MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: franzi on April 04, 2019, 16:03
-
Starting on April 8, 2019, Shutterstock will require the dimensions of EPS files to be at least 4 megapixels.
I work entirely in Inkscape, and so far have kept the dimensions smaller than 500 pixels on the largest side, to avoid rejection (“Design is either too large or too small on the artboard”)
The new requirement is therefore highly worrying - does that mean in the future all files created in Inkscape will be rejected, because in order to make them fit the artboard, they have to be smaller than 4 megapixels?
Someone else having the same worries? :(
-
It is not clear to me where I should put my keywords if the Jpeg is not required anymore
-
I am using Adobe Illustrator all along, and this new requirements make me worry as well. The thing is all my previous artwork elements are created in lower resolution of about 1000x1000. Now with the new requirements, all my new artworks needed to be at least 2592x1520.
That means, whenever I have to use back my old elements for new artwork, I have to resize them. This will be a lot of hassle and will be very messy.
From a buyer point of view, it is totally bad as well because a buyer that usually buy from the same artists would have big problem and surprises that their new artworks are no longer the same size as those they brought previously. It will be a problem for them to resize the icons to a desirable state that matched their previously bought icons.
There is no advantage here for both side (artist and buyer). Can Shutterstock please reconsider not doing this 4megapixels thing?
-
I just checked the Shutterstock forum, a lot of contributors are complaining. The increase in dimension also means an increase in file size, therefore complex illustrations will be much bigger than 50 MB when saved at 4 megapixels.
-
Can all vector artists please chip in at https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/96928-shutterstock-has-made-uploading-vectors-easier-than-ever/ to oppose the idea. We need to stand united against this foolish idea.
Whenever I hear the word "exciting" from microstock agencies, it is never was.
-
Bad change SS!!! :(
But why this???
And yes, automatic (Server side) renders from EPS have always been really bad for colors. Since raster versions are sold, please, let us control the quality of our works. And keep keywords embedding.
-
I don't know who give them such ideas.
It such a bad decision, atleast they should take some survey or feedback.
-
I don't think many vector artists design at a minimum of 4 megapixels. This is a bad change that's going to cause a lot of headaches for designers.
I like that I can reuse the same files for multiple agencies. This will force people to create a file just for SS and that's just more work.
-
It seems to me yet another example of SSs obsession with quantity over quality. Everytning is done to make uploading as simple as possible. No real entrance exam anymore, no id required, lax inspection standards etc. Filling the site with stuff no one will buy. When will the shareholders wake up to this I wonder?
-
"...We have made some exciting new updates on how you upload vectors to Shutterstock...
.. uploading vectors and earning money easier than ever..."
NOT sure, really, not sure...
-
The news is neither exciting nor it is easier to upload now.
vector file means it can be scaled upto any size, so if a person submits 1px then too it can be scaled to any number.
How crazy and nerd people are sitting at backstage and destroying the normal process.
Its such a BAD IDEA.
-
"making uploading vectors and earning money easier than ever" ;D ;D ;D
I hate these kind of exciting news.. Whenever I see e-mails that start like this, I know something is wrong. Do agencies really think contributors can be fooled with this? It is obvious that uploading will be a pain in the ass, so who are they trying to fool?
I am sorry this is not exciting news and uploading will not be easier at all. I hope shutterstock will listen to contributors and abandon this "exciting change".
-
"making uploading vectors and earning money easier than ever" ;D ;D ;D
I hate these kind of exciting news.. Whenever I see e-mails that start like this, I know something is wrong. Do agencies really think contributors can be fooled with this? It is obvious that uploading will be a pain in the ass, so who are they trying to fool?
I am sorry this is not exciting news and uploading will not be easier at all. I hope shutterstock will listen to contributors and abandon this "exciting change".
Yes, every * time. It has become a phobia to receive email from stock agencies that started with the word "exciting news". Either it is royalty cut, collaboration that doesn't benefit us, changes to site that make it more difficult, or new requirements.
-
I sent them a email, because is not clear what happend to keywords and title. In this point we will copy keywords and title from our "JPG" and paste 1 by 1 into the website before upload for process. I don't see that would be faster. I have a jpg for other sites with the metadata included. that's faster :P
-
Someone started an online petition:
https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-the-limitation-of-eps-files-to-4-megapixels-on-shutterstock (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-the-limitation-of-eps-files-to-4-megapixels-on-shutterstock)
No idea if such a petition will really do anything, but it won't hurt to sign.
-
Converting eps files to nice looking jpegs isn't always an easy process. I'm not sure why they want the responsibility.
Also, I agree 2500x1500 seems pretty large for the artboard. I would think that would be annoyingly large for customers to work with.
-
Apparently at Shutterstock they have not an idea about EPS, size, metadata, etc……
-
It is not clear to me where I should put my keywords if the Jpeg is not required anymore
Why no body told me about this option before :(
I open a thread about this: https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/metadato-on-jpg-files-and-on-csv/msg530281/?topicseen#new (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/metadato-on-jpg-files-and-on-csv/msg530281/?topicseen#new)
I hope to being able to upload with metadata on EPS files or CVS files soon...
-
I'm not sure why that would even matter if it's a true vector file with no raster effects.
-
Converting eps files to nice looking jpegs isn't always an easy process. I'm not sure why they want the responsibility.
Also, I agree 2500x1500 seems pretty large for the artboard. I would think that would be annoyingly large for customers to work with.
If you're buying a vector ... you don't care about the jpg anyway.
-
Converting eps files to nice looking jpegs isn't always an easy process. I'm not sure why they want the responsibility.
Also, I agree 2500x1500 seems pretty large for the artboard. I would think that would be annoyingly large for customers to work with.
If you're buying a vector ... you don't care about the jpg anyway.
They have apparently created a inefficient vector to raster algorithm that has the prerequisite that the vector design has a minimum size; by using AI or CorelDraw, when you import vector design to raster you are always able to increase the final size of the raster file without doing any change in the vecor design what is logical understanding how vector graphics works.
-
And don't forget to sign the petition (even for solidarity)
Sign here (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-the-limitation-of-eps-files-to-4-megapixels-on-shutterstock?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.gmail_abi&utm_term=share_petition&expired_session=true)
-
Apparently at Shutterstock they have not an idea about EPS, size, metadata, etc……
I don't either but you would think that someone at the agency would have a clue? What are they thinking?
-
Converting eps files to nice looking jpegs isn't always an easy process. I'm not sure why they want the responsibility.
Also, I agree 2500x1500 seems pretty large for the artboard. I would think that would be annoyingly large for customers to work with.
If you're buying a vector ... you don't care about the jpg anyway.
They have apparently created a inefficient vector to raster algorithm that has the prerequisite that the vector design has a minimum size; by using AI or CorelDraw, when you import vector design to raster you are always able to increase the final size of the raster file without doing any change in the vecor design what is logical understanding how vector graphics works.
Since this is the case, I'm just going to start saving all of my photos for upload as EPS and sending them in as vectors.
-
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the minimum artboard size at Fotolia / Adobe 15 megapixels? How do you submit there if your artboard size is less than 1 megapixel?
-
Terrible, pointless, badly communicated change. Wow SS, just wow.
-
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the minimum artboard size at Fotolia / Adobe 15 megapixels? How do you submit there if your artboard size is less than 1 megapixel?
Where did you find this? Most of my artwork is saved at 450px x 300px and I never had a problem submitting these files to Fotolia / Adobe.
-
Shutterstock doesn't have a clue what they're doing. And that whole marketing department should be fired for using the words 'exciting news' and 'easier than ever' when it is in fact the opposite. Idiocracy at work here.
-
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the minimum artboard size at Fotolia / Adobe 15 megapixels? How do you submit there if your artboard size is less than 1 megapixel?
Where did you find this? Most of my artwork is saved at 450px x 300px and I never had a problem submitting these files to Fotolia / Adobe.
At Adobe click on the upload button and check the requirements for vectors on the right.
Also, larger jpg should be more appealing to buyers who want to buy the raster version. So I thought that almost everybody work with 15MP artboards.
-
At Adobe click on the upload button and check the requirements for vectors on the right.
Also, larger jpg should be more appealing to buyers who want to buy the raster version. So I thought that almost everybody work with 15MP artboards.
I checked, and you're right. But the 15 MP artboard only applies when you upload EPS only. I always upload EPS and JPG as a zip-file, and my JPGs are very large. All other agencies want JPGs, iStock, Dreamstime, 123rf... I assume most of us create large JPG previews anyway - there's no need for Shutterstock do change their rules.
-
At Adobe click on the upload button and check the requirements for vectors on the right.
Also, larger jpg should be more appealing to buyers who want to buy the raster version. So I thought that almost everybody work with 15MP artboards.
I checked, and you're right. But the 15 MP artboard only applies when you upload EPS only. I always upload EPS and JPG as a zip-file, and my JPGs are very large. All other agencies want JPGs, iStock, Dreamstime, 123rf... I assume most of us create large JPG previews anyway - there's no need for Shutterstock do change their rules.
That's good to know, smaller artboards can mean a lot. Fotolia and now Adobe should have written this more clearly. I'm new to vectors, so I had no idea how heavy some vectors can be and how the resolution matters in the eps format.
