstock and serve as the preview for your vector. Salable JPEGs must be at least 4mp, so we are requiring the artwork dimensions of your EPS to be at least this big.  We found in our tests, that if we upsized the artwork on your vector to create a 4mp JPEG, we risked pixelation and other quality problems. However, we are continuing to explore our options to create high-quality previews from artwork with smaller dimensions. Using the examples you’ve provided will help us know that we’re covering more bases.

2: What about complex vectors? If the dimensions are 4mp, the file size will exceed the max limit Shutterstock allows.

We tested with a LOT of vectors, but, you’re right. We didn’t necessarily test with files exactly like yours.

These new requirements are not set in stone nor permanent. We decided on these numbers as a starting point - with confidence that they will provide high-quality jpeg previews for most cases. At the same time, we are open and willing to make changes to accommodate the types of vectors you want to submit. 

After we launch these changes next week, we all need to continue to work together to find the sweet spot.  I ask that you give it a try… see how it goes. Can your creations be sized to meet these requirements?  And reach out to us with more examples of what isn’t working. 

3: Without the JPEG, my metadata won’t be imported.

Yes, this is going to be uncomfortable for a few weeks. I know. It’s our team’s next priority, and we will waste no time in resolving this.

Our plan is to allow embedded metadata in the EPS files to be imported with the image, just like we do for JPEG illustrations and photos (and yes! Videos will be coming also!).

Another option would be to upload your metadata using a CSV. While this is typically used for videos, it will work for image uploads also. Please see this page for details on how to do this with video. Note - you will need to use correct image categories.

4: What about Inkscape drawings. The requirements conflict with previous recommendations. 

Thanks for bringing this up. Our previous best practices for Inkscape are out of date now and should be disregarded. Please follow the same exact directions as everyone else and make your artwork 4 MP.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Anna Shutterstock said:

Hello everybody,

Thank you for all the details and feedback you’ve provided.  I’ll offer some answers to your common questions below.

1: Why make this change? 
In our original post, we didn’t really clarify WHY we’re making these changes. My bad! 

For years, vector contributors have been asking us to allow uploading of an EPS file on its own with no JPEG preview. After we looked at the survey of feature requests from vector contributors, the ability to upload EPS with no JPG was always near the top of the list. (The other top request was more general: “make uploading easier”.) The core reason we are making this change, is because contributors asked us to.

The JPEG we generate from your EPS will be salable on Shutterstock and serve as the preview for your vector. Salable JPEGs must be at least 4mp, so we are requiring the artwork dimensions of your EPS to be at least this big.  We found in our tests, that if we upsized the artwork on your vector to create a 4mp JPEG, we risked pixelation and other quality problems. However, we are continuing to explore our options to create high-quality previews from artwork with smaller dimensions. Using the examples you’ve provided will help us know that we’re covering more bases.

2: What about complex vectors? If the dimensions are 4mp, the file size will exceed the max limit Shutterstock allows.

We tested with a LOT of vectors, but, you’re right. We didn’t necessarily test with files exactly like yours. We can point out that file size can be reduced by quite a bit by selecting lower transparency resolution and selecting “none” for preview when saving the eps as well.

These new requirements are not set in stone nor permanent. We decided on these numbers as a starting point - with confidence that they will provide high-quality jpeg previews for most cases. At the same time, we are open and willing to make changes to accommodate the types of vectors you want to submit. 

After we launch these changes next week, we all need to continue to work together to find the sweet spot.  I ask that you give it a try… see how it goes. Can your creations be sized to meet these requirements?  And reach out to us with more examples of what isn’t working. 

3: Without the JPEG, my metadata won’t be imported.

Yes, this is going to be uncomfortable for a few weeks. I know. It’s our team’s next priority, and we will waste no time in resolving this.

Our plan is to allow embedded metadata in the EPS files to be imported with the image, just like we do for JPEG illustrations and photos (and yes! Videos will be coming also!).

Another option would be to upload your metadata using a CSV. While this is typically used for videos, it will work for image uploads also. Please see this page for details on how to do this with video. Note - you will need to use correct image categories.

4: What about Inkscape drawings. The requirements conflict with previous recommendations. 

Thanks for bringing this up. Our previous best practices for Inkscape are out of date now and should be disregarded. Please follow the same exact directions as everyone else and make your artwork 4 MP.
 

Oh, really??? I think no one who "asked to allow uploading of an EPS file on its own with no JPEG preview" don't want to make all these extra work that you gave us as an "improvement". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anna Shutterstock said:

Hello everybody,

Thank you for all the details and feedback you’ve provided.  I’ll offer some answers to your common questions below.

1: Why make this change? 
In our original post, we didn’t really clarify WHY we’re making these changes. My bad! 

For years, vector contributors have been asking us to allow uploading of an EPS file on its own with no JPEG preview. After we looked at the survey of feature requests from vector contributors, the ability to upload EPS with no JPG was always near the top of the list. (The other top request was more general: “make uploading easier”.) The core reason we are making this change, is because contributors asked us to.

