Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: howard smith on October 29, 2004, 11:34:31 am
-
I recognize the typo, but I don't get your comment. I guess I will go to the principal.
-
Rather than speculate, why not contact the stock agencies you're interested in working with and ask them about their guidelines and current/future plans for digital submissions?
Some agencies specializing in calendars will not accept anything less than 4x5. If that happens to be a major market for you, none of the above is even relevant.
Guy
-
"I'm not sure if this was meant to be a put down; it could be a straight question."
It is a straight question. Not a put down. But I do want to know what your level of qualification is. I have read several threads, to some of which I have contributed, and you do come across as someone who believes he is knowledgeable and very experienced in digital photography. I believe I have read your posts by which you express that amatures here need to be directed correctly. Here is one from the visible dust brush thread; " Yeah, I sometimes find myself responding to extreme cluelessness for the same reason, namely to perhaps prevent a beginner from being mislead. "
I guess I too am trying to make sure no one, me included, is being misled.
If you are a knowledgeable pro who can speak from experience then that is great and much appreciated. If you are like some of us, me included, new to digital capture then please present yourself as such so we can all learn together.
"I like shooting too much more than sitting in front of a computer all the time."
Over 800 posts since April of this year? I think you do need to get out more.
"I'm sure not interested in getting into a "more professional than though" pissing contest."
I certainly am not either. By my own admission I am an amature not a pro. I do appreciate the gospel spoken by those who are truly experienced and not by those who claim to be by way of academics only.
"He'll probably do so right after you..."
Gee Jonathan, im NOT published. But thanks for your interest.
-
One of the sites mentioned in that Inkjet article was gently asking their film contributors to get their collective acts together since their scannning/noise managment techniques were not leading to images competitive with digital.
Film vs. Digital
by Peter Ensenberger,
Arizona Highways Director of Photography
As technology advancements in digital photography race to the shelves of camera stores, one of the hottest discussion topics among photographers is the image-quality comparison of photographs shot on film vs. that of digital-capture. Indeed, there are some advantages in shooting with a digital camera: seeing your photographs immediately; editing as you shoot, saving only the best for printing; and the ability to make your own high-quality color enlargements on an inexpensive digital printer. But is the image quality of digital-capture high enough for large reproductions in a magazine like Arizona Highways that is known for the quality of its photography?
Presently, the answer is "no."
One of the most-asked questions...
Here's a link to the full article:
Film vs. Digital (http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803)
What utter tosh
Quentin
-
I think, for stock agenices, placing those guildlines up gives them a nice tag to put on the side of the image when marketing it.
Again the exact same sort of reasoning applies in the audio world. Studios have to have the "right" brand names. An album has to be recorded with the "latest and greatest" gizmos, whether it makes any real audible difference or not.
I have a pro commercial photographer friend who uses a Canon 3.4 Mpixel point and shoot now and then for actual client shots if that's the appropriate resolution. However, he never ever lets the clients see that camera. Depending on subject matter, he's also gotten some very respectable 16x20 prints with this camera. Reality and marketing are never in the same camp.
-
Jason, I said it was my hunch. No evidence available or required. If I had evidence, it wouldn't be a hunce, would it.
I am not saying the editors are right, wrong or justified (except they run the show and don't need any other justification). Frankly, I don't care whether the editors are stupid, ignorant, prejudgous, or their 401(k)s are fully vested in Fuji. It is just my hunch (again) that they try to put out a high quality magazine and they believe, for whatever reason, that digital isn't what they want. It is my opinion that the photo quality of the magazine is quite good.
Elsewhere in this thread is a note alleged to be from AH that says they don't look at digital.
-
There's a link to a post where a DPReview patron posted the e-mail she'd sent to AH. I think it's pretty well written.
That would be me folks - (he not she) and Peter (Dir of Photography at AH) and I had a heated discussion about this over there.
It's obvious that AH doesn't want thousands of submissions from people with point and shoot digicams and that the article was likely intended to discourage that. In so doing, Peter made numerous blunders and errors and as anyone who has read it and has a clue about professional use of digital equipment can attest, painted a highly biased and technically incorrect picture of both the capabilities and limitations of digital technology.
I admonished him for comparing an eight bit file from a 1DS to a 48 bit scan from MF film and for suggesting that people "backup" their digital files with film (shoot dual images) and for generally misleading the readers. He was highly insulted and the resulting threads degenerated as both knowledgeable and un-knowledgeable contributors began responding.
In essence his original intent was directed at a very unsophisticated audience and raised the ire of all who have a clue about the current state of digital capabilities and limitations.
To make a long story short, it was an ill conceived article which resulted in a huge landslide of emails to AH and a loss of respect for their management for not correcting the errors by many of us who make our livings with digital equipment.
In no way does this imply that AH is not a class magazine or that they have less that wonderful images by a team of great photographers. I've been a reader of AH for over 50 years and my family was reading it 20 years before I read my first copy! By all appearances, they simply have a strong film bias and they have every right to that opinion. On the other hand, they were strongly criticized for publishing this "tripe" on their web and rightly so in my opinion.
Lin
-
And I know that many - myself included - appreciate how you stepped up to the plate on that particular issue, Lin. :)
-
Hey! I own a Land Rover... :D
-
I've sold the 10D and I have a 20D on hold at the camera store. I figure I'll go out and pick it up. Then I will make my best effort to sell my existing 10D and 20D images. If the resolutions don't cut it but the image does, then I will have to consider how much I want to foot the coin for the 1Ds MKII.
Seems like I won't have trouble finding a niche with the 20D though.
-
One thing about forums: People always seem to migrate to their lowest standards of conduct. When I saw a bunch of extra posts I was looking forward to reading more about my new 20D. I was disappointed instead.
Try to live on a higher level, people. Life is about joy, respect and good karma. If you are not saying things to further good nature, then I suggest not saying anything at all.