Now the question is, should I reduce from 15MP to 4MP, or should I stick to 15MP to be more future-proof and on the safe side (imune on the stuff like this in this topic).
-
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the minimum artboard size at Fotolia / Adobe 15 megapixels? How do you submit there if your artboard size is less than 1 megapixel?
Where did you find this? Most of my artwork is saved at 450px x 300px and I never had a problem submitting these files to Fotolia / Adobe.
At Adobe click on the upload button and check the requirements for vectors on the right.
Also, larger jpg should be more appealing to buyers who want to buy the raster version. So I thought that almost everybody work with 15MP artboards.
Good idea, so I did and here's the link to make things easy for anyone else: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/vector-requirements.html
Standalone vector file upload
AI and EPS formats only
Artboard size: minimum 15 MP, maximum 68 MP
File size maximum: 45 MB
When saving, make sure Create PDF Compatible File is checked.
ZIP folder
AI and EPS formats only
Vectors must be placed in a ZIP archive along with a JPEG preview
JPEG preview mimumum resolution: 5,000 pixels x 3,000 pixels or 15MP
File size maximum: 45 MB
When saving, make sure Create PDF Compatible File is checked.
Make sure there are only two files inside each folder (vector file + JPEG preview).
-
I don't know who give them such ideas.
It such a bad decision, atleast they should take some survey or feedback.
Now that I finally looked at the situation, this is what happens with committees and management are made of yes people. We saw the same as IS downsized and no one was willing to say "this is a dumb idea" from the artists viewpoint. Someone at SS thought of this, with the absurd claim "people asked for this". I'm waiting for one person on the SS forum or here to say, this is a great idea. :)
Also they say, we're working on a sweet spot for the size, so that the renders aren't unattractive. Well, while they're working, they announce the change, without a solution.
Add to that, they are working on embedded data, which isn't done yet, but it "a priority".
Here's my thoughts. They should never have announced something incomplete and try to tell us that it's what artists wanted. When they have the project finished, then announce it. Not we're working on it, we're looking for feedback and it's a priority. All double talk for unfinished, in the works and no idea.
Why would anyone implement a new system when it isn't finished and doesn't work? Corporate management by committee?
Or someone important, up top, pushed it through and no one was willing to say "this is a bad idea".
-
All I can think is that it’s somehow a cost-saving measure with inspection. Because as it stands, reviewers need to look at both the eps and the jpg to be sure they match. It’s also a sound bite for investors, I guess. Implementing “new technology” Adobe has had for a while now. I don’t believe SS does anything with the intent of helping contributors any more, unfortunately.
Edited to add: Remember the increased “contribtor engagement” they crowed about a few weeks ago? Well, take away the ability to embed metadata in the jpgs, and now contributors have even more “engagement” because they have to keyword by hand on the site. Takes a lot longer. So much engagement you’ll get tired of engagement!
-
All I can think is that it’s somehow a cost-saving measure with inspection. Because as it stands, reviewers need to look at both the eps and the jpg to be sure they match. It’s also a sound bite for investors, I guess. Implementing “new technology” Adobe has had for a while now. I don’t believe SS does anything with the intent of helping contributors any more, unfortunately.
Edited to add: Remember the increased “contribtor engagement” they crowed about a few weeks ago? Well, take away the ability to embed metadata in the jpgs, and now contributors have even more “engagement” because they have to keyword by hand on the site. Takes a lot longer. So much engagement you’ll get tired of engagement!
I guess it is good news from the standpoint that it slows down any new contributors a little bit. I can't say I had any big plans to submit anything anyway.
-
Standalone vector file upload
AI and EPS formats only
Artboard size: minimum 15 MP, maximum 68 MP
If vector of any size can be exported to image of any size, why would they even demand the minimum artboard size? To save their servers from more processing or because of the lack of programming knowledge?
If Adobe and SS normalize their requirements for standalone vectors (which would mean no min artboard size), that would be the real step forward. (accepting AI files by all agencies would be another one)
But for now, unfortunately, I assume that SS will stand by their decision for whatever internal reason, despite the fact that many people criticize them and despite the petition. Also, Adobe won't change their standalone vector requirement anytime soon.
-
This whole 4 megapixels size is going to cause chaos, loads of people are going to be uploading and having their Vectors rejected.
Having to increase some of my Vectors to 4 megapixels in size turns them into huge files over 100MB in size, blends, transparency and meshes will not be able to be used.
This is on top of the problem of JPEG color control, which happens on other sites like Canstock and Getty as well as Bitmaping.
It is completely bonkers, one of the Directors or Senior Managers are about to lose their job, if this crazy idea goes ahead.
On saying this, lets all hope that they pull back from the brink and the bin this idea, on second thoughts I suspect it is all to late as they have probably been planning this change for months.
-
Standalone vector file upload
AI and EPS formats only
Artboard size: minimum 15 MP, maximum 68 MP
If vector of any size can be exported to image of any size, why would they even demand the minimum artboard size? To save their servers from more processing or because of the lack of programming knowledge?
If Adobe and SS normalize their requirements for standalone vectors (which would mean no min artboard size), that would be the real step forward. (accepting AI files by all agencies would be another one)
But for now, unfortunately, I assume that SS will stand by their decision for whatever internal reason, despite the fact that many people criticize them and despite the petition. Also, Adobe won't change their standalone vector requirement anytime soon.
As i mention before they develop a inefficient vector to raster algorithm; but maybe the procesing thing is an issue for them. AI and CorelDraw can create a raster file from vector one and made anykind of resize during the transformation without afecting the current size of vector design, but maybe this is a procesing issue; i dont do a deep research to see if AI or CorelDraw vector to raster algorithm really takes longer to transform from small vector to huge raster than huge vector to same size huge raster; if it takes longer this will be a problem for them because of the huge amount of vecors contributors are uploading...
-
Not being a vector artist myself I see SS are doing to vector producers what they have been doing to photographers for years now.
Ill conceived BS introduced on the flimsiest of evidence with the usual zero notification. I mean three days notice for this krap?
Judging by the thread on the SS forum there isn't a single vector producer who is in favor of this!
Let sees what the updated "images added this week" looks like a week from today.
I'll take bets on it dropping like a rock.
-
Threw my 2 cents against onto the SS forum. If they are doing this because contributors requested it, then not sure if they will listen to those that don't want it. I would assume anybody that produces a large amount of files already has a system for jpegs and keywords with no desire to upload just an eps.
Did they end up implementing this today or did they delay it?
-
Looks like they postponed the changes, but said there would be an update tomorrow. Hopefully, postponed indefinitely?
-
(http://i64.tinypic.com/j79h92.jpg)
I just share the reply of SS admin about postponing...
-
([url]http://i64.tinypic.com/j79h92.jpg[/url])
I just share the reply of SS admin about postponing...
Yes, we neither lost or win.. I hate when things are put on hold.. Hope for good
-
([url]http://i64.tinypic.com/j79h92.jpg[/url])
I just share the reply of SS admin about postponing...
Yes, we neither lost or win.. I hate when things are put on hold.. Hope for good
I think they will implement the only EPS upload, something that people how upload metadata in jpg files will hate; but i also think they will not implement the 4MP rules because they will lose most of high quality vecotrs, so no reason to do that. This will be the first time that SS changes a desition based in users feedback.
-
([url]http://i64.tinypic.com/j79h92.jpg[/url])
I just share the reply of SS admin about postponing...
Yes, we neither lost or win.. I hate when things are put on hold.. Hope for good
I think they will implement the only EPS upload, something that people how upload metadata in jpg files will hate; but i also think they will not implement the 4MP rules because they will lose most of high quality vecotrs, so no reason to do that. This will be the first time that SS changes a desition based in users feedback.
I'd be surprised if they had that solution ready to go.
-
([url]http://i64.tinypic.com/j79h92.jpg[/url])
I just share the reply of SS admin about postponing...
Yes, we neither lost or win.. I hate when things are put on hold.. Hope for good
I think they will implement the only EPS upload, something that people how upload metadata in jpg files will hate; but i also think they will not implement the 4MP rules because they will lose most of high quality vecotrs, so no reason to do that. This will be the first time that SS changes a desition based in users feedback.
I'd be surprised if they had that solution ready to go.
They could go the way of Adobe and allow both, artist picks which one we want to use? No JPG 4MP (ha ha and the file size limit is?) or the ZIP = EPS+JPG version.
I use the "We" loosely as I only have 1 honest "real" vector and it's not going to SS.
-
As i mention in the thread i open to check if they start with this new upload rules:
The files i was upload on April 8 was approved today, even those files that was under 4MP...
-
Yet another hoop they want us to jump though. ::)
-
I guess they announced their revised plan that looks suspiciously like the original plan.
-
I guess they just want new contributors to continue uploading zillions of nearly identical simple icons. This way they push out established contributors who make the top royalty rate.
I wish Adobe would catch up to them in terms of sales volume. Tout de suite.
-
The news is here! SS decided, if we don't fit 50MB with 4MP, then the best choice is to extend 50MB to... Nobody knows.