The JPEG we generate from your EPS will be salable on Shutterstock and serve as the preview for your vector. Salable JPEGs must be at least 4mp, so we are requiring the artwork dimensions of your EPS to be at least this big.  We found in our tests, that if we upsized the artwork on your vector to create a 4mp JPEG, we risked pixelation and other quality problems. However, we are continuing to explore our options to create high-quality previews from artwork with smaller dimensions. Using the examples you’ve provided will help us know that we’re covering more bases.

 2: What about complex vectors? If the dimensions are 4mp, the file size will exceed the max limit Shutterstock allows.

 We tested with a LOT of vectors, but, you’re right. We didn’t necessarily test with files exactly like yours. We can point out that file size can be reduced by quite a bit by selecting lower transparency resolution and selecting “none” for preview when saving the eps as well.

These new requirements are not set in stone nor permanent. We decided on these numbers as a starting point - with confidence that they will provide high-quality jpeg previews for most cases. At the same time, we are open and willing to make changes to accommodate the types of vectors you want to submit. 

After we launch these changes next week, we all need to continue to work together to find the sweet spot.  I ask that you give it a try… see how it goes. Can your creations be sized to meet these requirements?  And reach out to us with more examples of what isn’t working. 

3: Without the JPEG, my metadata won’t be imported.

Yes, this is going to be uncomfortable for a few weeks. I know. It’s our team’s next priority, and we will waste no time in resolving this.

Our plan is to allow embedded metadata in the EPS files to be imported with the image, just like we do for JPEG illustrations and photos (and yes! Videos will be coming also!).

Another option would be to upload your metadata using a CSV. While this is typically used for videos, it will work for image uploads also. Please see this page for details on how to do this with video. Note - you will need to use correct image categories.

4: What about Inkscape drawings. The requirements conflict with previous recommendations. 

Thanks for bringing this up. Our previous best practices for Inkscape are out of date now and should be disregarded. Please follow the same exact directions as everyone else and make your artwork 4 MP.
 

So, to solve one problem Shutterstock will introduce minimum 2 new problems that are much worse than first one. Can we have choice not to use new way of upload, and instead use old safe way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Anna Shutterstock said:

Hello everybody,

Thank you for all the details and feedback you’ve provided.  I’ll offer some answers to your common questions below.

1: Why make this change? 
In our original post, we didn’t really clarify WHY we’re making these changes. My bad! 

For years, vector contributors have been asking us to allow uploading of an EPS file on its own with no JPEG preview. After we looked at the survey of feature requests from vector contributors, the ability to upload EPS with no JPG was always near the top of the list. (The other top request was more general: “make uploading easier”.) The core reason we are making this change, is because contributors asked us to.

The JPEG we generate from your EPS will be salable on Shutterstock and serve as the preview for your vector. Salable JPEGs must be at least 4mp, so we are requiring the artwork dimensions of your EPS to be at least this big.  We found in our tests, that if we upsized the artwork on your vector to create a 4mp JPEG, we risked pixelation and other quality problems. However, we are continuing to explore our options to create high-quality previews from artwork with smaller dimensions. Using the examples you’ve provided will help us know that we’re covering more bases.

2: What about complex vectors? If the dimensions are 4mp, the file size will exceed the max limit Shutterstock allows.

We tested with a LOT of vectors, but, you’re right. We didn’t necessarily test with files exactly like yours. We can point out that file size can be reduced by quite a bit by selecting lower transparency resolution and selecting “none” for preview when saving the eps as well.

These new requirements are not set in stone nor permanent. We decided on these numbers as a starting point - with confidence that they will provide high-quality jpeg previews for most cases. At the same time, we are open and willing to make changes to accommodate the types of vectors you want to submit. 

After we launch these changes next week, we all need to continue to work together to find the sweet spot.  I ask that you give it a try… see how it goes. Can your creations be sized to meet these requirements?  And reach out to us with more examples of what isn’t working. 

3: Without the JPEG, my metadata won’t be imported.

Yes, this is going to be uncomfortable for a few weeks. I know. It’s our team’s next priority, and we will waste no time in resolving this.

Our plan is to allow embedded metadata in the EPS files to be imported with the image, just like we do for JPEG illustrations and photos (and yes! Videos will be coming also!).

Another option would be to upload your metadata using a CSV. While this is typically used for videos, it will work for image uploads also. Please see this page for details on how to do this with video. Note - you will need to use correct image categories.

4: What about Inkscape drawings. The requirements conflict with previous recommendations. 

Thanks for bringing this up. Our previous best practices for Inkscape are out of date now and should be disregarded. Please follow the same exact directions as everyone else and make your artwork 4 MP.
 

If you are so worried about the authors, who don't need to upload the JPG-preview, then just give them that opportunity. Why take away this option from those who are satisfied with it?

Kick your lazy programmers (I know they are lazy)! Let them do two different ways of uploading: old and new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Iconic Bestiary said:

The other top request was more general: “make uploading easier”.

Didn't hear someone who had problems with that.

3 minutes ago, Iconic Bestiary said:

For years, vector contributors have been asking us to allow uploading of an EPS file on its own with no JPEG preview.

But you didn't!!! You did it much worse! You didn't even try to understand what means "easier"!

First think, then do!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...