-
I put a 20D on hold for a few days while I ponder this.
Would 8mp 20D files be generally accepted for stock submission? Also, could someone provide a list of stock agency links that I could reserch?
Thanks!
-
I have a question that may be quite basic, but how does a stock house know what camera you used?
They couldn't. However, if a stock house editor is worth his salary, then he'd for sure know the difference between a portfolio of native pixel 1ds images and a portfolio of uprezzed 35mm film or lower resolution digital camera images. I'd be very hesitant about uprezzing and lying. It probably wouldn't work in any case and if you're ever caught, or strongly suspected of lying, your credibility is down the drain. Honesty is the best policy here and in the long run everywhere else too.
-
One of the sites mentioned in that Inkjet article was gently asking their film contributors to get their collective acts together since their scannning/noise managment techniques were not leading to images competitive with digital.
-
If you are a knowledgeable pro who can speak from experience then that is great and much appreciated......
I do appreciate the gospel spoken by those who are truly experienced and not by those who claim to be by way of academics only....
Over 800 posts since April of this year? I think you do need to get out more.
You seem to be strongly implying that only a full on pro (not a mere "semi-pro" like me) can possibly speak from experience rather than academics only. I've been taking pictures for about 45 years and digital capture for the last several.
As for "getting out more often", I doubt that there's anyone anywhere that's gotten out more than me for the past several months. I've been out almost constantly, working a lot of 12+ hour days.
In any case, there are a lot of folks on this forum with a huge amount of experience but not making a living with photography. I try to judge a suggestion or an item of information by its practical worth and whether it makes sense to me and whether that person's other messages have made sense to me, rather than by how much money that person makes with photography. The idea that any of us here are "speaking a gospel" of any sort seems a bit silly. We each (amateur or pro) have our own unique approach and something to share and no one is so "professional" that his opinions are beyond any possible error.
Since I clearly fail your professionality test for credibility, I invite you (as I have others in the past) to avoid wasting any more time on my messages. Life is too short and I do not encourage you to risk being misled.
-
One of the sites mentioned in that Inkjet article was gently asking their film contributors to get their collective acts together since their scannning/noise managment techniques were not leading to images competitive with digital.
Film vs. Digital
by Peter Ensenberger,
Arizona Highways Director of Photography
As technology advancements in digital photography race to the shelves of camera stores, one of the hottest discussion topics among photographers is the image-quality comparison of photographs shot on film vs. that of digital-capture. Indeed, there are some advantages in shooting with a digital camera: seeing your photographs immediately; editing as you shoot, saving only the best for printing; and the ability to make your own high-quality color enlargements on an inexpensive digital printer. But is the image quality of digital-capture high enough for large reproductions in a magazine like Arizona Highways that is known for the quality of its photography?
Presently, the answer is "no."
One of the most-asked questions...
Here's a link to the full article:
Film vs. Digital (http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803)
-
It's been my experience that while many stock agencies (not all, but many) have unnecessarily high guildlines for digitally captured images, the actual users of the photos (publications, advertisers, etc) often don't. Photo editors and other consumers who go direct to photographers to purchase their images often will purchase and successfully use even images captured by 3, 4 or 5 megapixel prosumer cameras.
I think, for stock agenices, placing those guildlines up gives them a nice tag to put on the side of the image when marketing it. It allows them to alay any fears in their market when they can claim digital capture with bleeding edge technology even when it may very well not make ANY visible difference to the photograph in the context of its anticipated use.
Then of course, you have those that simply have a 'film is better' credo whether or not it has any rational or logical foundation.
I personally believe that output from most 6mp and up digital SLRs is more than adequate for 95% of stock use purposes.
-
Oh I remember that whole deal (there were a couple of long running threads all about it at dpreview) - and also how the powers that be at AH couldn't provide any tangible evidence to backup any claims they'd made.
I think digital capture has reached a point where it no longer needs to be proven for many many uses. It's up to those disputing its usability that need to show the evidence - and I just haven't seen -any- evidence showing that digitally captured images aren't absolutely great for magazine publication.
-
Sounds like they're completely and purely uneducated to me.
Well, that's a little milder and more tactful than my insinuation of stupidity, but if the person that wrote that has a 3 digit I.Q. then the level of lack of photography education is truly astounding.
-
Almost buried in this tangential debate about AH is the fact that we have got some solid facts and reasoning on the original question about digital stock submissions from a real, live stock agency operator.
Thanks Quentin!
So, a follow up question: what range of photographic types do you see in good work from the Kodak 14/m and SLR/[n,c] models? Are they good for nothing except landscapes, as has been suggested in some places?
A pleasure although I caution that we may not be typical (yet) of the whole stock industry. But times are a changin' :: In a few years, when even point and shoot cameras are 10 or more mp, the size isue will become academic.
On your Kodak question, I mainly shoot on a Kodak 14nx, so you could say I'm biased in their favour. Here is a very recent shot with the 14nx:-
http://www.barleigh.com/print/shopimages/homepage.jpg (http://www.barleigh.com/print/shopimages/homepage.jpg)
One other photog has sent us 14nx images, and they were of exceptional quality. We are still hoping he will formally submit some material to us. I look forward to seeing some 1Ds Mk II shots soon.
The stock libraries curse is the dogy film scan. As we don't accept film (ironically, the exact reverse of the AH mags approach), we get quite a lot of film scans of excellent work, but loads of grunge, passing accross our desks.
The idea that digital is not yet good enough is quite laughable.
Quentin
-
There is a point, didger. You said you submitted the article and snapshots to Backbacker, and that they rejected it even though you claim it was well written and the photos were fine. You are apparently annoyed by that rejection and their reason - not enough of the yuppied using new equipment. Well, if you knew the market and what Backbacker wanted, why bother to send it in? You would have known it would have been rejected.
I would assume one of the goals of Backpacker is to be commercially successful - read make a profit or at least sustain itself. They seem to be meeting that goal with the present format and editorial policies.
