Author Topic: PNG Format: a Game Changer? (Read 15553 times)

rimglow · « **on:** May 10, 2011, 09:29 »

iStock has announced the acceptance of uploads in the PNG format in the near future. I anticipate that this will be a game changer for the microstock industry. Since the PNG format has the ability to contain an alpha channel, this will provide a whole new way to load isolations. The upload requirements are yet to be determined, but for designers looking to easily drop an isolated object into their project, this will be the way to go. If iStock is the only site to offer this format, I can see a large advantage over all of the other sites.

Another advantage for PNG, over JPEG, is that it is lossless. So even if your file doesn't contain an isolation, the quality will be so much better than sites that offer the same file only in the JPEG format.

I predict that this will be the way of the future. What do you think?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2011, 09:59 »

I can't see it affecting much of anything, especially offered at a higher price (as I'm sure it will be). A .jpg saved at 12 is close enough to loseless that 99% of buyers don't care, otherwise we would have heard them yelling for it for the last 6 years.

cthoman · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2011, 10:00 »

I think I've yet to see a valid explanation of the significance or demand for this.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2011, 10:44 »

Quote from: rimglow on May 10, 2011, 09:29

If iStock is the only site to offer this format, I can see a large advantage over all of the other sites.

Another advantage for PNG, over JPEG, is that it is lossless. So even if your file doesn't contain an isolation, the quality will be so much better than sites that offer the same file only in the JPEG format.

I predict that this will be the way of the future. What do you think?

If iStock is the only site, it's not worth the effort for us.

PNG is lossless if all the edit process is lossless. Most of us shoot in .JPG, or - even when we have raw - it's a huge work to re-process all files just for PNGs, so PNGs will most likely derive from .JPGs.

PNG is good for illustrations and isolations, but other kind of photos are equally or better compressed in lossless TIFF. Which never had much success at sites already offering it anyway.

Personally - while I can hear the difference between lossy and lossless music - I am not equally concerned with lossy pictures, as the loss of quality is minimal. I only use lossless TIFF for intermediate edits and then export to .JPG for publication. Broadband internet is still slow in many parts of the world, except a few metropolitan areas with high-speed fiber-optics directly connected to backbones.

So I think there's some room for PNGs in the future, but it's not a huge industry-changing event.

Perry · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:02 »

PNG doesn't support color management, if I remember correctly (?)

rimglow · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:09 »

PNG files include gamma values, background color, and textual metadata information. PNG also supports color management through the inclusion of ICC color space profiles.

An awful lot of consumers don't know they want something until it is offered. Look at the iPad. I can't think of a microstock site that has ever offered lossless files. Of course the big selling point will be files with transparency.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:17 »

I wonder how many contributers have a clue about making PNG files (I don't). It sounds like they involve a lot of effort and maybe wouldn't even be appreciated by a lot of buyers who might prefer what they are used to.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:25 »

It's possible there's something really big on the horizon that no designer on the forums at iStock has ever once asked about (AFAIK; feel free to post a link if there is one), but this smacks to me more of iStock wanting to do something to get buyers back than it does of a customer-need-driven site enhancement.

My husband once worked for a startup that planned to capture a niche market by offering a compiler version of a language that was previously interpreted (MUMPS in case anyone cares). The big deal was supposed to be how much faster things would be with the compiled version. The problem was, all the customers were quite happy with the speed of things as they were. When people don't think they have a problem, trying to sell them a solution rarely gets you anywhere.

Doesn't matter that contributors are willing to make PNGs (which I'm not sure I am as I haven't yet heard enough to understand what I'd have to do); if buyers don't care, it'll be a waste of everyone's time and energy. I don't think the iPad analogy is apt. There's no purchase lust involved in file formats - there is in sleekly designed consumer gadgets.

lthn · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:30 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2011, 09:59

I can't see it affecting much of anything, especially offered at a higher price (as I'm sure it will be). A .jpg saved at 12 is close enough to loseless that 99% of buyers don't care, otherwise we would have heard them yelling for it for the last 6 years.