So, heres the next, more clear petition.
https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-generation-of-previews-from-eps-on-shutterstock (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-generation-of-previews-from-eps-on-shutterstock)
First petition is restored with almost 1400 supporters, so you better check it first
https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-the-limitation-of-eps-files-to-4-megapixels-on-shutterstock (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-the-limitation-of-eps-files-to-4-megapixels-on-shutterstock)
-
Yeah, I finally signed. Seems that SS is going the way that IS did, right before they started their steady decline.
Ignore the artists and have someone behind a desk who possibly never created an image or a vector, decide based on some programmer who has not concept of how vectors are created or how they work as a file.
Plain, out of touch, blind decision.
-
LOL. I guess they postponed the changes again. ::)
-
Hi everyone,
Thank you again for all the comments and feedback you have provided. We understand the importance of having embedded metadata recognized during the upload process as well as the change in workflow when working with large files. We have collected all of your input and are actively working with our product and engineering teams to come up with the best path forward.
While we continue to delve into the numerous points that were brought up in your responses, we will postpone the release of the 4MP requirement and the auto generation of JPEGs from EPS files. We’ll continue working on perfecting the tools that empower and support all of our contributors, and we’ll be back with an update soon.
Thank you again for all your input and for being such an active part of our community of artists!
I am still not convinced with their response.
The point is why they want to develop the new process. Why wasting time and money on engineering team on a useless topic.
Everything is working perfectly fine, even the 15mb file was also good. Why disturbing the whole process?
They don't want to listen to contributors, nor customers. Even the employee reviews on glassdoor are bad.
I can predict the SS downfall. In coming years I am seeing Adobe Stock as the new leader.
-
LOL. I guess they postponed the changes again. ::)
I really spend a lot of time those days looking for the way to properly reach the 4MP request without increase significantly the size of the file :-\ :-\ :-\
I almost stop to produce designs to fit new requests for about one week... wasted time :( :(
-
LOL. I guess they postponed the changes again. ::)
I really spend a lot of time those days looking for the way to properly reach the 4MP request without increase significantly the size of the file :-\ :-\ :-\
I almost stop to produce designs to fit new requests for about one week... wasted time :( :(
Hard to say how much time to waste on something that seems destined for failure. Judging from the SS forums, it seems like the wide variety of contributors have a variety of reasons why they can't or won't bother with this current proposal.
-
LOL. I guess they postponed the changes again. ::)
I really spend a lot of time those days looking for the way to properly reach the 4MP request without increase significantly the size of the file :-\ :-\ :-\
I almost stop to produce designs to fit new requests for about one week... wasted time :( :(
Hard to say how much time to waste on something that seems destined for failure. Judging from the SS forums, it seems like the wide variety of contributors have a variety of reasons why they can't or won't bother with this current proposal.
I agree, this is unpractical implementation by them, but as they give a time limit i just start to work to being able to keep uploading my designs
-
Sigh. I listened to them and their last email:
• On April 15th 2019, all EPS files will need to be at least 4 MP with a new maximum MB size. We are currently working to determine the optimal limit, but it will be greater than 50MB. Our goal is to ensure contributors can continue uploading vectors of various complexity.
• On April 17th 2019, a JPG will automatically be created for your vectors when you upload.
I prepared a full batch of a thousand vector like they wanted. Then I upload the EPS only.
Guess what...:
Batch8-Christmas_Angel_01.eps
All vector images must be accompanied by JPG images with the same name. You uploaded the vector image but did not upload a corresponding JPG file named .jpg.
Maybe Shutterstock living on another dimension but ain't we the 17th? Why do they take the time to send us and email with specific dates so we can adapt and they do not stick to it :-/
-
Sigh. I listened to them and their last email:
• On April 15th 2019, all EPS files will need to be at least 4 MP with a new maximum MB size. We are currently working to determine the optimal limit, but it will be greater than 50MB. Our goal is to ensure contributors can continue uploading vectors of various complexity.
• On April 17th 2019, a JPG will automatically be created for your vectors when you upload.
I prepared a full batch of a thousand vector like they wanted. Then I upload the EPS only.
Guess what...:
Batch8-Christmas_Angel_01.eps
All vector images must be accompanied by JPG images with the same name. You uploaded the vector image but did not upload a corresponding JPG file named .jpg.
Maybe Shutterstock living on another dimension but ain't we the 17th? Why do they take the time to send us and email with specific dates so we can adapt and they do not stick to it :-/
You are outdated, after this claims they give new information about this changes are postponed to unknow date...
-
And it is back on. I'm not sure why they are so enamored with this garbage idea.
-
Please continue to voice your opinion on the matter. We need more voices to make this stop. 4MP requirement will be a big headache to all of us.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97235-we’re-updating-how-you-upload-vectors/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1758494 (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97235-we’re-updating-how-you-upload-vectors/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1758494)
-
Its like talking to the wall. They don't want to listen.
They are just putting their leg in the nail.
The era of SS is coming to end now, I now see AS and Getty have good opportunity to take over this.
-
meanwhile in SS
-
Monday they will make a big party in Adobe Stock!!!
-
My sales at Adobe are really bad, it all just sounds like a huge disaster :'(
-
I’ve had a theory for some time on why they’re doing this – and it has been kind of confirmed for me with their latest email. I even made an account here specifically to share my thoughts on this and see what you guys think: could I be right or should I hang up my Sherlock Holmes hat? (And sorry for the long tl:dr post...)
Here goes my wild theory: in their email from Thursday when they announced the 100 MB max file size, they wrote: “You will only need to upload vectors, with no JPEG required. A JPEG will automatically be created for your vectors when you upload. This ensures there is a correct matching preview for your vectors, with consistent quality and minimum dimensions.” (emphasis mine.)
And to me, that is the reason for this whole ugly change to the upload requirements, right there.
Why? If you upload 2 files, jpeg + vector, that have to look exactly the same, then SS needs to check if that is true, right? It would be embarrassing if a customer bought a vector and discovered that it doesn’t match the preview. And that can happen easily, if the contributor has a bad design workflow or is a bit scatterbrained. You create the jpeg, then you make a quick last-minute change to the vector, forget to export a new preview, upload the two files – damage done.
So SS presumably has some automated process that compares the vector to the preview (because I don’t think some poor employees had to do that by hand up to now, that would be an awful waste of time & money, and even more reason to make their own previews if that is truly the case.)
And maybe that automated checking process is flawed and creates a lot of hassle for them and they want to abandon it. Or maybe they don’t check if the preview and vector match at all and had problems with customers in the past because of that.
Or maybe I’m totally wrong. But this is the only reason I could think of that makes sense to me, and also explains why they are not budging on this, despite all the hate they’re getting from the contributor community... it's just a shame that the program they use to create the preview is so crappy that now we all have to hike up the size of our vectors.
-
I’ve had a theory for some time on why they’re doing this – and it has been kind of confirmed for me with their latest email. I even made an account here specifically to share my thoughts on this and see what you guys think: could I be right or should I hang up my Sherlock Holmes hat? (And sorry for the long tl:dr post...)
Here goes my wild theory: in their email from Thursday when they announced the 100 MB max file size, they wrote: “You will only need to upload vectors, with no JPEG required. A JPEG will automatically be created for your vectors when you upload. This ensures there is a correct matching preview for your vectors, with consistent quality and minimum dimensions.” (emphasis mine.)
And to me, that is the reason for this whole ugly change to the upload requirements, right there.
Why? If you upload 2 files, jpeg + vector, that have to look exactly the same, then SS needs to check if that is true, right? It would be embarrassing if a customer bought a vector and discovered that it doesn’t match the preview. And that can happen easily, if the contributor has a bad design workflow or is a bit scatterbrained. You create the jpeg, then you make a quick last-minute change to the vector, forget to export a new preview, upload the two files – damage done.
So SS presumably has some automated process that compares the vector to the preview (because I don’t think some poor employees had to do that by hand up to now, that would be an awful waste of time & money, and even more reason to make their own previews if that is truly the case.)
And maybe that automated checking process is flawed and creates a lot of hassle for them and they want to abandon it. Or maybe they don’t check if the preview and vector match at all and had problems with customers in the past because of that.
Or maybe I’m totally wrong. But this is the only reason I could think of that makes sense to me, and also explains why they are not budging on this, despite all the hate they’re getting from the contributor community... it's just a shame that the program they use to create the preview is so crappy that now we all have to hike up the size of our vectors.
It could be, but they are essentially creating the same problem on their end. It is difficult to batch process thousands of vector files into jpegs. There is a lot that can go wrong and a lot of variables. Credit to them if they are smart enough to get it done without a million headaches. I have my doubts though.
From a contributor perspective, I feel a bit like a factory that has spent years honing the efficiency of its production only to have one distributor ask to dismantle that whole process for no clear or relevant reason. I'm just glad I don't really have to deal with this since microstock isn't really a growing business for me anymore.
-
It could be, but they are essentially creating the same problem on their end. It is difficult to batch process thousands of vector files into jpegs. There is a lot that can go wrong and a lot of variables. Credit to them if they are smart enough to get it done without a million headaches. I have my doubts though.
