MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: luissantos84 on May 23, 2014, 08:02
-
It is a common misconception that due to the large volume of content uploaded to Shutterstock that there can't be real human beings checking all of it. Well, we are here to disprove this theory.
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/vector-and-illustration-advice-from-a-shutterstock-reviewer/ (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/vector-and-illustration-advice-from-a-shutterstock-reviewer/)
-
I really wish they'd featured a vector illustration at the top of that blog post. Not that the photographic illustration isn't stunning, but...
-
I would love to see more drawings of people expressing emotion. The majority of the work I see is concerned with web site templates, app buttons, icons, and silhouettes. I realize it is much more difficult to create work that elicits emotion, but to me, that's what artwork is all about, from an ethereal and a practical standpoint: The artist wants to convey emotion, and the customer wants to evoke emotion in order to get people to buy/use their product. Hats off to our artists who draw people in everyday situations. Those are awesome and make advertising and print much more interesting than a simple gray button.
This is what I mean, if you want that kind of art YOU NEED TO COUGH UP THE DOUGH, NOT 38 CENTS !!
-
It made me laugh that "Judy" was in quotes like it wasn't her real name. I pictured a little witness protection modified voice in the Q & A. All in all though, not a bad little article. I still have the issue of wanting to be paid more before I submit a ton more to SS, so Ron has a valid point.
-
I've drawn people expressing emotions. They barely sell. So I stopped. I don't draw to make reviewers feel good; I draw to make $$$$. Just sayin'.
-
I don't have any interest in knowing about the reviewers - I'm sure they're wonderful people - but about the review process from a contributor's standpoint.
What this reviewer feels artwork is all about isn't as relevant as sales. So I did a search for happy child (which had many more photos than vectors) and the top three vectors were these (all great images; this isn't criticism of the work, just of the article)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-107537924/stock-vector-happy-children-playing-icon-symbol-sign-pictogram.html?src=s6oUZsiJ_LJ0iRNOAjry8w-2-31 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-107537924/stock-vector-happy-children-playing-icon-symbol-sign-pictogram.html?src=s6oUZsiJ_LJ0iRNOAjry8w-2-31)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-136195067/stock-vector-group-of-happy-children-playing.html?src=s6oUZsiJ_LJ0iRNOAjry8w-2-41 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-136195067/stock-vector-group-of-happy-children-playing.html?src=s6oUZsiJ_LJ0iRNOAjry8w-2-41)
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-91732370/stock-vector-illustration-of-kids-peeping-behind-placard.html?src=s6oUZsiJ_LJ0iRNOAjry8w-2-43 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-91732370/stock-vector-illustration-of-kids-peeping-behind-placard.html?src=s6oUZsiJ_LJ0iRNOAjry8w-2-43)
Possibly if SS's program for vectors paid more they'd have a different set of choices - it's impossible to say - but those files are the ones customers have found useful.
I've never submitted my vectors to SS - I have a few of my JPEGs there though - so this particular article doesn't really cover an area I'm active in. But I think the emphasis of the post is misplaced and if they continue it with some other review areas - photos - I'd like to see something different.
In particular, the apparently significant inconsistencies in what gets accepted from one week to the next, and how it can be that an image shot at or before sunrise/sunset gets an incorrect white balance rejection (not just occasionally, but almost all the time). This one I bothered to appeal, pointing out the time of day. It's now the first in search for Portsmouth New Hampshire, proving that customers don't mind the white balance even if the reviewer did
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=123526171 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=123526171)
For me, a personality profile of a reviewer with a few comments to be sure to check my work at 100% and look for noise wouldn't be useful.
-
Well the story of that reviewer who thinks her job is wonderful is a big contrast to this one who basically insulted each and everyone providing for her bread and butter.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847)
-
Well the story of that reviewer who thinks her job is wonderful is a big contrast to this one who basically insulted each and everyone providing for her bread and butter.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847[/url])
That would definitely be me as a reviewer. I wonder about some of the stuff that makes it through sometimes, but I can only imagine the stuff that doesn't make it through.
-
Well the story of that reviewer who thinks her job is wonderful is a big contrast to this one who basically insulted each and everyone providing for her bread and butter.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847[/url])
Should be required reading for every newcomer who thinks they will make a fortune in microstock!
-
I found this one the MOST annoying:
Q: What is a common mistake that you find vector contributors making?
A: A mistake I see vector contributors making is submitting source images as required for hand-drawn and auto-traced artwork, with artwork that was clearly built straight in the software. Contributors take a small JPG of the finished item as the “source” on a property release, which is not necessary and takes the reviewer time to evaluate. If you've built your vector in software without any reference materials, you don't need to submit sources. You may even wish to write to the reviewer, “no source materials used, I drew this in the software without references” or something along those lines. The reason we ask for sources on artwork is to prevent copyright infringement.
Nowadays I do 90% of my work in the computer and am always rejected without a source JPG. It doesn't matter what I write. So I give JPG source files ALL the time. When I send paintings, then I do a property release.
-
It takes a lot less time for a reviewer to glance at a jpg source the first time than for the artist to go through the upload process again, submitting the source file the second time after waiting days for review. Sorry, reviewers.
-
I agree with the other comments about price. It isn't much of an incentive for someone to spend a lot of time on an illustration when 1.) it may not sell well, and 2.) getting $0.38 for something that might have taken a day or two to make isn't very appealing. Prices being what they are, I don't think microstock companies can expect the best work out of people.
It's funny, we've got reviewers saying they want to see the more artistic stuff, but then we've got Offset which is where that more artistic stuff should end up.
Even if I'm inclined to do something more detailed, complex, etc., sometimes the technical restrictions are prohibitive. As far a I know, there is still a 15MB file size limit on vectors. I've got an illustration I just finished that is 20 MB. All of that extra work adding details, textures, etc., is pointless if I can't submit it because of some silly file size limits.
It's a good article, but it just seems a bit unrealistic in expectations.
-
Well the story of that reviewer who thinks her job is wonderful is a big contrast to this one who basically insulted each and everyone providing for her bread and butter.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847[/url])
Hilarious article.
-
Well the story of that reviewer who thinks her job is wonderful is a big contrast to this one who basically insulted each and everyone providing for her bread and butter.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10847[/url])
Hilarious article.
Very, and so true!