It can carry a transparency mask, that is a big deal --> real isolations. 'Cutting' paths for humans for exapmle (or anything that has bokeh which is just about everything : )) ), is pure amateurism. I know it's a standard for the dilettant 'inspectors' at istock (even their own educational example for doing isolations is flawed), but I auditioned ppl for grahic artist jobs at agencies, part of the test job was masking a model, and the common practice was that if someone started drawing a path all around the model, we sent the amateur home right away. They should be higher priced because a portion of the work (actual real masking) that is usually done by the 'buyer' is already done.

cthoman · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:33 »

Quote from: rimglow on May 10, 2011, 09:29

...for designers looking to easily drop an isolated object into their project, this will be the way to go.

Unless their project is for print, then they'll probably want a clipping path that they can edit. Really the whole thing looks less about need and more about regurgitating some buzzword. I make pngs for my clients, but that is of vectors which is a one click process. I'm just not seeing the big value or excitement here, but there haven't been a lot of details released either.

rimglow · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:39 »

PNGs are ideal for print. Think of an apple with a gradated drop shadow. How are you going to clip that shadow? A PNG file will support that gradation. Drag and drop!

cthoman · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:46 »

Quote from: rimglow on May 10, 2011, 11:39

PNGs are ideal for print. Think of an apple with a gradated drop shadow. How are you going to clip that shadow? A PNG file will support that gradation. Drag and drop!

PNG is a web format. From Wikipedia:

Quote

PNG was designed for transferring images on the Internet, not for professional-quality print graphics, and therefore does not support non-RGB color spaces such as CMYK.

Difydave · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:51 »

Unless (as already said) there is something big and new on the horizon, then I don't see it as anything to get excited about. It looks as if it's great for rendered shapes, line art and the like, but isolating the sort of things I do for any background looks like being a lot of work.
I'll do it (where actually possible) if I'm going to get paid, but not on the off chance that I'm going to get paid.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2011, 11:55 »

Sounds like another give more/get less initiative.

rimglow · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:09 »

@cthoman

Of course PNG is RGB. All photos on microstock sites are RBG. PNG files are as ideal to print from as any other file downloaded from microstock. Just convert to CMYK. All printing houses are capable of this transition.

cathyslife · « **Reply #15 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:17 »

Quote from: Zeus on May 10, 2011, 11:55

Sounds like another give more/get less initiative.

That's what I was thinking. If they are willing to pay contributors more for the pngs (and by more, I mean more than another penny or two), then it might be worth it. But again, this is microstock.

Also, I believe that someone in another thread has mentioned that DT has been offering .png formats for awhile. Haven't heard a ton of buyers requesting that, otherwise DT would have made an appeal to contributors to submit them.

I use .pngs for web graphics when I want them to have transparent areas. Never thought they should be used for print, though. But hey, I learn a lot here.

cthoman · « **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:19 »

Quote from: rimglow on May 10, 2011, 12:09

@cthoman

Of course PNG is RGB. All photos on microstock sites are RBG. Just convert to CMYK. All printing houses are capable of this transition.

What? Unless your printer is Zazzle, I don't see that flying. Look I'm not the master of graphic design, but I've never worked anywhere where you sent images other than cmyk or grayscale tiffs or eps files to the printer. Maybe things have changed in the last few years when I've been mostly illustrating, but I would doubt it with the strictness of most printers.

rimglow · « **Reply #17 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:32 »

You can do it yourself. Photoshop>Image>Mode>CMYK.

rimglow · « **Reply #18 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:40 »

@ cclapper

Dreamstime does offer some Raw fomats, which would be lossless. but nothing that supports an alpha channel. (transparency)

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** May 10, 2011, 12:54 »

When I see PNGs selling in large numbers, and the contributors who uploaded them crowing about their huge increase in monthly royalties as a result, then I will consider bothering with them. Not until then.

cathyslife · « **Reply #20 on:** May 10, 2011, 13:07 »

I found this in the other thread:

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/faq.html#CISVI

Quote

Can I submit vector illustrations?

Yes. You can submit illustrations in AI, PDF, EPS, PNG and PSD format. Please preserve the editing capabilities in these files, since customers expect the ability to modify the files.