Maybe they won't worry about it at all. Maybe if they mangle the preview, they'll just reject the file and we'll get a "your vector is crap and you suck" type of rejection reason. It honestly wouldn't surprise me. :P
But as I said, I could be completely wrong with all of this. I just think, there has to be a solid, pressing reason for them for making this change. The whole "we want to make the upload process easier for you because we luuuurve you" ... yeah, sure SS. Sure. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Here’s an even wilder theory....the change has something to do with the new feature that allows some customers to resell our work. Maybe that requires that all jpg files be similar sizes or something. The fact that they’re doing both things at the same time must have a connection. Tinfoil hat is working fine.
-
Offtopic idea.
Still a newbie, i read you all in other SS threads talking for first, second quarter, millions of $, investors, and similar. So here is another wild subjective guess.
Whatever "innovative" that implies technology, removing human (error) factor that requires big spending on eg storage, R&D and AI, is always welcomed as investment, upgrade, or just "exciting new feature" for customers, investors and shareholders right? Perhaps with a good tax return, or perhaps due to a new partnership with a tech or social or whatever platform?
Excited to wait and read more exciting news! :P
-
Offtopic question, but it has connection with SS, and it's caused by "exciting" news.
If I opt out from Image sales, Footage sales, Sensitive use and Enhanced license (in SS account settings) will all my files be removed from all SS searches, including partners sites?
Thanks!
-
Offtopic question, but it has connection with SS, and it's caused by "exciting" news.
If I opt out from Image sales, Footage sales, Sensitive use and Enhanced license (in SS account settings) will all my files be removed from all SS searches, including partners sites?
Thanks!
Yes, if you look at your dashboard where it says Image portfolio it will have 0 next to it. Click on it and it will say "This contributor has no active images in their portfolio."
Partner sites, who knows? Give me a partner sight and I will have a look.
-
Offtopic question, but it has connection with SS, and it's caused by "exciting" news.
If I opt out from Image sales, Footage sales, Sensitive use and Enhanced license (in SS account settings) will all my files be removed from all SS searches, including partners sites?
Thanks!
Yes, if you look at your dashboard where it says Image portfolio it will have 0 next to it. Click on it and it will say "This contributor has no active images in their portfolio."
Partner sites, who knows? Give me a partner sight and I will have a look.
Thanks for reply! Actually, SS has easiest way to remove all files. Something good from them...
-
Instead of signing petitions that never reach the direct interested / responsible, why don't you send a message of protest to Jon Oringer on his Facebook page and on his Twitter account? When he receives 2000 messages expressing our discontent, maybe he will begin to worry about the situation? (Or maybe he absolutely doesn't care…)
-
Unworkable. Needs to be reversed ASAP.
-
Sadly, I wasn't able to get my files uploaded due to error.
I am frustrated.
SS you ruined everything.
-
Aaaand, I'm out. I have been hot and cold about Shutterstock for some time now, and I'm finally truly fed up.
Someone in upper management had an idea, and the people who actually know how things work were unable to stop them from doing probably the stupidest thing ever in stock illustration.
-
I wonder if I should delete my Bigstock as well, since Shutterstock owns it?
-
How to do it at 4mp ? I don'T know how with vectors ! I never had problem before ulploading my work but thoses changes ... i don't understand.
-
And now they are deleting posts criticising the changes from their forum!
-
How to do it at 4mp ? I don't know how with vectors ! I never had problem before uploading my work but those changes ... i don't understand.
In order to create a 4MP vector, you have to reset your artboard to a larger, non standard size. The result will be a really heavy file, unless the vector is incredibly simple. You'll also have something you probably can't upload anywhere else. Essentially, Shutterstock's new idea DOES NOT WORK.
That's why I have not just disabled my portfolio, but asked to have it removed entirely. They're too stupid to be trusted with my work.
-
Offtopic question, but it has connection with SS, and it's caused by "exciting" news.
If I opt out from Image sales, Footage sales, Sensitive use and Enhanced license (in SS account settings) will all my files be removed from all SS searches, including partners sites?
Thanks!
Yes, if you look at your dashboard where it says Image portfolio it will have 0 next to it. Click on it and it will say "This contributor has no active images in their portfolio."
Partner sites, who knows? Give me a partner sight and I will have a look.
Thanks for reply! Actually, SS has easiest way to remove all files. Something good from them...
Can you explain the easiest way to remove all files from SS? I have been deleting them one by one from the catalog manager.
-
Offtopic question, but it has connection with SS, and it's caused by "exciting" news.
If I opt out from Image sales, Footage sales, Sensitive use and Enhanced license (in SS account settings) will all my files be removed from all SS searches, including partners sites?
Thanks!
One by one I suppose, from the catalog manager.
You can also opt out everything under your Account Settings
I don't know other ways to do it
Yes, if you look at your dashboard where it says Image portfolio it will have 0 next to it. Click on it and it will say "This contributor has no active images in their portfolio."
Partner sites, who knows? Give me a partner sight and I will have a look.
Thanks for reply! Actually, SS has easiest way to remove all files. Something good from them...
Can you explain the easiest way to remove all files from SS? I have been deleting them one by one from the catalog manager.
-
Offtopic question, but it has connection with SS, and it's caused by "exciting" news.
If I opt out from Image sales, Footage sales, Sensitive use and Enhanced license (in SS account settings) will all my files be removed from all SS searches, including partners sites?
Thanks!
Yes, if you look at your dashboard where it says Image portfolio it will have 0 next to it. Click on it and it will say "This contributor has no active images in their portfolio."
Partner sites, who knows? Give me a partner sight and I will have a look.
Thanks for reply! Actually, SS has easiest way to remove all files. Something good from them...
Can you explain the easiest way to remove all files from SS? I have been deleting them one by one from the catalog manager.
Email them to delete it.
-
I wonder if they are forcing contributors to opt for their new upload dimensions, their idea behind probably is they want people to create content with SS specific requirements and force restricting uploads to other agencies.
Did anyone told them about the easier option of adding "being exclusive" section to their system?
-
I wonder if they are forcing contributors to opt for their new upload dimensions, their idea behind probably is they want people to create content with SS specific requirements and force restricting uploads to other agencies.
Did anyone told them about the easier option of adding "being exclusive" section to their system?
I have a similar feeling.
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
-
I wonder if they are forcing contributors to opt for their new upload dimensions, their idea behind probably is they want people to create content with SS specific requirements and force restricting uploads to other agencies.
Did anyone told them about the easier option of adding "being exclusive" section to their system?
I have a similar feeling.
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
But they are going to lose all the more complex vectors to the competition...
-
And now they are deleting posts criticising the changes from their forum!
So, that's all of them, right? ;D
-
I wonder if they are forcing contributors to opt for their new upload dimensions, their idea behind probably is they want people to create content with SS specific requirements and force restricting uploads to other agencies.
Did anyone told them about the easier option of adding "being exclusive" section to their system?
I have a similar feeling.
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
But they are going to lose all the more complex vectors to the competition...
Maybe it is what they *really* want?
-
I wonder if I should delete my Bigstock as well, since Shutterstock owns it?
I deleted my Bigstock account sending them an e-mail. They deleted my account in day, or two.
On SS you can just opt out from all sales in account settings. I did it that way.
-
SS- hey technical engineering team lets have meeting
Team- sure
SS- lets ruin the vector upload system by building a automated tool.
Team- :-\ ..... sure
----After months / years of hard work technical team builds it.
Team- So now we have built it, we need to apply it.
SS- Lets force contributors to abide by these new rules.
Contributors- what???, we don't need it, it is worst development and adding more difficulties in uploading.
Team- "*We knew it*"
Contributor- We can show you proofs (shares screenshot)
SS- F**k off, we don't care, we have f**king invested so much time, money and efforts in it and will not let it go. Take it or leave it.
Contributors- :-\ :-X :(
-
OMG
What a large PITA.
Just tried to upload a vector image and had to resize it especially for SS, it's HUGE.
-
Can someone please tell me if I am missing something here?
My works are flat vector so the file size is naturally small. VERY small. Most of my files are only 800-900 KB even though they are vector sets with at least 6-8 graphics in there.
How can I get the file to be 4MP? I tried double the artboard size and can only get to 2MP at most. Am I supposed to make my artboard to be ridiculously large or is there another way that I don't know?
Thank you.
-
Can someone please tell me if I am missing something here?
My works are flat vector so the file size is naturally small. VERY small. Most of my files are only 800-900 KB even though they are vector sets with at least 6-8 graphics in there.
How can I get the file to be 4MP? I tried double the artboard size and can only get to 2MP at most. Am I supposed to make my artboard to be ridiculously large or is there another way that I don't know?
Thank you.
What program are you using? In Illustrator, when you make a new document, you can choose Pixels for Units and specify a Width x Height that results in 4MP , for example, 2450x1650 (which equals 4042500 pixels).
-
Someone received a diploma from a prestigious University and was successful in selling toilet paper, and now decided to try his hand at trading stock images. I do not want to participate in his experiments, taking a wait-and-see position.
-
Can someone please tell me if I am missing something here?
My works are flat vector so the file size is naturally small. VERY small. Most of my files are only 800-900 KB even though they are vector sets with at least 6-8 graphics in there.
How can I get the file to be 4MP? I tried double the artboard size and can only get to 2MP at most. Am I supposed to make my artboard to be ridiculously large or is there another way that I don't know?
Thank you.
4MP are not 4MB…
O_o
-
Someone received a diploma from a prestigious University and was successful in selling toilet paper, and now decided to try his hand at trading stock images. I do not want to participate in his experiments, taking a wait-and-see position.
