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" 

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".

Quote from: zsooofija on April 05, 2019, 09:42
"making uploading vectors and earning money easier than ever" 

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

Someone started an online petition:

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......

Quote from: U11 on April 05, 2019, 00:45
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

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.

Quote from: cthoman on April 05, 2019, 17:17
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.

Quote from: DallasP on April 06, 2019, 00:34

Quote from: cthoman on April 05, 2019, 17:17
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

Quote from: Chichikov on April 05, 2019, 20:02
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?

Quote from: Mrblues101 on April 06, 2019, 02:17

Quote from: DallasP on April 06, 2019, 00:34

Quote from: cthoman on April 05, 2019, 17:17
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?