And here's the other thread where it was talked about:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-expanding/msg200222/?topicseen#new

sweetgirll · « **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2011, 13:22 »

JSnover I agree.
There are a lot of small advantages of a PNG over a lossless JPG, but maybe that's not the primary reason...gotta think like marketing folks do, not like a graphic designer. It could be part of a marketing strategy. Maybe they are going to market this format, try to set a new trend..who knows maybe PNG is going to be the new thing at least in the buyer's mind.
I'd love to get more sales anything helps.

lthn · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2011, 13:39 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 10, 2011, 11:33

Unless their project is for print, then they'll probably want a clipping path that they can edit. Really the whole thing looks less about need and more about regurgitating some buzzword. I make pngs for my clients, but that is of vectors which is a one click process. I'm just not seeing the big value or excitement here, but there haven't been a lot of details released either.

That's the 80's. Indesign supports PSDs since god knows when, you can even copypaste them and switch layers on and off in indesign. I don't really think anyone seriuos uses anything else than ID for DTP assembly to be honest. You can edit anything, including masks. As a buyer-DTP guy I can tell you that when I browsed stock sites I found the isolated category a ridicule, from a graphic designer's standpoint its a misleading title: stuff on white is not isolation... Isolation is something masked with transparency... I guess most photographers don't realize that...

lthn · « **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2011, 13:46 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 10, 2011, 12:19

Quote from: rimglow on May 10, 2011, 12:09
@cthoman

Of course PNG is RGB. All photos on microstock sites are RBG. Just convert to CMYK. All printing houses are capable of this transition.

What? Unless your printer is Zazzle, I don't see that flying. Look I'm not the master of graphic design, but I've never worked anywhere where you sent images other than cmyk or grayscale tiffs or eps files to the printer. Maybe things have changed in the last few years when I've been mostly illustrating, but I would doubt it with the strictness of most printers.

You don't seem to know muzch about DTP to be honest. Having CMYK or not doesn't make the slightest bit of difference for stuff downloaded from the net, coz it's gonna be RGB anyway. Process printing runs on CTP systems which print from PDF (simplifying things here a bit) PDF-pro does a one click conversion of all images embedded to CMYK before printing. Of course the 'print-guy' might not do that one click, which means he is an idiot, because the software actually warns you about this.

cthoman · « **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:07 »

Quote from: lthn on May 10, 2011, 13:39

That's the 80's. Indesign supports PSDs since god knows when, you can even copypaste them and switch layers on and off in indesign. I don't really think anyone seriuos uses anything else than ID for DTP assembly to be honest. You can edit anything, including masks. As a buyer-DTP guy I can tell you that when I browsed stock sites I found the isolated category a ridicule, from a graphic designer's standpoint its a misleading title: stuff on white is not isolation... Isolation is something masked with transparency... I guess most photographers don't realize that...

80's?

I was in Elementary school in the 80's. I thought that was all paste ups back then. I learned most of my stuff late 90's and early aughts. I haven't really kept up with the printing technology in the last few years though. I know pdfs are used more, but I have to assume some people are still doing it the same way they've been doing it for the last 10 years.

helix7 · « **Reply #25 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:09 »

I don't see a whole lot of buyers being swayed by PNG offerings. JPGs have been more than sufficient for a long time. Is the gain from PNG going to be so significant that buyers will take notice? I doubt it.

lthn · « **Reply #26 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:11 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 10, 2011, 14:07

Quote from: lthn on May 10, 2011, 13:39
That's the 80's. Indesign supports PSDs since god knows when, you can even copypaste them and switch layers on and off in indesign. I don't really think anyone seriuos uses anything else than ID for DTP assembly to be honest. You can edit anything, including masks. As a buyer-DTP guy I can tell you that when I browsed stock sites I found the isolated category a ridicule, from a graphic designer's standpoint its a misleading title: stuff on white is not isolation... Isolation is something masked with transparency... I guess most photographers don't realize that...

80's? I was in Elementary school in the 80's. I thought that was all paste ups back then. I learned most of my stuff late 90's and early aughts. I haven't really kept up with the printing technology in the last few years though. I know pdfs are used more, but I have to assume some people are still doing it the same way they've been doing it for the last 10 years.

That was just a j some irony... youn don't have to know anything about printing btw, basically you can't put CMYK stuff on the web for display which is not a problem since RBG's gamut is lot wider anyways.

lthn · « **Reply #27 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:15 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 10, 2011, 14:09

I don't see a whole lot of buyers being swayed by PNG offerings. JPGs have been more than sufficient for a long time. Is the gain from PNG going to be so significant that buyers will take notice? I doubt it.