This is pathetic, I just spent 5 continues hours to get around 100 files fixed as per their requirement.
I usually design them for months ahead and now stuck in here.
These guys are crazy.
-
Can someone please tell me if I am missing something here?
My works are flat vector so the file size is naturally small. VERY small. Most of my files are only 800-900 KB even though they are vector sets with at least 6-8 graphics in there.
How can I get the file to be 4MP? I tried double the artboard size and can only get to 2MP at most. Am I supposed to make my artboard to be ridiculously large or is there another way that I don't know?
Thank you.
To be 4MP, your file must be at least 2464 x 1632 pixels, so yes you are supposed to make your artboard to be ridiculously large thanks to foolish SS rules
-
I really don't understand why you all you want to continue to upload vectors to Shutterstock…
You lament, you whine, you cry…
We made different petitions and they are be ignored…
There are 50 pages of thread (2 threads) about it on the Shutterstock forum… and every your request is just ignored.
Then you do exactly what they want and how they want…
In the end, if you're not happy, you only have yourself to blame!
-
I really don't understand why you all you want to continue to upload vectors to Shutterstock…
You lament, you whine, you cry…
We made different petitions and they are be ignored…
There are 50 pages of thread (2 threads) about it on the Shutterstock forum… and every your request is just ignored.
Then you do exactly what they want and how they want…
In the end, if you're not happy, you only have yourself to blame!
I guess if you have a new or growing portfolio, it kind of derails your plans. My growth is kind of stagnant the last couple years with all the competition, so it is pretty easy to just sit back and see what happens with this whole mess.
-
I really don't understand why you all you want to continue to upload vectors to Shutterstock…
You lament, you whine, you cry…
We made different petitions and they are be ignored…
There are 50 pages of thread (2 threads) about it on the Shutterstock forum… and every your request is just ignored.
Then you do exactly what they want and how they want…
In the end, if you're not happy, you only have yourself to blame!
I guess if you have a new or growing portfolio, it kind of derails your plans. My growth is kind of stagnant the last couple years with all the competition, so it is pretty easy to just sit back and see what happens with this whole mess.
Yes, I understand of course.
But if we want our requests to have an effect, there is only one solution: stop uploading vectors to Shutterstock (for a while), hoping they will understand that they are losing the best contributors (because contributors who produce the most complex vectors are the most affected by this great innovation), and therefore money...
This kind of company only understands when you touch them where it hurts more: in the wallet....
But I see with difficulty the contributors acting in solidarity in order to obtain a result.
It is much easier to grumble and sign unnecessary petitions than to act in a truly concrete and effective way.
Personally I don't have too many problems with that since I produce very few vectors. In addition I sell them much more on other sites than on SS.
-
I really don't understand why you all you want to continue to upload vectors to Shutterstock…
You lament, you whine, you cry…
We made different petitions and they are be ignored…
There are 50 pages of thread (2 threads) about it on the Shutterstock forum… and every your request is just ignored.
Then you do exactly what they want and how they want…
In the end, if you're not happy, you only have yourself to blame!
I guess if you have a new or growing portfolio, it kind of derails your plans. My growth is kind of stagnant the last couple years with all the competition, so it is pretty easy to just sit back and see what happens with this whole mess.
Yes, I understand of course.
But if we want our requests to have an effect, there is only one solution: stop uploading vectors to Shutterstock (for a while), hoping they will understand that they are losing the best contributors (because contributors who produce the most complex vectors are the most affected by this great innovation), and therefore money...
This kind of company only understands when you touch them where it hurts more: in the wallet....
But I see with difficulty the contributors acting in solidarity in order to obtain a result.
It is much easier to grumble and sign unnecessary petitions than to act in a truly concrete and effective way.
Personally I don't have too many problems with that since I produce very few vectors. In addition I sell them much more on other sites than on SS.
Definitely. The only way they will listen is if you make them realize that we aren't a commodity and it is actually people they are doing business with that won't blindly follow along with whatever.
-
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
I just tried to upload to Adobe and it said they require 15mb now. Maybe they are trying to get rid of silhouette and logo like illustrations? These types of vectors are my biggest seller though. More advanced illustrations don't sell near as well.
-
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
I just tried to upload to Adobe and it said they require 15mb now. Maybe they are trying to get rid of silhouette and logo like illustrations? These types of vectors are my biggest seller though. More advanced illustrations don't sell near as well.
Adobe has always required a 15+ mp jpeg.
-
In Illustrator, when you make a new document, you can choose Pixels for Units and specify a Width x Height that results in 4MP , for example, 2450x1650 (which equals 4042500 pixels).
Just making a document in illustrator with these dimensions results in a vector document of 147kb. Exporting a JPEG with a simple box in the middle of the artboard at 300dpi and supersampling results in a JPEG size of 215kb. So I am not sure what you are trying to say here. It appears that vector file size is determined by how complicate that drawing is.
-
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
I just tried to upload to Adobe and it said they require 15mb now. Maybe they are trying to get rid of silhouette and logo like illustrations? These types of vectors are my biggest seller though. More advanced illustrations don't sell near as well.
Adobe has always required a 15+ mp jpeg.
This is the first time I have gotten this message and I have a 1,000 vectors on Adobe. Something is different.
-
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
I just tried to upload to Adobe and it said they require 15mb now. Maybe they are trying to get rid of silhouette and logo like illustrations? These types of vectors are my biggest seller though. More advanced illustrations don't sell near as well.
Adobe has always required a 15+ mp jpeg.
So is shutterstock actually talking about the JPEG file size also?
-
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
I just tried to upload to Adobe and it said they require 15mb now. Maybe they are trying to get rid of silhouette and logo like illustrations? These types of vectors are my biggest seller though. More advanced illustrations don't sell near as well.
Adobe has always required a 15+ mp jpeg.
I had a vector accepted at Adobe Friday that is EPS - 307kb and JPEG - 1.9 mb
-
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
I just tried to upload to Adobe and it said they require 15mb now. Maybe they are trying to get rid of silhouette and logo like illustrations? These types of vectors are my biggest seller though. More advanced illustrations don't sell near as well.
Adobe has always required a 15+ mp jpeg.
This is the first time I have gotten this message and I have a 1,000 vectors on Adobe. Something is different.
Most people already made their jpegs around that size, so it would be easy not to notice. It's roughly 3000px x 5000px or 4000px x 4000px square. It's easy to get rejections there though if you have an image that is very narrow like 1000px x 5000px. The SS thing is different because they don't want jpegs to accompany the eps anymore.
-
But personally I don't sell so much vectors on Shutterstock, I sell a lot of more on VectorStock and Adobe.
If I have to choose, and they are pushing me (us) to choose, I will just stop to upload my vectors to Shutterstock.
I just tried to upload to Adobe and it said they require 15mb now. Maybe they are trying to get rid of silhouette and logo like illustrations? These types of vectors are my biggest seller though. More advanced illustrations don't sell near as well.
Adobe has always required a 15+ mp jpeg.
This is the first time I have gotten this message and I have a 1,000 vectors on Adobe. Something is different.
Most people already made their jpegs around that size, so it would be easy not to notice. It's roughly 3000px x 5000px or 4000px x 4000px square. It's easy to get rejections there though if you have an image that is very narrow like 1000px x 5000px. The SS thing is different because they don't want jpegs to accompany the eps anymore.
yeah I finally figured this out for my files. All I did different was change the DPI to 300 from 7(which was default) without resampling. That worked.
-
In Illustrator, when you make a new document, you can choose Pixels for Units and specify a Width x Height that results in 4MP , for example, 2450x1650 (which equals 4042500 pixels).
Just making a document in illustrator with these dimensions results in a vector document of 147kb. Exporting a JPEG with a simple box in the middle of the artboard at 300dpi and supersampling results in a JPEG size of 215kb. So I am not sure what you are trying to say here. It appears that vector file size is determined by how complicate that drawing is.
It's about dimensions, not file size. MP not MB.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006575 (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006575)
"With EPS files, the 4 MP requirement applies to the size of the bounding box around your artwork, not your artboard."
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Best-Practice-Recommendations-for-Saving-EPS-Files (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Best-Practice-Recommendations-for-Saving-EPS-Files)
Saving an EPS file with "Use Artborads" option
"When you save your EPS file with this setting, your bounding box will include the artboard, and if the artwork is smaller than your artboard, the resulting JPEG preview will contain the white space around the artwork. Please keep in mind, if you choose this option, your artboard will need to be at least 4 MP."
-
What is the current smartest way of including metadata in EPS created in Inkscape?
-
Stop uploading like me. thus this rule will be eliminated.
-
I can't upload vector anymore, I always got error message - there was problem with some of your content : We can't read what's in your file. Please re-save or re-export your file, and try uploading it again. I resaved and same problem >:(
-
I can't upload vector anymore, I always got error message - there was problem with some of your content : We can't read what's in your file. Please re-save or re-export your file, and try uploading it again. I resaved and same problem >:(
What software you use?? (Adobe Illustrator, Corel Draw...?)
-
Here's an idea why don't you vector artists all get yourselves and your fellow artists to stop uploading (like we did with Fotolia and the dollar photo club)
And go on their facebook page & twitter and shout it to the world
SS would soon take notice of you then
-
There are days and days that I repeat that…
This is the only way!
