Jump to content

Shutterstock Has Made Uploading Vectors Easier Than Ever


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, CodexSerafinius said:

Пациент, не дергайтесь, мы ногу вам все равно отрежем. Мы уверены, что с одной ногой ходить удобнее и за обувью следить легче и быстрее, ведь ботинок будет лишь один. Вы так же сможете кооперироваться с другим безногим и покупать пару на двоих. Сплошная экономия!

Ха ха!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

This will not simplify our workflow! This is a disaster. I wonder if SS will hear us. 

😨 well, if these changes happen, I might submit on Shutterstock only raster copy, and a customer will look for my vectors on other microstocks.

This is the only way for me, that won't take too much time to process the files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anna Shutterstock said:

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.

......

We tested with a LOT of vectors

........

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

1

With all my respect, seems like your decisions have been made based on very wrong researches, poorly executed and mistaken interpreted.

Regarding "top-request" for JPEGs and tests of vector content resizing... Here I see the typical newbie-marketologyst-mistake.  Shutterstock has thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) contributors who submitting millions of pictures every month. But let's be honest, not all of them are equal :) Just want to remind you of the golden Pareto rule: 20% of everything generates 80% of income.
I really believe that every single contributor feels at his second submission that JPEG uploading is a stupid and unnecessary thing, and I really believe that you have tons of requests about that. Also I believe that in a mass-tests you really found that most imagery you tested fitting the new size requirements. But those numbers matters nothing out of context.

Did you took a deepest looks inside your requests sources - did you found there at least one of top-contributors? I assume that the waist majority of requests came from newbie contributors in their first month at Shutter, and I can even assume that most of those authors are inactive and stopped to work with you years ago. Also, did you performed your size-testing in a selective way, with additional researches includes only top-selling complex imagery from top-contributors? I assume you didn't.

As a result, you may even have very positive feedback from a "general community", but you hurt your top contributors who producing top-content and make a huge piece of the overall profit. 

This is only my assumptions, but this is an "educated guess" :)

Regarding the metadata problem, this is a total and absolute shame to roll-over the update which is obviously not ready and which will hurt badly every one single author by crashing the whole workflow and adding an additional stupid job. This is not an assumption but the fact.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Shutterstock, what you are doing is terrible! This innovation will leave you without high-quality, complex work. You complicate our lives. instead of helping, all the time you are trying to make life difficult for us! what for? Do you want to drown in horrible, monotonous and primitive pictures? Please hear us at least once! do not make this mistake!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kornilov007 said:

Can you please write new recommendations for contributors who use Inkscape?
If the situation stays the same I won't be able to send my new vectors to Shutterstock. Other agencies do not have such bad ideas. 😱

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006662?l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle
When using Inkscape or CorelDraw, please be sure to make your artboard size no longer than 600 pixels on the longest side.
 

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/size-matters-how-to-avoid-a-too-large-or-too-small-vector-rejection
If you’re creating vectors using Inkscape, we recommend you submit your vectors no larger than 400px on the largest side. Inkscape does not retain the dimensions of the artboard when saved down to Ai EPS 8 or 10. Saving it at 400px by 400px will ensure that your vector will open on the artboard for our customers.

Well....it seems that all contributors that was working in Inkscape should get an ADOBE illustrator in order to to avoid rejection (“Design is either too large or too small on the artboard”).

This decision will increase sell of ADOBE illustrator for sure.

Oh....by the way...isn't there also Shutterstock's rival stock agency that is owned by ADOBE ????  :D:D:D

#stupid  #management  #facepalm 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

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.
 

This is not a good idea. As the matter of the fact this is NOT the idea at all. This is SS suicide.

You force us with this ******** to work more and with much more quality,  for other agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really stubborn of you guys. 100% of the post here are against the idea vehemently and you guys still want to carry it on?

Not only the artists who is making complex illustrations will suffer. Simple illustrators like me will suffer too. My buyers will suffer as well when they suddenly get a new much bigger EPS stick figures dimensions that doesn't match with the size of my previous standards. 

My workflow will completely shattered with having to resize all previously made elements. I am telling you, everybody will suffer. Your server, your customers, us, and even spammers that create simple icons will have a big headache too.

Wow, and no mercy to the Inkscape folks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a contributor since 2009, and I pretty much follow the forum discussions (especially about vectors) here and on other platforms. I have never heard of this request you are talking about (to upload EPS without JPG). As you don't offer the possibility for contributors to be exclusive, most of us upload to several other agencies. Making these changes would add a lot of extra work to our uploading process. Who in their right mind would ask for such a thing?

As someone suggested above the easy way for us will be submitting only rasters to shutterstock (and keep the vector for AS and other agencies).

Please, make a survey among vector-contributors who had at least a couple of sales and see what we really want. (if this forum discussion is not good enough)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Вопрос как быть тем кто рисует для стоков не в адобе иллюстратор, с новыми стандартами. Например в вашем видео при создание эпса в inkscape вы раньше советовали создавать изображение с размерами не больше 400 пикселей с большей стороны.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ss headed for the destruction of individual authors, only a studio can afford it, they can hire a person for this job. So the motives are clear.

Over the years, we hear stories about some mystical contributors with some strange requests to the leadership of the SS, no one has ever seen these people and no one is familiar with them, but it is on the basis of their requests that the company's strategy changes. 

Colleagues, this nightmare has already happened as an option, we can just post on the CC only raster versions of the file no problems with the size and contribution, and vector versions to other sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really bad news. I work for shutterstock for six years. There are 7500 vector files in my portfolio. All that time I work by old tradition rules and it was comfortable. All my work process was built acccording to old rules of uploading. 

 That's quite cruel to all of your contributors. Don't do this. Please, stop doing upgrading that make Shutterstock worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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.

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.
 

1. I think they didn't understand how they are going to pay for it.

2. Do you know that it's possible to make big JPG preview from small vector eps? It's not necessary to increase artboard size.

3. Can you just use jpg instead of CSV to import keywords? Anyway most of contributors make jpg with keywords for other stock sites.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Aleksandr Sadkov said:

1. I think they didn't understand how they are going to pay for it.

2. Do you know that it's possible to make big JPG preview from small vector eps? It's not necessary to increase artboard size.

3. Can you just use jpg instead of CSV to import keywords? Anyway most of contributors make jpg with keywords for other stock sites.

 

 

+1. And there's even more non-destructive options. But who cares, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anna, if the software for creating jpgs is causing pixelation then I humbly suggest hat SS invests in software that can do the job properly.

This "exciting" news is poorly thought out and executed. The instructions as given will not work for anything other than the most basic designs.

If as you say people have requested to be able to upload the EPS only .. implementing that without a smooth method of uploading metadata does not in any way make it "easier".

Time is money .. and this is going to "cost" contributors!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey SS,

Unfortunately, after a test yesterday, I won't be able to upload to SS with these new requirements. I have a portfolio of 100,000 and a change like this is just not possible. 

Regarding pixelation, I've used a script that batch processes any size EPS to jpg at 21MP. Used it for 10 years. As a book publisher, we require most graphics to be 15MB as that covers double page of a book. Are you seriously going to implement a change that will reduce rasterized vectors to 4MP? 

1. You can have my script.

2. I am not able to upload to you anymore.

3. I am no longer able to subscribe as a purchaser.

Edited by GraphicsRF
Take my script!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everybody,
I do not pretend to be true, but I want to try to explain why SS asks to increase the size of EPS to 4MP.

I haven’t been creating a JPG preview myself for half a year, the GhostScript script was doing this work for me. The problem of converting EPS to JPG is not in the vector, but in the EPS itself, it is a PostScript language. EPS contains raster information, not vector information. (so, as the image size increases in EPS, the file size increases).

With a strong decrease in the size of EPS during the conversion, artifacts may occur, or the script will not work at all.
Example:
eps-test.thumb.jpg.b96358a3cd7c2ca39d32c170e3655dd4.jpg

I do not create graphic works with complex effets, so I can not say that 4MP is too much for automatic conversion.

If automation helps people it is good, but when automation starts to harm, such automation needs to be stopped.

I agree the rest of the contributors and I think that nothing good will come of this innovation.
If SS implements what was planned, then most likely "Marry Christmas and Happy New Year 2020" banners will sell other stocks.

Anna, you say that for years, vector contributors have been asking you to allow uploading of an EPS file on its own with no JPEG preview, then why no one contributors who wrote here supports your idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours 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? 

....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.....

 


I think this is your problem of creating high-res JPG from EPS that should not bring these issues to contributors, if your programmers not ready to make it, why do you still needed to implement it?

At least the programmers will know about the PPI? What you are talking is about 72PPI with 2000 x 2000px to get 4MP, Do you know that 300PPI also can make 4MP with 500 x 500px? This looks simple but totally different from the contributors' side who working with the complex vector.
 

Quote

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.

 

 

It looks very funny to me. No comments for this.

 

Quote

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. 

 

 

You already have “what types of vectors you want to submit”, They are plenty of complex vectors on SS and I am 100% sure that you can't find one of them with 2000 x 2000px artboard, just pick one of them and try upscale to 2000 x 2000px and see what happen, then you will clearly understand what we are talking about in this topic, not only the voices from your programmer team, please.

 

Quote

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. 

 

 

I think all contributors here already knew how it goes and what isn’t working, that’s why we are here… You will only get the simple flat vector submitting after launch and no longer have new complex vectors anymore.

 

Quote

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.

 

 

I just don’t understand, If not ready, if not better, if not easier, why still needed to implement it?

I think “Easier Than Ever” does not belongs to contributors, but maybe your team.

and It’s not “Easier Than Ever”, It is an additional work to do.

 

Sad....but true!

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...