Me and many of my fellow graphic atrtists have been screaming for real isolations that you can just drop into a layout, instead of doing the real isolation for hours and hours on stuff that has been mistitled as 'isolated' on stocksites : )

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:18 »

Quote from: lthn on May 10, 2011, 14:15

Quote from: helix7 on May 10, 2011, 14:09

I don't see a whole lot of buyers being swayed by PNG offerings. JPGs have been more than sufficient for a long time. Is the gain from PNG going to be so significant that buyers will take notice? I doubt it.

Me and many of my fellow graphic atrtists have been screaming for real isolations that you can just drop into a layout, instead of doing the real isolation for hours and hours on stuff that has been mistitled as 'isolated' on stocksites : )

Are you willing to pay more for the extra hours of work put into it?

sweetgirll · « **Reply #29 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:20 »

Question...
where did they say it will be more expensive?

lthn · « **Reply #30 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2011, 14:18

Quote from: lthn on May 10, 2011, 14:15
Quote from: helix7 on May 10, 2011, 14:09

I don't see a whole lot of buyers being swayed by PNG offerings. JPGs have been more than sufficient for a long time. Is the gain from PNG going to be so significant that buyers will take notice? I doubt it.

Me and many of my fellow graphic atrtists have been screaming for real isolations that you can just drop into a layout, instead of doing the real isolation for hours and hours on stuff that has been mistitled as 'isolated' on stocksites : )

Are you willing to pay more for the extra hours of work put into it?

Absolutely. Of course I can only speak for myself and the like, I usually work for clients with a decent budget (nothing extraordinary usually, but ok) If you take a modell shot on white, which is called 'isolated on white' at stocksites, and I have to put it on anything else than white, I have do the actual isolation, which could be an hour of work unless the model is bald : ) ( Thats when I say to myself what the f*k was isolated about that? : } )

I don't know how smalltime webdesigner, freelancers working on small projects would relate to this... and god knows what price will be set anyways. I would pay double price on stuff that's not easy to mask, if its premasked, I'm always in rush. My workhour is generaly billed @ about 30-70 $ for the customer by my employers depending on the project.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #31 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:43 »

Quote from: rimglow on May 10, 2011, 09:29

Another advantage for PNG, over JPEG, is that it is lossless. So even if your file doesn't contain an isolation, the quality will be so much better than sites that offer the same file only in the JPEG format.

I predict that this will be the way of the future. What do you think?

It may be lossless but I wouldn't say it will be "much better". I doubt anyone would be able to discern a quality difference with the naked eye. The lossless nature of png would however make for much larger files to upload. Look to spend more time in submissions.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #32 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:48 »

Quote from: lthn on May 10, 2011, 14:36

I don't know how smalltime webdesigner, freelancers working on small projects would relate to this...

just guessing...
magic wand and smooth mask, and who cares about models' hair loss?
no one will notice anyway when picture is reduced to web size

rimglow · « **Reply #33 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:54 »

As a buyer, I would absolutely pay more for a PNG file with true isolation. I spend all day isolating objects for product advertising, including large packaging. I know the value of the time spent on this.

VB inc · « **Reply #34 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:58 »

given that the majority of the buyers are designers and they buy stock to save time and effort, im sure png files for isolated shots would fly off the shelf. time to take that picture of the apple isolated on white png file =D

Difydave · « **Reply #35 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:58 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 10, 2011, 14:48

Quote from: lthn on May 10, 2011, 14:36
I don't know how smalltime webdesigner, freelancers working on small projects would relate to this...

just guessing...
magic wand and smooth mask, and who cares about models' hair loss?
no one will notice anyway when picture is reduced to web site

That's more or less what I'd guess as well. When you get down to small sizes a lot of stuff doesn't really matter. The trouble is though that (I expect) submissions will have to be perfect at 100%. Now if iStock will pay me up front for doing it OK (I actually laughed when I typed this. And no I'm not going to hold my breath) Otherwise I don't think I'll play at the moment.

lthn · « **Reply #36 on:** May 10, 2011, 15:03 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 10, 2011, 14:48

Quote from: lthn on May 10, 2011, 14:36
I don't know how smalltime webdesigner, freelancers working on small projects would relate to this...

just guessing...
magic wand and smooth mask, and who cares about models' hair loss?
no one will notice anyway when picture is reduced to web site

much more better: how about a white website instead of blue? more fashionable : ))

madelaide · « **Reply #37 on:** May 10, 2011, 15:57 »

I use PNG for transparent backgrounds that I upload to Zazzle. This way the image can be used with whatever background color the user wants. It even works with gradations.