But "between say it and do it, in middle there is the sea"*…
*Italian proverb: «tra il dire e il fare c’è di mezzo il mare»
-
I'm in on the boycott. If I ever want to upload there again, I'd rather this policy not be there.
-
Yeah, I'm not uploading either. They need to feel some impact...obviously complaining gets you nowhere.
-
I am not a great vector producer and I sell more on other sites.
So I will no more upload vectors on Shutterstock (not a big loss for them and for me btw)
--
For photos Shutterstock is still the best for me…
Just waiting that they decided to put the minimum size to 100 Mpixels for photos………
-
Same here, I uploaded the first batch where as I mentioned above invested so much time. I am stopping it now till this thing changes.
Or if they have made their mind then I wish they ask their technical team to build a tool which auto scales the EPS and create jpg of them.
Its totally unproductive, useless invention which adding more pressure to the job.
-
I haven't uploaded vectors in ages, but I wanted to upload a new illustration today. Only to see that they went ahead with their idiotic idea, making it impossible for me to upload my work. Alright, at least Adobe Stock accepts my work without hassle. Bye Shutterstock.
-
The worst, is there is an technical issue right now ! I can't upload .eps even if I upload it the way they want, I got error message. Shutterstock supports know that issue and it's been 3 days and not fix. So I can't upload anyway ! wow ! :o
-
Hello design art buddies.
Are you having trouble uploading a vecter for shutterStock?
Quickly converts small pixel ‐ sized vector art to 4.5 MP.
↓ Useful scripting articles
https://t.co/FeyyYojPXN
Look at this tweet!
https://twitter.com/toyotoyo2ro/status/1131558913386541057
Thank you!
-
The ENTIRE POINT of a vector is that it is infinitely scaleable without loss of image integrity. You can open a vector file in a raster program like Photoshop at any size and dpi you wish it to be.
Here's a tip for Shutterstock: if your programmers can't figure out how to do what other stock agencies have been able to do for years, the problem isn't with your contributors. It's with your programmers.
I'm officially giving up on uploading vectors to Shutterstock until this issue is resolved.
-
I'am totally discouraged, I can't upload vector at all. Big artboard error, smaller artboard ...errror. How I know if my work on illustrator is 4M ? This is stupid from shutterstock.
-
I'am totally discouraged, I can't upload vector at all. Big artboard error, smaller artboard ...errror. How I know if my work on illustrator is 4M ? This is stupid from shutterstock.
So don't upload…
Don't make them a favor they don't deserve!
-
I have stop uploading since the 4MP rule. Is just too much work and waste too much HDD space. This abnormally large vector will also ruin my portfolio forever. This is even worst for icon designers. I hope Shutterstock will reverse the decision for this as soon as possible :(
-
What I don't understand is that I see people in this thread who a) continue trying to upload to Shutterstock, thereby facilitating their new policy and making it harder for other contribubors to make a stance, and b) without even a basic understanding of the difference between MB and MP.
No wonder SS thinks they can get away with it.
-
Contributors, "We are not animals".
Shutterstock, "We know you're not animals. You're our Pets".
New petition. https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-the-limitation-of-eps-files-to-4-megapixels-on-shutterstock?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_14761192_en-US%3Av7&recruiter=48561171&recruited_by_id=92027de0-8f58-0130-f5b6-00221964dac8&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_message (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-cancel-the-limitation-of-eps-files-to-4-megapixels-on-shutterstock?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_14761192_en-US%3Av7&recruiter=48561171&recruited_by_id=92027de0-8f58-0130-f5b6-00221964dac8&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_message)
-
I uploaded a vector for the first time they made the change and it's a disappointment.
I can adapt to the new size. No problem. What's disappointing is that they take the size of the artwork instead of the artboard size. This cause a lot problems.
I leave some padding on my artwork since most of them DON'T have backgrounds. I want them to be centered and surrounded by white space. When Shutterstock render the JPG from my EPS file, the rendered JPG has no padding. It looks like a mistake and when people search for my work, it goes from edge to edge and it really messes up my presentation.
I don't know what they're thinking. The tech is clearly not ready for prime-time. They need to change it so that it renders a JPG from the size of the Artboard instead of the size of the artwork.
-
I uploaded a vector for the first time they made the change and it's a disappointment.
I can adapt to the new size. No problem. What's disappointing is that they take the size of the artwork instead of the artboard size. This cause a lot problems.
I leave some padding on my artwork since most of them DON'T have backgrounds. I want them to be centered and surrounded by white space. When Shutterstock render the JPG from my EPS file, the rendered JPG has no padding. It looks like a mistake and when people search for my work, it goes from edge to edge and it really messes up my presentation.
I don't know what they're thinking. The tech is clearly not ready for prime-time. They need to change it so that it renders a JPG from the size of the Artboard instead of the size of the artwork.
Never even thought of this, good point.
-
I uploaded a vector for the first time they made the change and it's a disappointment.
I can adapt to the new size. No problem. What's disappointing is that they take the size of the artwork instead of the artboard size. This cause a lot problems.
I leave some padding on my artwork since most of them DON'T have backgrounds. I want them to be centered and surrounded by white space. When Shutterstock render the JPG from my EPS file, the rendered JPG has no padding. It looks like a mistake and when people search for my work, it goes from edge to edge and it really messes up my presentation.
I don't know what they're thinking. The tech is clearly not ready for prime-time. They need to change it so that it renders a JPG from the size of the Artboard instead of the size of the artwork.
Never even thought of this, good point.
Just put a white rectangle layer at the background with the same size ot the artboard...
-
I uploaded a vector for the first time they made the change and it's a disappointment.
I can adapt to the new size. No problem. What's disappointing is that they take the size of the artwork instead of the artboard size. This cause a lot problems.
I leave some padding on my artwork since most of them DON'T have backgrounds. I want them to be centered and surrounded by white space. When Shutterstock render the JPG from my EPS file, the rendered JPG has no padding. It looks like a mistake and when people search for my work, it goes from edge to edge and it really messes up my presentation.
I don't know what they're thinking. The tech is clearly not ready for prime-time. They need to change it so that it renders a JPG from the size of the Artboard instead of the size of the artwork.
According to their new uploading article, you now have to check the Use Artboards box when saving your EPS. Then it takes your artboard into account when it renders the preview. I haven't tried it, I refuse to upload until this is resolved.
-
Just put a white rectangle layer at the background with the same size ot the artboard...
Yeah I can do that, but that's destroying the integrity of the artwork. That's also just more work for me.
According to their new uploading article, you now have to check the Use Artboards box when saving your EPS. Then it takes your artboard into account when it renders the preview. I haven't tried it, I refuse to upload until this is resolved.
Are you referring to this article?
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006575 (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006575)
I can't find the option to "Use Artboard" when trying to save an EPS file. Where do I find it?
-
Are you referring to this article?
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006575 (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006575)
I can't find the option to "Use Artboard" when trying to save an EPS file. Where do I find it?
No, it's this article. Click the link and scroll down, you will see the pic of the option.
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Best-Practice-Recommendations-for-Saving-EPS-Files (https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Best-Practice-Recommendations-for-Saving-EPS-Files)
Saving an EPS file with "Use Artborads" option
"When you save your EPS file with this setting, your bounding box will include the artboard, and if the artwork is smaller than your artboard, the resulting JPEG preview will contain the white space around the artwork. Please keep in mind, if you choose this option, your artboard will need to be at least 4 MP."
-
I haven't uploaded for a while and I thought that this 4MP size issue had been quietly abandoned, but it seems not.
I have just tried to upload a complex illustration and basically its not possible to make it work with there requirements.
It is completely bonkers, whoever made this decision to change to this specification needs to be sacked, they were given fair warning, in the Shutterstock Forum last time with hundreds of disgruntailed contributors.
The latest post has hundreds of the same again, talk about not listening.
It looks like if they continue with this policy that Adobe are going to clean up with the serious illustrators/designers.
-
If you look at the M-rank, then you learn the majority continues to upload vectors on Shutterstock under the new conditions. In that case, Shutterstock wouldn't change anything. And I for some reason decided that the majority ceased to upload vectors. :) But you can look at M-rank to see number of vectors uploaded last week for any contributor. So the battle is lost. :(
-
Haven't posted here for a long time..
I just wanted to come here to say that "I am also suspending my uploads to shutterstock"
This is beyond ridiculous
-
The big image factories will just adjust their workflow and keep uplaoding. It’s the individual conributors who’ll be squeezed out. Maybe they want it that way.
-
The big image factories will just adjust their workflow and keep uplaoding. It’s the individual conributors who’ll be squeezed out. Maybe they want it that way.
Can they though? Keywording seems like half the job sometimes. I can't say I've sat down and tried to work on a good workflow for tagging eps files, but it seems like the options are limited.
-
The big image factories will just adjust their workflow and keep uplaoding. It’s the individual conributors who’ll be squeezed out. Maybe they want it that way.
Can they though? Keywording seems like half the job sometimes. I can't say I've sat down and tried to work on a good workflow for tagging eps files, but it seems like the options are limited.