I look at some ads these days and think they are inane. No way do they even tempt me to try their product. Then I think they may not be so stupid, but I am simply not the targetted audience. May I suggest you are not Backpacker's audience?
I have had many photos published. Not because they were magnicifant. I went to the person responsible for what photos they were looking for. Then, if I wanted to try to take them, I did and submitted them. I nailed the market.
To get back to the original question, I used a 5 mp Sony, so I guess a 20D would have been fine.
-
philthygeezer, "niche" is the word that I was looking for. Find a niche. There is no competition there. You should do well.
I have a niche. I shoot for scholastic publications. I ask what they need, and go get it. My fee is photo credit. No one competes with me, not even the schools' own photographers.
-
When I saw a bunch of extra posts I was looking forward to reading more about my new 20D. I was disappointed instead.
Don't look for the 7th+ page of any thread for much of anything new. You did not ask for information about your 20D in general, you asked for information about stock submission and this issue was very adequately covered with much specific information early on, including a couple of links I posted that I hope you found useful.
If we are going to start criticizing off topic use of bandwidth, then there's a huge amount of house cleaning we can do and the forums will be pruned to about 10% of what they are now and some of us will disappear altogether. But why not let the owner of the forum deal with this, if he's concerned?
What I find much more disturbing than the harmless banter we sometimes indulge in after a thread has pretty much run its course of useful material is when it turns from harmless banter and light jesting to outright rudeness and judgmental and condescending advice or orders.
Maybe defending myself when I find that I'm a target is also "not furthering good nature". I try to altogether avoid even reading messages by certain folks, but sometimes they jump in in the middle of a thread I'm interested in and I'm sometimes stupid enough to reply. I definitely admit that this is my error and I'll try to do better in the future.
-
This is an interesting issue that I'm also quite interested in. The message from Michael some time ago about at least one major stock agency that accepts nothing less than 1ds was at a time when there were already enough 8 Mpixel cameras, so I suspect that at least for some venues a 20D would not be accepted.
What I fear is that the requirements may go up when 1dsMKII becomes relatively common, and then again when digital MF becomes more affordable and user friendly. There's so many landscape photographers (literally competing with each other for tripod space sometimes) that the stock houses can be as demanding as they want and still get too many submissions. I'll still target stock houses, but my main focus will be to do my own direct marketing of fine art landscape photography. That's competitive too, but you can always find a niche (craft fairs, if nothing else).
Also, could someone provide a list of stock agency links that I could reserch?
SellPhotos.com
Photographer's Market
This is a website and a book with the info you want.
-
Just curious how a stock house would know whether the camera were a 1ds or not.
My point was that no one could tell what exact camera any picture is from unless he has a camera raw image with embedded i.d. code. HOWEVER, an experienced person should generally be able to distinguish between a collection of 11 MP native camera pixels and 11 MP images that were uprezzed from 6 or 8 MP or taken with 35mm film. Thus someone would be taking a big chance in misrepresenting uprezzed or film as native 1ds.
In other words, a stock house could not tell if a picture is 1ds or not, but they could probably tell if a whole collection of pictures was from a camera of less resolution than 1ds, even though they could not tell you which low resolution camera was used and they could also not tell you if properly hi res pictures were 1ds, Kodak large sensor, or MF or whatever.
-
That would be a way to trick the EXIF data, but the real key is to look at the image itself. You can't get 6000x4000 pixels of sharp, detailed image data from a 1MP P&S. EXIF may lie, but the pixels won't.
-
Didger, could you please point us in the direction of your published work?
I'm not sure if this was meant to be a put down; it could be a straight question. Either, way it doesn't matter to me. I'm getting more and more confident about my understanding of hardware and shooting related issues, but I'm still a total Photoshop dummy. I like shooting too much more than sitting in front of a computer all the time.
As for published work, I sold some images to Corel for stock, but I've never even seen the CD this went on and I haven't got a clue how many times and how some of these images may have been used. I'm in a similar situation with a didgeridoo sample CD and CD ROM that I have with very successful worldwide distribution. I know that those samples are in lots and lots of commercial projects, but I only know about a few specific ones. Stock photo use or music sample CD use doesn't require giving any credit. I've also sold a few pictures for CD cover use, but I don't even know if those CD's were actually ever released. Check back in a few years to see how much I've published. I'm not even working on marketing at all right now.
In any case, whether it's music, painting, photography, or whatever, very often inspired "amateurs" produce more "alive" and interesting and creative work than folks that have gotten into a rut making money with a few trite formulas that happen to appeal to the lowest common denomitator taste. I'm sure not interested in getting into a "more professional than though" pissing contest.
-
that article is at least two years old
-
The mag is wrong to exclude digital capture, in my view
Well, it's their mag and they can do what the want. It's surely "wrong" in the sense of what's in their real best interest because they're turning down unseen some great pictures and if they keep it up they may go the way of the dinosaurs, but that's their business. What's more wrong is for them to make unsupported and unsupportable claims that their decision is based on quality considerations and then to "support" that view with total drivel that reflects total cluelenssness. It's unrealistic not to expect a little rudeness, though that's even more "wrong" than the foolishness that generated it. Oh well.
-
Jason, excuse me, but it is not up to AH to justify what they do. Digital camera users are a not protected class of people in the US of A, so it is good enough for AH to just refuse. They can give any reason they want or none at all. Maybe if readership or photo submittals start to drop off, the editors will reconsider. Until then, ...
-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums....8155027 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=8155027)
There's a link to a post where a DPReview patron posted the e-mail she'd sent to AH. I think it's pretty well written.
Here is an excerpt for their article where they tried to explain why they didn't accept digital images:
"One last thought on the film vs. digital debate: If you’re planning to switch to a digital camera soon, don’t give up on film just yet. Remember always to back up your digital photographs on film. Even if you have already made the move to digital, consider that today’s best cameras record digital files at a little more than 11 megapixels. But what if, in the near future, the standard moves up to 20 megapixels or higher? If you have backup on film, you can scan your images at a higher resolution. But will your old 11-megapixel files be convertible? We don’t know for sure."
Sounds like they're completely and purely uneducated to me.
-
After all the reason people get out and backpack is to commune with nature.
Yeah, the ones that actually do packpack. I think half the people reading some of those magazines don't get beyond the equipment lusting phase and hardly ever get out at all. Same thing with tennis, skiing, cycling, whatever. I also tried to find some mag to do an article for after my 4 month solo cycling tour in Australia. Zip; just magazines with lots and lots of pictures and articles featuring people with those hi-tech bikes and pretty cycling costumes. I think plenty of people also spend more time on forums and thinking about equipment than they ever spend behind a camera. Equipment is important and well designed equipment is a joy to use, but it's a means, not an end.
No problem, I've managed all my life to find ways to market the products of my creativity and I've never yet had to get a real job or go without a meal.
-
The gist I am getting out of the whole thing is that the 20D would be quite enough for selling stock about 80% of the time.
I tried to get the thread back on that topic a while ago, with limited success!
So, what do we know so far about stock agency requirements?
-
Ha, ha. I have a niche too. I specialize in doing really exotic really expensive really challenging really fun and really creative things that as a rule lose money. No one competes with me, not even the other inmates.
-
didger, maybe their standards have changed, and you should resubmit?
Could be; their response to my initial try was so weird and lame that I can't believe that a mag that's been so successful for so long could have such an editorial policy all the time.
However, the particular article in question is now way too old. You can't submit an article about a trip done so many years ago. At the time they were very explicit about the need for new and impressive gear in pictures and they were in fact quite encouraging about submitting again if I could get into the spirit of this gear thing. As for my more recent ventures in the Sierra Nevada, I haven't processed any of the images (except for that "committee effort" on that ultrawide panorama shot I posted for suggestions) yet and I need to finish my camper top before I get really full on into Photoshop and I want to do a lot more shooting soon too. At some point I'll be doing all sorts of marketing efforts (mag submissions maybe, stock submissions for sure, publishing my own book for sure, website for sure, maybe even...shudder..craft fairs). For now, I'm not starving yet and I can't control my shooting and backpacking wilderness exploration enthusiasm enough to put marketing considerations far enough on the front burner. This sort of priorities are what's kept me from ever making serious money, but it sure has kept me having serious fun all my life. Full speed ahead; sanity isn't everything.
-
very good survey article here:
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_10-28-04.html (http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_10-28-04.html)
-
That's "couldn't" tell an origianl from a dupe.
That's "original".
Now stop being a child or you will have to see the principal.
-
didger, I don't understand. At the risk of being trollish and/or inflammitory, first you say they couldn't tell. Then you say if the editor is earning his keep, he could. Seems you can either see the difference or not. Could you tell me how?
Since I have no intention of ever submitting work to a stock house, it is not a question of making it work or honesty. Just curious how a stock house would know whether the camera were a 1ds or not.
-
didger, I still don't get it. How does an experienced person tell the difference between an 11 MP 1ds and a proprerly rezzedup 8 MP? If I crop the 11 MP 1ds to 8 MP and then rezzup to 11 MP, will the same experienced person be able to tell the difference? Can that person see a difference (and if so, what is that difference) if shown a cropped 8 MP file from a 1ds and and uncropped 8 MP file from another camera?
As I said before, I have no intention of misrepresenting anything to anyone. I am just curious about what is so different that an experienced person can see.
-
the EXIF headers of a file identify it as coming from a particular camera, or scanner, or image manipulation program, though I imagine it is possible to falsify the headers.
What would happen if you take an image from Camera A and delete all content and then paste in an image from Camera B? Which camera does the EXIF file then specify? I'm sure there would be all sorts of ways to defeat this identity thing, not just with Photoshop tricks, but with more serious hacking too.
-
...but generally speaking: MO is BETTA !!!
There are several threads in several forums presently very active, where this is my conclusion and the general drift is also starting to go that way. You can't be hurt by a lens that's unnecessarily (for a given situation) sharp or a sensor that's unnessesarily large, but you can limit yourself with too little. It really boils down to individual priorities and what you can afford, though often people whose priorities and finances dictate less will argue vehemently that less is just as good as more. Not so; no way.
-
Didger, have you ever submitted anything to Backpacker mag or any other similar pubs?
-
You need to know "what" you sold. If you have sold XYZ exclusive rights and ABC a one time use, you could be the one in trouble.
If you are pricing for a one time use and XYZ is using it for many uses, you are short changing yourself.
Ansel Adams left his dark room shortly before he died. He didn't want to die in the dark room, and wanted to do more shooting. That is one reason I retired, I didn't want to die at my desk toiling at some useless task.
-
See:
http://www.barleigh.com/stock/photographers_pack.pdf (http://www.barleigh.com/stock/photographers_pack.pdf)
I'm not saying we are typical, but the original question did ask about 20D images, and this is therefore specific and detailed information from one small agency.
Quentin
-
What utter tosh
If tosh means more or less the same thing as bullsh*t, I'd say so too. Arizona Highways is a nice mag, but that doesn't mean that their editorial policy invalidates the huge amount of good work being done with digital photography.
-
Arizona Highways won't take digital. So, no matter how good digital is, it isn't what Arizona Highways will accept.
I suggest that, because they look at many more high quality images a year than most of us, maybe they have a slight chance of knowing what they are talking about. But, it is their opinion and thier magazine, so that is that for now.
-
leads them to exclude any image captured with anything less than a 1Ds?
It's a lot stupider than that. They don't accept any digital capture whatsoever, not just less than 1ds. NO DIGITAL, and that would presumably include zillion $ digital backs for MF.
I don't doubt "they do some homework sometimes", but I think sometimes maybe they also don't.
-
The arguement is, they don't look credible with 'shoot from the hip' statements like the ones they'd made.
They have their own company which allows them to set their own standards. That's wonderful... but stating that they've 'done their homework' is plain out silly if you ask me... the proof is in the pudding... and everyone who opens their eyes sees plenty of pudding.
-
Be a crusader for digital rights? Nah... it's been adopted to broadly already for that to be worthwhile. Not to mention I've never fired a shutter in Arizona.
Besides.. its been tried. Do a search on the dpreview forums for AH... you'll see records of countless letters and correspondences on the subject with them. Which were fruitless.
-
... Could this hopefully sufficiently novel Sierra approach possibly be viable for your company? I don't expect to actually have anything to submit for some time (though I already have thousands of raw images), but once I start really getting into the processing phase I should be getting quite a few things. I assume it would be possible to use the same images for stock as for a book I publish myself?
Could well be, although as I explained to another enquirer, we are mainly focused on the UK market, so I don't know how much interest there would be in North American material - if we had enough of it, I suppose it might be a new direction for us :-)
It is possible to use stock submissions for your own personal work. We set it all out somewhere in out terms.
Quentin
-
You came out twice on this thread stating that AH had done their homework. Thus, I asked you earlier on to provide any possible homework they could've done which might support the belief that images captured on a digital SLR didn't possess the quality to be published in a magazine.
Considering your response, you obviously don't have any tangible reason to say that. So you're making an assumption with no basis other than blind trust in a photo editor that works their. Fine. Your choice.
I stated that the proof was in the pudding. Whether you like it or not, photos from various levels of digital capture (a little 3mp prosumer cam right through a 20+mp digital back) are being published in thousands of publications (is National Geographic a bad example?). -That- is the pudding ... unless AH is your religion, that is.
-
Unfortunately, the letter mentioned in the Dpreview thread was a little belligerent in its tone. The mag is wrong to exclude digital capture, in my view, but none of us will get them to change their minds by being rude or agresive to them in correspondence with them.
The digital ban would presumably extend to scan back images, whose resolution is exceptional and at least the equal of 4x5 film, which illustrates how crazy it is.
On the issue of stock file sizes, a lot of buyers just want to run an image at 1/8 or 1/4 page, and then ask for the file to be sent over as a compressed jpeg, by email. In that context, a 3mp point and shoot image will have sufficient resolution, and again, we post max repro sizes based on our experience on Barleigh Stock specifically to guide potential buyers of the max size an image will reproduce at with good detail. That size may be greater than the pixel count suggests in the case of a good sharp digital image. It seems ridicuous not to make a great image available simply because the file size is too small for it to cover the side of a truck, if it is good enough for, say, A4.
Quentin
-
Almost buried in this tangential debate about AH is the fact that we have got some solid facts and reasoning on the original question about digital stock submissions from a real, live stock agency operator.
Thanks Quentin!
So, a follow up question: what range of photographic types do you see in good work from the Kodak 14/m and SLR/[n,c] models? Are they good for nothing except landscapes, as has been suggested in some places?
-
didger, you missed my point. I have no problem with you doing whatever it is you do, but don't expect everyone else to see it your way. I didn't get the idea that Backpacker was suggesting you include yuppies with the latest equipment drinking Chardonney on the tailgate of their Land Rover. They merely were saying your submittal didn't meet their requirements, and suggested what it would take if you really wanted to be printed in their magazine. You said you didn't want anything tp do with magazines like Backpacker, and I guess they aren't interested in your work either. I don't think that justifies a "bullsh*t outfit" label. I doubt National Geographic or New Yorker would want your article either.
To be commercially successful, you need to know the market.
-
Wow. Look at all these posts! :D
The gist I am getting out of the whole thing is that the 20D would be quite enough for selling stock about 80% of the time.
Do I read this right?
-
Well, the 20D is safely at home. It arrived at the store on Oct 30 with Firmware 1.05 already installed and I've had it on hold, while I pondered my EOS future, until tonight.
The first things I checked were wether the TS24 f/3.5L and Angle Finder C fit. Positive on both counts. So far I love the instant-on and really don't like that gaudy blue and red strap.
I had seller's remorse this afternoon but there is no going back now. We'll see how this one settles in...
-
get a life... No offense intended
Now that's a low credibility combination of a demand and intention behind the command. You would perhaps not be offended? At least you're not offering unsolicited advice, you're actually giving orders. I'm not sure that's a lot better and I'm also not sure of your qualifications to give anyone orders nor to enforce them.
-
Well, this was over a page ago on this forum, but I just got done reading an article in Backpacker magazine, and I looked at the photos. I couldn't make out any new piece of gear or logo in any of the pictures. As a mater of fact, it had nothing to do with backpacking at all. It had to do with a bunch of creationists rafting down the Grand Canyon.
didger, maybe their standards have changed, and you should resubmit?
-
Thanks Tim. That goes into my permanent "marketing" archives. I found this article on the whole more encouraging than discouraging. I especially found the concept that really great unique images should not be marketed in the same way as more ordinary ones quite valuable.
I'll still keep shooting what turns me on the most and hope that that will be marketable as stock, but be prepared to just do my own fine art marketing.
-
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_10-28-04.html (http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_10-28-04.html)
Can someone summarize their conclusions about digital stock sale options? One part of that article hints that there are some avenues for online selling of images from 1800x2400 and up. As a fantasy, my E-1 just fits!
P. S. to Howard Smith: the EXIF headers of a file identify it as coming from a particular camera, or scanner, or image manipulation program, though I imagine it is possible to falsify the headers.
Some of the stock rules I have read about seem based less on direct image quality needs than as time savers, allowing editors to avoid some of the work of judging image quality themselves. I can envision people printing a digital image, scanning the print, and presenting it as scanned from film!
-
Didger, could you please point us in the direction of your published work?
-
This is from their photographer's guidelines. The caps are theirs and not mine. - Bryan
In order to achieve the high-quality reproductions in our publications, we prefer large format (4x5) transparencies, especially for the large scenic landscapes that we are famous for. We will use medium format and 35mm transparencies that display exceptional quality and content. Some subjects such as wildlife and people are best suited to 35mm, but in order to achieve high-quality reproduction they must be shot on fine-grained color slide film (100 ISO or slower). NO PRINTS, NEGATIVES, DIGITAL-CAPTURE PHOTOGRAPHS, OR DUPLICATE TRANSPARENCIES WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW BY THE PHOTOGRAPHY EDITORS.
-
This is from their photographer's guidelines. The caps are theirs and not mine. - Bryan
... We will use medium format and 35mm transparencies that display exceptional quality and content. Some subjects such as wildlife and people are best suited to 35mm, but in order to achieve high-quality reproduction they must be shot on fine-grained color slide film (100 ISO or slower) ...
Thank you; the fact that Arizona Highways will sometimes accept film formats down to 35mm utterly refutes the argument made in that article, since that argument is based on attempts to compare the quality of digital to scanned 4"x5", not to scanned roll film or 35mm format film.
(Not to mention the utter ignorance shown by claiming to assess image quality by file sizes. Or the dubious idea that the standard magazine page size used by Arizona Highways has enough resolution to show a difference between medium format and large format.)
-
Jason, maybe you could show me the proof that AH hasn't looked at what they want. "[t]he proof is in the pudding" says AH doesn't need digital cameras and digital photographers at this time. AH seems alive and well to me.
I don't recall asking you if I my statement was sillyu.
-
Jason, why don't you take this up with AH? Show them the errors of their ways. Rather than be irked, change it.
-
Yeah, Backpacker Mag. Never again. What a bullsh*t outfit. I sent an article and pictures about my incredible Gorge of the Little Colorado trip
Little Colorado Trip (http://www.didgeridoings.com/eyemagic/Nature/LittleColo/Lit.html)
Was I rejected for substandard photography? No. Rejected for substandard writing? No. I was rejected because my pictures didn't show any nice spiffy yuppie outdoorsy folks wearing nice spiffy expensive outdoor clothing and I didn't show a nice spiffy expensive tent or other gear in my pictures. Unbelievable? You better believe it. Backpacker is pretty much one huge equipment promo effort cover to cover. It's hard to tell the articles from the paid advertising.
I recently saw another mag for outdoor stuff that seemed much nicer, but I already forgot what it was. Until I have my Sierra book material pretty much done I won't submit anything anywhere. I can manage financially for a few years without selling any photography, so I'll just enjoy that without worrying about selling for a while.
-
without people to a magazine that promotes people outdoors, should I expect to be rejected?
You completely missed my point. The (to me) objectionable thing is that the focus is neither on people nor on outdoors, but on equipment. They said I had to have more new modern clothes and camping gear conspicuously showing in my photos. This would be a legit requirement for an ad, but not for an article in any magazine I would care to have anything to do with. AZ Highways and Backpacker Mag can do whatever they want, but I think both have BS editorial policies as far as I'm personally concerned. You and anyone else is free to read any mags you want and to tailor your photography to any market you want. I'm not that desparate yet that I'll go back to film for any mag or that I'll start doing commercial photography on my backpacking trips so as to qualify for submissions to a "backpacking" magazine with too much commercial slant in almost all their articles (just my personal taste). To each his own.
-
about 80% of the time
77.3858% plus or minus 20%.
thread back on that topic a while ago
You're running afoul of Didgers Law of Threads, which says that On Topicness Decreases in Proportion to How Long the Thread Gets. 7 pages is beyond hope. Everything of any real relevance generally gets exhausted in the first page or two.
Hey! I own a Land Rover...
Hey! I wish I did... I'd sell it and buy a 1dsMKII!! I don't own a Landrover, but I do have some really nice high tech ultralight backpacking gear and I value internet and other informations sources for finding such stuff, but I don't like it when magazine articles are almost nothing but equipment hype and articles and reviews favor big advertising accounts. Equipment is the means, not the end. I'd prefer articles with inspiration about the reasons I backpack, which is NOT just to test gear. Bah, how lame, what bullsh*t (my personal opinion; nothing else).
Um, back on track: That might just be plus or minus 18.5%, not 20%, depending on esoteric statistical math considerations and the phases of the moon and such stuff.
-
didger, a niche also involves filling a need other than your own. I didn't mention this before because I thought everyone knew that. Sorry.
philthygeezer, it sounds like you have parted with an old friend. It will be OK.
-
I have a question that may be quite basic, but how does a stock house know what camera you used? I know of stock houses that would take only "original" slides, yet could tell a good dupe from the origianl.
Stock houses are very competive, sorta. They usually have there favorite photographers. It is sometimes very difficult for a new entry to get his work past the house editor and out for sale. It can be as simple as "I know this photographer sells" to as tough as "He/she is my boyfriend/girlfriend." Or worse yet, an ex. I know a former editor at a large LA stock house who saw huge boxes of images that were never even opened by the editors in favor of certain known or favored photographers. Like it or not, you will need to be a lot better than Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, etc. are to compete with their names, let alone their images. Many buyers buy the name rather than the image.
-
I still don't get it. How does an experienced person tell the difference between an 11 MP 1ds and a proprerly rezzedup 8 MP?
How does an experienced person tell the difference between a quart of milk straight out of the cow and a pint of milk that's had a pint of water added to it? The watered down quart still has only 1 pint of milk. The uprezzed image has only 8 MP of actual information, the rest is interpolation (like diluting milk). In milk you get diminished nutrition and taste and in uprezzing you get diminished sharpness.
Maybe you can understand better if we use an extreme example. Imagine a postage stamp size image uprezzed to 3x4 feet compared to a very detailed picture made from a 3x4 feet negative (if there were any such thing). Where is all that detail that's lacking in the small picture supposed to come from when you blow it up to a huge size? Where is the extra milk supposed to come from if you add water to make a pint of milk a quart?
Do you have a computer and Photoshop and some image files? Try loading anything into Photoshop. Then crop out a tiny square of that image. Then resize that little crop to the pixel dimensions of the original picture. Now compare this drastically uprezzed image to the original image that the crop was taken from. Do you see that the uprezzed image has no detail? It's not such a difficult concept. Just give it a little more thought. If an uprezzed 8 MP image were just as good as an 11MP image, why would anyone buy a 1ds rather than a 20D? Uprezzing is easy and costs nothing. Why stop with 11MP. Why not uprezz to 100 MP and outdo 4x5? Why bother buying milk any more? Why not just keep diluting a quart again and again?
-
He'll probably do so right after you...
-
that article is at least two years old
Tosh = Adj. Rubbish, nonsense (English slang, so yep, Bullsh**t is a more modern alternative )
See http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/index.htm (http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/index.htm)
Even if the article is two years old, the comments seem in part directed at the 1Ds (they keep going on about 11mp). Might be interesting to phone them up to see if their policy has changed in the meantime.
Quentin
-
BJL, you are on to it. The end use makes a difference. If you were to send an article to a magazine with photos, it is much more likely the photos will be acceptable even if takes with a less than 4x5 camera. As you accurately point out, a printed magazine page with a 2x3 inch photo will be impossible to tell the source.
A user that goes directly to the photographer can dictate what the end use is, and a good photographer will shoot accordingly. The cost of custom work is generally more expensive, hence the stockhouse.
A stock house does not usually know the end use, so they accept stock that will meet the most end uses.
I would stop short of saying Arizona Highways won't take digital because they are so 20th century that they haven't seen a good digital image. The publication has been on the upper end of photo work for sometime. My hunch is they do some homework sometimes.
-
There are at least two different questions in this thread.
One is whether the 20D is suitable for submission to various places, and the answer seem to be "yes" for some stock agencies, and some magazines such as National Geographic, but "no" in the case of Arizona Highways and some other stock agencies.
The other question is the one I was commenting on: whether the article by the editor of Arizona Highways articulates a rational basis for their policy of considering transparencies only, and in particular no digital images. For the reasons I stated previously, the answer there is another "no".
Finally, when someone publishes a lengthy argument in support of a decision he has been involved in, and that argument is obviously, fundamentally flawed, my hunch is that he in fact has no rational basis. Notwithstanding any legal right to make irrational decisions.
-
We agree fully on that. I just prefer not to assume that AH has 'done their homework'. If they had, they would've realized that many digitally captured images are more than fine - quality wise - for their publication's needs. If they had said that they didn't have the facility or need for digitally captured images... or that they just don't like the concept of digital capture .. fine. But they expressed quality concerns as their reason which irks me just a little....
-
That’s too bad. I would much rather read about real people hiking and how they do it and what they use that really works. Especially photography in the back country. After all the reason people get out and backpack is to commune with nature. Too bad there is more emphasis on how good they look doing it.
-
"What a bullsh*t outfit." Backpacker is what it is. Maybe the editors looked at didger's submittal and said "What a bullsh*t submittal. It doesn't meet any of our needs."
No matter how wonderful a submittal may be, if it doesn't meet the market or buyer's needs, it will be rejected. If I am submitting a photo to Sierra Designs, I wouldn't show my North Face tent, would I? If I am submitting photos of the outdoors without people to a magazine that promotes people outdoors, should I expect to be rejected?
-
I'm not sure how much more we know about stock photography. I would only suggest that if you want to get into stock, find a stockhouse that is looking the photos you enjoy taking, determine THEIR requirements, and proceed if you choose to shoot using their requirements. As I have suggested before, it is easier to hit the target if you know what you are shooting for.
-
didger, a niche also involves filling a need other than your own.
Did you actually take my comment 100% at face value? It was largely a jest. I thought everyone would know that. Sorry.
If none of my work ever filled anyone else's needs, then how would I be making a living? I'm neither independently wealthy nor do I commit crimes for money. I've had occasional successes, and even pretty big ones and my present India manufacturing business (filling many needs and employing quite a few people) is bringing enough income that I can manage a lot of time to explore my own creativity without worrying too much about photography marketing just now. In the past my photography has been used for CD covers and stock, therby filling needs and I expect that my currently much greater photography commitment and enthusiasm will result in greater success (filling needs) eventually.
Do I need a lot of patronizing advice how to run my life? I don't think so. Have I asked for this kind of advice? I'm sure I haven't. Are my self appointed advisors qualified by virtue of having their own lives totally together? I doubt it. You do your thing, I'll do mine. If I choose to place more emphasis on exploring my own creativity than on commercial potential that's my own business and I don't mind that this hasn't made me a lot of money. Money isn't everything.
-
That's "couldn't" tell an origianl from a dupe.
-
Howard,
Some guidelines I've seen specify their digital requirements in uncompressed file size (usually TIFF format, in megabytes) rather than megapixels.
This serves to normalize things somewhat. At a given file size different cameras will require different amounts or "rezzing", if any, and therefore hold varying amounts of detail depending on the source file used to create them. A photo editor will usually be interested in amount of detail at a given print size (in inches, usually at 300dpi).
Some images can be rezzed up better than others, but rezzing up doesn't add detail, it only interpolates what's available.
Presumably you could stitch together a bunch of captures from a lower-resolution camera and still meet the file size requirements with enough detail to meet or beat a single-shot capture from a higher end camera.
Guy
-
I believe the original question was if stock-agencies will admit/buy files from a 20D. As far as Im concerned that very much depends...
I know of local agencies that work with 4MP files from 1D. I know agencies that(as someone sugested before) will only admit large format negs.The final use of the image is going to determine which files are "sellable", and that is something that will have to be checked with each agency and that may vary from one assignement to another..
...but generally speaking: MO is BETTA !!!
No sane editor is going to reject an image because of an excess of resolution.
My 2 cents of an Euro.
-
Gee Jonathan, im NOT published. But thanks for your interest.
Hybrid RAW Conversion (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hybrid-conversion.shtml)
Workflow Technique #20 (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_20/essay.html)
You're welcome.
-
because they look at many more high quality images a year than most of us, maybe they have a slight chance of knowing what they are talking about
Well, since they refuse to even look at digital images at all, I'd say that the chance they know what they're talking about is very slight indeed. In any case, digital photography at the high end is still relatively new and somewhat experimental, so us pioneers will just have to be a bit patient about becoming universally accepted. I've already been through the whole process with electronic music and digital recording. Now every pop group has a synthesizer and almost all recording is digital and hardly anybody gives the issue a second thought. Digital photography is still a lot earlier on the curve, especially professional landscape photography. The die hards may die hard, but they won't live forever either.
-
"My hunch is they do some homework sometimes."
That's the second time you've said something like this in this thread, Howard. Could you show me what kind of credible homework they might have done that leads them to exclude any image captured with anything less than a 1Ds? Or that Arizona highways won't take digital images period?
I see many magazines (even non-digital generic photography magazines) that are publishing beautiful images captured with prosumer digital cameras that show beautiful quality even on two page spreads. What does that indicate to you?
-
Unfortunately, the letter mentioned in the Dpreview thread was a little belligerent in its tone. The mag is wrong to exclude digital capture, in my view, but none of us will get them to change their minds by being rude or aggressive to them in correspondence with them.
Probably few really care about AH "changing their minds," excluding digital is neither "wrong" nor right but simply an issue which is a business decision and one which they have every right to make. Most have no qualms with their decision to exclude digital files. What is truly the issue here is the use of a very public forum to spread false information.
Some of us have taken our very valuable time (over five years in my case) in attempts to educate the public including AD's and other decision makers about issues concerning digital capabilities and limitations. We've made great strides and have overcome many objections based on wrong concepts and misinformation. A number of highly respected and prominent professional photographers such as Melvin Sokolsky, have demonstrated conclusively that digital works wonderfully for major quality publications and have joined public forums such as dPR to help inform people. Still, the film bias is strong but the world is learning. However, when the Director of Photography for a respected magazine such as AH goes public and knowingly spreads false information, for whatever purpose, it's time to be a little "belligerent." Being aggressive with comments gets their attention while being "nice" and attempting to use persuasion gets the brush off as was the case with numerous previous emails and correspondence to AH about their position by a host of protesters.
AH expressed the view that "we are experts and we know what works and what doesn't" - they used an argument from "authority" to knowingly spread false information and misinform their readers which constitute a sizable number of people. The email and public condemnation of AH's Director of Photography on a world-wide photography forum for publishing this misinformation served its purpose by drawing them into a public discussion that served to reveal their bias and demonstrate the flaws in their commentary.
Personally I have no interest in whether AH ever accepts digital files, but I do have an interest in seeing that people know the facts and that years of hard work to educate the public about digital photography is not undermined by their spreading false information. Sometimes persuasion and reason works well to get one's attention: sometimes it takes a stick between the ears. This was one of the latter cases.
Lin
-
Hey, Quentin, it never came to my attention before that you actually have a stock business. I very briefly checked out your site and it looks like you do quite a variety. I've been told several times that Sierra Nevada photographers have little hope of selling stock to a way oversaturated market; not that I expect to do nothing but Sierra stuff forever, but for now my priority is to do my 4 seasons of the Sierra Nevada book. My unique take is that I go to considerable extremes of cross country backpacking with very high quality gear and I also expect to truly do a big coverage of all 4 seasons, including serious winter high country backpacking; a bit of the fanaticism Galen had (I used to go bouldering with Galen when we were both young back around the late Pleistocene). Could this hopefully sufficiently novel Sierra approach possibly be viable for your company? I don't expect to actually have anything to submit for some time (though I already have thousands of raw images), but once I start really getting into the processing phase I should be getting quite a few things. I assume it would be possible to use the same images for stock as for a book I publish myself?
-
Didger,
get a life...(and stop monopilizing the threads)..
No offense intended!! :cool:
-
BJL, again, you are right there. When I was a kid, I hated "Because I said so" as a reason. But, given a health respect for my parents, I learned to accept it. When I got older, Butch Warner made the baseball rules because he had the bat.
Well, a magazine has the press and a stockhouse has a lock on the door. They "own the bat." If it is no digital, that's it. It may or may not be rational. It may or may not be stupid. It just IS.
Michael doesn't critique submissioms anymore. Did he need to justify that, or just say to quit sending them?
We need to get over this. As you said, some places do, some don't. Some take 1ds only, some take whatever.
-
yuppies with the latest equipment drinking Chardonney on the tailgate of their Land Rover
Being a "backpacking" mag, the Land Rover part wouldn't work, but the rest fits exactly according to what they want and what they print, whether it happens to be an "article" or a straighout ad. It's often hard to tell which is which. We all define BS in our own ways; one man's favorite whatever is another man's BS. Come to think of it, I'm sure Backpacker would love an article on the classiest ways to get to the trailhead, as long as it featured one of their advertisers' cars. This sort of total comromising of the editorial content for the sake of promoting products qualifies as BS for me, however differently you may define what "deserves" to be called BS.
you need to know the market
Oh, I think I know the market well enough. I just don't want to go there, thank you. I don't think Playboy or Mechanics Illustrated would want my article either. So what? Is there a point? I've managed my entire life getting by (or better) marketing the output of my creativity doing things that truly turn me on, without compromising for the sake of a lot of what I perceive as bullsh*t necessary for many kinds of commercial success. That's not my Holy Grail.