I can't tell if there is a market for PNGs, but I use them.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #38 on:** May 10, 2011, 17:04 »

For isolations it could be a game changer. For everything else it won't make much of a difference.

ayzek · « **Reply #39 on:** May 11, 2011, 03:16 »

No, its not a game changer

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #40 on:** May 11, 2011, 08:00 »

Isolations don't just happen. Someone has to take the time to remove the background. I'm a designer and a contributor and I can say I'd rather get paid $40-$80 per hour to do the isolation and add it to my client's bill than do it as part of a stock submission and get a couple of bucks for the download so some (other) designer doesn't have to do the work.

To each his/her own though. If photographers want to spend hours doing a designer's work for them in return for a few dollars in downloads, go right ahead.

rimglow · « **Reply #41 on:** May 11, 2011, 08:22 »

Some of us, that work in Photoshop all day, can create expert isolations in well under an hour. Once you upload it, the revenues can last for years. Multiply that times the number of different sites you contribute to, and it can generate more than just a "few dollars".

It always comes down to the question of "How can I maximize the marketability of my portfolio?"

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #42 on:** May 11, 2011, 11:51 »

My last post was as a contributor, this one will be as a buyer.

As a designer that runs my own firm, I have VERY high standards when it comes to quality. I would rather do an isolation or close crop myself and ensure it is right than download a png and find out the photographer has "isolated" by using the magic wand tool on the background and hit delete. If I'm not satisfied with the quality I will go back to the agency and get a refund in which case the photographer makes nothing.

Good for you that you work in Photoshop all day and can make an expert isolation in under an hour and expect to make enough off each image to make that worthwhile. Not everyone is as good in photoshop as you claim to be and so I won't trust to ANY isolation. I'll do it myself. Since I don't do it on my time it's instantly worth it because my clients pay me to do it. I know it's right, no need to go for refunds and waste time, everybody wins. I hope I'm not the only designer that prefers to do my own work.

rimglow · « **Reply #43 on:** May 11, 2011, 12:52 »

I agree. The success of PNG downloads will depend on the quality of the isolations. So far, iStock has the highest requirements for JPEG isolations. I would assume they will set the bar pretty high.

lthn · « **Reply #44 on:** May 11, 2011, 15:34 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on May 11, 2011, 11:51

My last post was as a contributor, this one will be as a buyer.

As a designer that runs my own firm, I have VERY high standards when it comes to quality. I would rather do an isolation or close crop myself and ensure it is right than download a png and find out the photographer has "isolated" by using the magic wand tool on the background and hit delete. If I'm not satisfied with the quality I will go back to the agency and get a refund in which case the photographer makes nothing.

Good for you that you work in Photoshop all day and can make an expert isolation in under an hour and expect to make enough off each image to make that worthwhile. Not everyone is as good in photoshop as you claim to be and so I won't trust to ANY isolation. I'll do it myself. Since I don't do it on my time it's instantly worth it because my clients pay me to do it. I know it's right, no need to go for refunds and waste time, everybody wins. I hope I'm not the only designer that prefers to do my own work.

The inspectors are probably going to be uselessly overzealous about this juts like about everything else.. unless it comes from themselves of course : ))

rimglow · « **Reply #45 on:** May 19, 2011, 21:00 »

Here's an update on PNG files for iStock. This will double my portfolio and bring in higher revenue per image.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329282&page=1

Phil · « **Reply #46 on:** May 19, 2011, 21:16 »

Quote from: rimglow on May 19, 2011, 21:00

Here's an update on PNG files for iStock. This will double my portfolio and bring in higher revenue per image.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329282&page=1

thanks

snip -->
We also believe that all those business owners and presentation makers who don't necessarily have the skill to isolate images themselves can just drag and drop to their hearts' content.
<--

presented well, so that it is obvious to these customers that the additional format offers transparency it could be a big deal?

cthoman · « **Reply #47 on:** May 19, 2011, 23:58 »

So at some point they are going to actually announce real details for this? Like price.