If you’re a business with a number of employees, you’ll find a way to make it work...otherwise you have to fire everyone and go out of business. Earnings from other sites wouldn’t make up the loss. I think SS has instructions about adding keywords to eps files.
-
it is the artwork not artboard...that must have the 4megapixels
-
The big image factories will just adjust their workflow and keep uplaoding. It’s the individual conributors who’ll be squeezed out. Maybe they want it that way.
Its probably the image factories who suggested/demanded this change from Shutterstock to achieve exactly that and get rid of the competition
-
I have also stop uploading for the time. Just wait and see what will happen in the next couple of months and hope SS will revert back to the original method.
-
I am beginning to believe that this maybe a deliberate policy to restrict the number of EPS uploads to Shutterstock, maybe they are not interested in anything but photography.
It is a change that really is so out of the ball park and utterly nonsensical, that maybe the owner and his team have taken what they think is a strategic decision to do away with Vector Illustrations and this is just the first phase in stopping illustrators from uploading.
If you look on the Shutterstock Forum there is no one answering any of the questions.
-
I am beginning to believe that this maybe a deliberate policy to restrict the number of EPS uploads to Shutterstock, maybe they are not interested in anything but photography.
It is a change that really is so out of the ball park and utterly nonsensical, that maybe the owner and his team have taken what they think is a strategic decision to do away with Vector Illustrations and this is just the first phase in stopping illustrators from uploading.
If you look on the Shutterstock Forum there is no one answering any of the questions.
I doubt it. I think these companies love making money off of illustrations/vectors, but they often know nothing about it and spend very little time thinking or learning about it. My guess is just ignorance.
-
I am beginning to believe that this maybe a deliberate policy to restrict the number of EPS uploads to Shutterstock, maybe they are not interested in anything but photography.
It is a change that really is so out of the ball park and utterly nonsensical, that maybe the owner and his team have taken what they think is a strategic decision to do away with Vector Illustrations and this is just the first phase in stopping illustrators from uploading.
If you look on the Shutterstock Forum there is no one answering any of the questions.
Wait... their next step will be to accept only photos over 50 megapixels
-
I am beginning to believe that this maybe a deliberate policy to restrict the number of EPS uploads to Shutterstock, maybe they are not interested in anything but photography.
It is a change that really is so out of the ball park and utterly nonsensical, that maybe the owner and his team have taken what they think is a strategic decision to do away with Vector Illustrations and this is just the first phase in stopping illustrators from uploading.
If you look on the Shutterstock Forum there is no one answering any of the questions.
Maybe they want to reduce the numer of vector uploads, true; but not to eradicate it, no reason to lose part of the cake.
Today the total numer of images uploaded to SS per week is: 1,366,429; i remember to see this numer above 2.000.000 before the 4MP rule...
-
............ Mrblues101
..........
If to me, they take me more than normal, in examining, reviewing my images, to the rest of the users exactly the same. The percentage of photographs in relation to vectors is not that different. When they do not reach almost two million per week, it is because they have fewer examiners, reviewers working on the content review of contributors.
If they check me fast, that week the total numbers of the week are triggered, if they take a little longer they lower the numbers, if they rub the too much time in examining, the weekly figures go down in general. It is, my observation.
-
I am beginning to believe that this maybe a deliberate policy to restrict the number of EPS uploads to Shutterstock, maybe they are not interested in anything but photography.
It is a change that really is so out of the ball park and utterly nonsensical, that maybe the owner and his team have taken what they think is a strategic decision to do away with Vector Illustrations and this is just the first phase in stopping illustrators from uploading.
If you look on the Shutterstock Forum there is no one answering any of the questions.
Maybe they want to reduce the numer of vector uploads, true; but not to eradicate it, no reason to lose part of the cake.
Today the total numer of images uploaded to SS per week is: 1,366,429; i remember to see this numer above 2.000.000 before the 4MP rule...
I have looked through the vector uploads and most of them are low standard icons or just complete rubbish illustrations, it looks like the serious illustrators are staying away.
What Shutterstock are going to end up with is massive file downloads of poor quality vectors, if your download take a couple of hours they will lose most of the emerging World Market, these Countries do not have the resources to download these 100MB files and lets face it even in the rest of the World how many Agencies and Designers are going to want to wait 5 or 15minutes to download a vast file.
The technical people and the senior managers who came up with this idea, really are a bit thick and this could pan out across the whole site, who knows what new and exciting announcements they are about to make.
It may well be that they have someone who is in a position of authority who is intent on running the company into the ground, (Some people can be like this) as this latest vector 'innovation' will take a time to have a influence on their sales and by then this person could well have moved on or into another department, leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces.
This could well be the beginning of the end for Shutterstock.
-
On the Shutterstock Forum it looks like Shutterstock are either in denial or ignoring their contributors.
-
From the Shutterstock forum
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97235-we’re-updating-how-you-upload-vectors/?do=findComment&comment=1765983 (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97235-we’re-updating-how-you-upload-vectors/?do=findComment&comment=1765983)
They're just laughing at us…
-
I can't be alone in this. I got an email yesterday from Shutterstock that basically said, "Hey, you haven't contributed for awhile, why don't you upload some stuff? Please?"
So if you have, like me, decided to stop uploading your vectors until they reverse the ridiculous decision to make them gigantic files, it seems to be working.
-
I also received such a letter.
What's new?
Working on anything exciting? We'd love to see your latest content! Upload your recent work so that our customers around the globe can see it — and you can start earning from it.
Upload my content
In other words, we do not understand what is happening, we are still the number one in the world, we even have rooms for yoga and computer shooting in our skyscraper. And medical treatment in America is very expensive, especially the treatment of the mind. Therefore, we are not treated, and sent you this letter.
-
I also got this letter with the "Let's see what you're working on". I wanted to answer with "working in the garden" but I am not sure they are interested in my veggies ;D
I wish they'd change it back.
-
I also got this letter with the "Let's see what you're working on". I wanted to answer with "working in the garden" but I am not sure they are interested in my veggies ;D
I wish they'd change it back.
They would be interested in your veggies if you show them a cabbage with a 1 meter diameter and at least 50 leaves.
-
I am beginning to believe that this maybe a deliberate policy to restrict the number of EPS uploads to Shutterstock, maybe they are not interested in anything but photography.
It is a change that really is so out of the ball park and utterly nonsensical, that maybe the owner and his team have taken what they think is a strategic decision to do away with Vector Illustrations and this is just the first phase in stopping illustrators from uploading.
If you look on the Shutterstock Forum there is no one answering any of the questions.
Maybe they want to reduce the numer of vector uploads, true; but not to eradicate it, no reason to lose part of the cake.
Today the total numer of images uploaded to SS per week is: 1,366,429; i remember to see this numer above 2.000.000 before the 4MP rule...
Kind of a dumb reason considering there are more photos being uploaded. Why not limit those?
At least you can rearrange vectors and other uses. ???
-
I can't be alone in this. I got an email yesterday from Shutterstock that basically said, "Hey, you haven't contributed for awhile, why don't you upload some stuff? Please?"
So if you have, like me, decided to stop uploading your vectors until they reverse the ridiculous decision to make them gigantic files, it seems to be working.
Haha, really? I haven't uploaded for a while since the 4MP thing, but I did not receive this email yet.
-
Instead of changing to the 4Megapixel setup, I would have prefer that shutterstock accept more recent illustrator saved version
-
I was doing a bit of snooping and such and I found this bit of info.
Has this worked for anyone?
It won't work for me because ironically this is only for Illustrator programs that are more recent. ::)
Found here;https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006575] [url]https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/000006575 (http://[url)[/url]
Regarding Pixels/Points/Picas/Inches:
Below is a translation of what 4 MP means in each measurement. Keep in mind, these values differ based on your computer's DPI/PPI settings, but at 72 DPI/PPI (which is the current standard), those values would be:
4 million pixels = 4 million points = 27,562 picas = 771.62 square inches
EPS files must be a minimum of 4 MP, but no greater than 25MP. With EPS files, this requirement applies to the size of the bounding box around your artwork, not your artboard. In the example below the artboard is the white square behind the yellow stars. The bounding box is the automatically generated blue outlined box around the actual artwork.
So, even if your artboard is 4 MP or above, but the bounding box around your artwork is under 4 MP, you will receive an error.
In order to fix this issue, please increase the dimensions of your artwork to be 4 MP or higher.
In Adobe Illustrator:
1. Select your entire artwork.
2. In the Transform panel, expand your artwork to be at least 4 MP. In CC 2018 and newer, this panel is nested under the Properties tab.
3. Adjust your artboard accordingly, so that your artwork doesn't exceed it.
-
Oh never mind. Apparently it was not my program that was throwing me off it was the not so good instructions.
I got it to work.
So in case anyone is interested, here's what I did.
I'm using Illustrator 10.
I open one of my Illustrator projects.
Saved an experimental version of that project as an EPS.
Then I selected everything on my artboard. In other words all objects.
Then I opened the Transform pallet. Its located in my windows menu but the newer Illustrator programs have it at the top of your work space.
Then go into the Transform options menu which is the little arrow on the side of the box and choose/check Transform both.
Then in the Width x Height part increase your size.
I had this in the pixel measurement.
Then go to your Artboard located in document set up and adjust the size to be a bit bigger because you still need a bit of space otherwise you'll still have issues with parts out of the artboard. Again I did this in pixel measurement.
Upload as usual.
Should work now.
-
So you're telling us that in order to get our vectors approved they have to be somewhere around 770 square inches? what? I refuse to do this. That's insane. I'll restate the obvious again: if they want to make large jpegs from our vector files THAT'S WHAT VECOR FILES DO. They are infinitely exportable to whatever size you want. If they are unable to figure out how to do what other sites have done for years then Shutterstock is truly going downhill.
Oh never mind. Apparently it was not my program that was throwing me off it was the not so good instructions.
I got it to work.
So in case anyone is interested, here's what I did.
I'm using Illustrator 10.
I open one of my Illustrator projects.
Saved an experimental version of that project as an EPS.
Then I selected everything on my artboard. In other words all objects.
Then I opened the Transform pallet. Its located in my windows menu but the newer Illustrator programs have it at the top of your work space.
Then go into the Transform options menu which is the little arrow on the side of the box and choose/check Transform both.
Then in the Width x Height part increase your size.
I had this in the pixel measurement.
Then go to your Artboard located in document set up and adjust the size to be a bit bigger because you still need a bit of space otherwise you'll still have issues with parts out of the artboard. Again I did this in pixel measurement.
Upload as usual.
Should work now.
-
Basically 4 megapixels = 2000px x 2000px, or 4000px x 1000px.
In any case, I worked for a time testing and paying a Illustrator script programmer to devellop a custom script to open the EPS files, change it to the desired megapixels (and added options like UNLOCK ALL LAYERS, CONVERT ALL PATHS TO OUTLINE, REMOVE ALL RASTER OBJECTS, ADD A WHITE BORDER AROUND THE IMAGE).
The script will then open the source EPS folder, and save as EPS 10 in the destination folder and do all the resizing and other ticked open.
---------------------------------------------
I have also worked for years with another script I paid to devellop to open the EPS file in photoshop at the desired size and add a white border (or not) and save as JPG.
Both script completely automates the process. I never really talked about it since it's a good secret of the trade, but since the 4mp I had issues on my side and won't mind giving people a hand.
If I would offer those 2 scripts for a reasonably low price (ex: 9-10$) would anyone be interested? If so I will check to find a site that sells software and share a link here. To share it I would like at least to get my investment back in what I paid to devellop those 2 scripts and do all the add-ons and customization.
Thanks!
-
So, here's the thing: before throwing in the towel I actually tried this. I did the following with some of my files as a test:
-opened them in Illustrator and selected the entire drawing
-went to the Transform palette and made the shortest side 2000px (which would made the longer side more than 2000px)
-expanded the page size so the art didn't overlap it
-saved it as an eps
Shutterstock STILL rejected them.
Then I thought maybe making the one side just 2000px was cutting it too close and made them 2200px.
STILL rejected.
I just give up.
-
Shutterstock are doing this because they are attempting to standardise their Jpeg's, the whole reason for doing this is completely dubious as all they needed to do was to get the Contributors to upload a Jpeg to a required minimum size.
The problem that they now have is, they have someone who I guess must be fairly high up in the Company who is a total idiot and has no idea of how Vectors work.
This person having pushed through all the back end coding to make this work; spending a fortune on a 'Site upgrade' had no alternative but to throw the switch and take it live, even after on their own Forum they have had thousands of people complaining about it.
Its really that simple.
Of course the upshot of all this for buyers is a serious problem of low quietly vectors that are massive in size, taking hours to download in most of the World.
The second problem is they have someone in the Company who is a idiot.
All the other Micro sites have to be laughing at this and hoping that they don't get a job application from the culprit.
-
This issue is still going on and I'm wondering if anyone has found a way around?
I just tried to submit a vector with dimensions of 12" x18" where the artwork goes to the edge of the artboard and it was rejected for being less than 4mp. I contacted support and got the canned response of check the reason for refection article. I pointed out:
When you rasterize my vector at 72ppi the result is an image just over 1 megapixel because 12" @ 72ppi x 18" @ 72ppi is only 864px x 1296px but when you rasterize at 300ppi (proper high resolution) it gives an image that's 19 megapixels or 3600px x 5400px. Vector files have no pixels, pixels are introduced when you rasterize, so they can be scaled to any size sharply meaning you are rasterizing incorrectly. Please fix this. I know I'm not the only one affected.
Have not gotten a response and don't expect a useful one but I believe that's the problem. They are rasterizing at the lowest resolution.
EDIT: I got another canned response with instructions on how to upload taken directly from the site. Shutterstock has outsourced their contributor support to India so the email came from Pulkit and he/she has no idea what I'm talking about. I haven't given up. If I keep responding with facts it may get kicked up to an actual Shutterstock official. The entire site is a joke.
-
This issue is still going on and I'm wondering if anyone has found a way around?
I just tried to submit a vector with dimensions of 12" x18" where the artwork goes to the edge of the artboard and it was rejected for being less than 4mp. I contacted support and got the canned response of check the reason for refection article. I pointed out:
When you rasterize my vector at 72ppi the result is an image just over 1 megapixel because 12" @ 72ppi x 18" @ 72ppi is only 864px x 1296px but when you rasterize at 300ppi (proper high resolution) it gives an image that's 19 megapixels or 3600px x 5400px. Vector files have no pixels, pixels are introduced when you rasterize, so they can be scaled to any size sharply meaning you are rasterizing incorrectly. Please fix this. I know I'm not the only one affected.
Have not gotten a response and don't expect a useful one but I believe that's the problem. They are rasterizing at the lowest resolution.
EDIT: I got another canned response with instructions on how to upload taken directly from the site. Shutterstock has outsourced their contributor support to India so the email came from Pulkit and he/she has no idea what I'm talking about. I haven't given up. If I keep responding with facts it may get kicked up to an actual Shutterstock official. The entire site is a joke.
12x18" is just around 864x1296 or 1119744 pixels or around 1.1 MP. How do I know? Draw a 12x18" rectangle and then change units from inches to pixels.
What are you using? If it's Illustrator, just change the unit to pixel then do the math.
My artboard is 2464 x 1632 px (with artwork fills up the area), never have a problem.
-
This issue is still going on and I'm wondering if anyone has found a way around?
I just tried to submit a vector with dimensions of 12" x18" where the artwork goes to the edge of the artboard and it was rejected for being less than 4mp. I contacted support and got the canned response of check the reason for refection article. I pointed out:
When you rasterize my vector at 72ppi the result is an image just over 1 megapixel because 12" @ 72ppi x 18" @ 72ppi is only 864px x 1296px but when you rasterize at 300ppi (proper high resolution) it gives an image that's 19 megapixels or 3600px x 5400px. Vector files have no pixels, pixels are introduced when you rasterize, so they can be scaled to any size sharply meaning you are rasterizing incorrectly. Please fix this. I know I'm not the only one affected.
Have not gotten a response and don't expect a useful one but I believe that's the problem. They are rasterizing at the lowest resolution.
EDIT: I got another canned response with instructions on how to upload taken directly from the site. Shutterstock has outsourced their contributor support to India so the email came from Pulkit and he/she has no idea what I'm talking about. I haven't given up. If I keep responding with facts it may get kicked up to an actual Shutterstock official. The entire site is a joke.
12x18" is just around 864x1296 or 1119744 pixels or around 1.1 MP. How do I know? Draw a 12x18" rectangle and then change units from inches to pixels.
What are you using? If it's Illustrator, just change the unit to pixel then do the math.
My artboard is 2464 x 1632 px (with artwork fills up the area), never have a problem.
Yes...I know. If you bothered to read my post you would see I already did the math. Here let me make it easier for you:
When you rasterize my vector at 72ppi the result is an image just over 1 megapixel because 12" @ 72ppi x 18" @ 72ppi is only 864px x 1296px but when you rasterize at 300ppi (proper high resolution) it gives an image that's 19 megapixels or 3600px x 5400px. Vector files have no pixels, pixels are introduced when you rasterize, so they can be scaled to any size sharply meaning you are rasterizing incorrectly. Please fix this. I know I'm not the only one affected.
There, I pasted it again so you don't have to look for it. If they do the rasterizing, that would mean converting to bitmap from vector, at 72dpi, and let me make that clear, that's low resolution suitable for screen display, then my image would be 1.1MP meaning 1119744 pixels. BUT...try and keep up now, they don't have to rasterize at low res they SHOULD rasterize at 300dpi/ppi which would make the image 19MP. See the difference?
I shouldn't have to screw with pixels on a vector image at all. Vector is resolution independent and a 12x18" VECTOR file is perfectly fine for use. If I make it larger it becomes less useful and cumbersome. If it's not too much trouble, try reading the other posts in this thread, they're all pretty much complaining about having to upload huge images to pass this stupid 4MP requirement which is only a problem because they are converting WRONG.
-
Flywing gave you the correct answer. I can certainly understand that changes to your workflow are inconvenient, but that's no reason to take your frustration out on someone who has no control of Shutterstock policy and tried to be helpful.
What you are describing isn't a bug, it's just the way the upload system currently works even if you think it's wrong. There's nothing you can do to get around it except make your artboards bigger as described in both the support article and Flywing's answer above.