In one respect it's a strange kind of fun to fix graphics problems. On the other hand this idea feels like opening a great big can of worms. Putting it bluntly, no one wants to do any kind of freelance graphics work and/or graphics trouble-shooting services at the risk of getting ripped off by a client that you never meet in person who in the end refuses to pay.
I agree on the can of worms and more or less addressed it in my post just above. I may simply present an image enhancement service as simply an artificial intelligence process with two or three proofs presented as a alternate of choice. I might even add a satisfaction guarantee. The presentation, limitation policies and the work itself will certainly be monitored and modified as it evolves.
Virtually all of the clients for whom I do graphics work reside here in the region where I live. They have an established identity and physical address where they can be reached. Clients typically sign contracts or at least purchase orders to lay down a legal paper trail for services rendered. If a client refuses to pay in "the real world" there are very real consequences. The same isn't as true on the 'net.
True. The only consequences are that we lose a sale and the client still doesn't have what they want. Since this would be a pay up before receipt of the final product, we are working on spec. Keep in mind though, the average invoice in this business model is likely less than $50.00. So a long haul policy might be weeding out those who stiff you by refusing any future jobs from them.
It would be great for Signs 101 to have an additional operation as a sort of crowd-source hub for graphics services, where forum participants here can earn a little extra money doing various graphics odd jobs. But, as I said before, protections need to be built-in for the talent doing the work. And, risking a little ire here, not all sign designers are in the same league in terms of design prowess. So that's another issue that opens an entirely different can of worms. Let's also not forget the possible conflicts of interest designers could have with their employers doing sign design work on the side.
1. I've always thought it was something that could work but the logistics and administration of it would probably be a nightmare.
2. In my situation the quality and acceptance of any service offered is just based on my skills ... not the mixed results that might be the case you mention in your example.
3. When that happens it isn't the fault of the crowd-source hub.
Looking at the list of applications above brought up a number of obvious questions or observations. Most obviously there is no mention of CorelDRAW, regardless of the fact it is arguably the most prevalent vector drawing program in sign shops everywhere. I've used CorelDRAW for what seems like forever in terms of years. At the same time I'm a big Adobe fan and I could check off a couple or more of those list items, such as using Astute Graphics' amazing suite of plugins for Illustrator CC.
I would probably offer file conversions for CorelDraw also, but not much else. With PDF, EPS or other universal formats being offered for delivery on some other services, I am not experienced enough in CorelDRAW to do layouts in it comfortably, correctly and efficiently. We all have our preferences and for vector setups or editing, I like Flexisign best and Illustrator because it produces no-problem EPS and PDF files.
Astute Graphics' Vector First Aid plug-in does a far superior job of node and vector cleanup than does Illustrator's or Flexisign's global cleanup routines. Given a choice, it is the only cleanup routine I've found that I would choose to use.
Regarding trendy commercial fonts people have on hand, not wanting to step on the Vector Doctor's services and some other issues, the whole proposal is a really complicated situation.
Yes and it would be monitored and modified as part of a normal evolution. The only conflicts I can envision would be whether or not I would run Vector First Aid on an auto traced image from a client or whether I would perform a high resolution auto trace on a photograph or other image a client submitted. Current thinking would be probably yes. Especially since Illustrator does such a phenomenal job at auto tracing a photo. Because Illustrator posterizes a photo there is some loss of quality, but you end up with a scalable vector that can be enlarged to any size with no further loss of quality and is generally acceptable when viewed from a reasonable distance. So you can take a photo that is 6 inches tall and scale it up to 6 feet tall with much greater acceptable quality than if you tried the same scaling with a bitmap image enlargement application.
There is a small fee for specifics.
Just put it on my tab.