arquiplay77 · « **Reply #48 on:** May 20, 2011, 08:38 »

In my partucular case i can see a huge benefit from PNG, i do 3d renders so i have allways an exact alpha channel when i do isolated objects or designs, usually i add a clipping path to mi JPG but this don´t have the precision required, this is a great way of offering an easy option for the client who wants an easy click and drop option for a PERFECT isolation. for me it has no extra work and for the client is an advantage so , what could be wrong with this option?
Of course fort photographers i can´t see much of a benefit, as i don´t see with TIFF.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #49 on:** June 02, 2011, 20:46 »

is SS going with PNG too?

http://buzz.shutterstock.com/about-shutterstock-site-testing

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #50 on:** June 02, 2011, 21:08 »

"Revised image plans for customers"

Otherwise known as "contributors will soon be getting less", I'll bet.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #51 on:** June 02, 2011, 22:05 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 02, 2011, 20:46

is Shutterstock going with PNG too?

http://buzz.shutterstock.com/about-shutterstock-site-testing

I didn't see anything in that page mention PNG - what did you see that made you think that?

@sjlocke - to be fair to SS, they may not have done annual raises the way they used to, but they haven't cut contributor payments either. At this point they may be the only site that hasn't.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #52 on:** June 02, 2011, 22:31 »

I'm not with iStock, but I think a PNG option should be available everywhere. I was approached by two buyers from DT in one day asking for an isolated copy of an image.

You can see what i wrote about it in one of the DT threads in the forum...

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_27303

It's not as a big a deal for photographs, but for illustrations that are already isolated and then uploaded as flat PNGs, it seems like a waste not to offer the PNG to the buyer. They will pay more for it to save them a lot of time.

As for a "game changer", iStock isn't the first to introduce PNGs, Big stock already offers them. The only thing I don't like is that transparencies don't load properly... don't know why.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #53 on:** June 02, 2011, 22:31 »

Quote from: jsnover on June 02, 2011, 22:05

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 02, 2011, 20:46
is Shutterstock going with PNG too?

http://buzz.shutterstock.com/about-shutterstock-site-testing

I didn't see anything in that page mention PNG - what did you see that made you think that?

I haven´t seen anything but I guess that because it is on the On Demand section.. intuition!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #54 on:** June 03, 2011, 02:01 »

Quote from: rimglow on May 19, 2011, 21:00

Here's an update on PNG files for iStock. This will double my portfolio and bring in higher revenue per image.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329282&page=1

As long as you are not using up more than half your upload slots. If you are using them all, it will halve the diversity of your portfolio and switch some of your sales from jpg to PNG, cutting your jpg earnings by more than half (missing uploads plus diverted sales) significantly damaging your income.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #55 on:** June 03, 2011, 10:33 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 03, 2011, 02:01

Quote from: rimglow on May 19, 2011, 21:00
Here's an update on PNG files for iStock. This will double my portfolio and bring in higher revenue per image.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329282&page=1

As long as you are not using up more than half your upload slots. If you are using them all, it will halve the diversity of your portfolio and switch some of your sales from jpg to PNG, cutting your jpg earnings by more than half (missing uploads plus diverted sales) significantly damaging your income.

I believe it won´t work that way, if I read well we will be able to upload the PNG's to existent content, I don´t believe that this will be part of the uploading slots..

helix7 · « **Reply #56 on:** June 03, 2011, 10:46 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 02, 2011, 21:08

"Revised image plans for customers"

Otherwise known as "contributors will soon be getting less", I'll bet.

The last time SS introduced a revised image plan, it dramatically increased my RPD. I'm going to stay optimistic about this one as well.

rimglow · « **Reply #57 on:** June 03, 2011, 15:38 »

@pseudonymous
"As for a "game changer", iStock isn't the first to introduce PNGs, Big stock already offers them."

Just to clarify, Big Stock only offers PNG uploads for illustrations. All photographs must be submitted in JPEG format.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #58 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:08 »

Thanks rimglow,

I wouldn't have known as I only submit illustrations.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: PNG Format: a Game Changer? (Read 15553 times)

microstockphoto.co.uk

lisafx

helix7

digitalexpressionimages

microstockphoto.co.uk

ayzek

digitalexpressionimages

digitalexpressionimages

helix7

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors