Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Digital Images - Published  (Read 5002 times)

Mike Spinak

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Digital Images - Published
« on: September 26, 2002, 05:44:35 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']My aunt is a very well established and highly regarded professional photographer who has been in the business for nearly three decades. She got a hold of a prototype high-end digital camera for field-testing, about a year ago. Then she spent eight months circling the globe in a Westerly direction in the Southern hemisphere, making many tens of thousands of pictures, eclusively with the digital camera.

She was very pleased with the quality of the digital captures, enough so that she has put away her analog small format and medium format cameras.

And yet, she has not managed to sell a single one of her digital images for publication. This is quite notable, considering that she ordinarily does brisk business. She has said that the publishers she deals with are not ready to handle digital files well enough to make good productions.

On the other hand, she is convinced that this is the way of the future, and that the publishing houses will come around in due course. She loves her digital equipment, and is sticking with it, retiring her 35mm analog camera for good (other than for specialized purposes).[/font]
Logged

Marshal

  • Guest
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2002, 01:35:40 am »

[font color=\'#000000\']Mike's aunt is right. The publishing houses will come around before long. I've seen very high quality shots in news and sports magazines among others the last year or two and with the latest D-SLRs announced at Photokina, more and more editors and ADs will see the light, figuratively and literally.[/font]
Logged

sergio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • http://www.sergiobartelsman.com
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2002, 12:44:51 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']I shoot a lot for magazines and publish almost all of my work. I believe that there is no such issue as for which is the origin of the photograph. Cameras are just tools for creative expression, nothing more. It is true that some digital expertise is needed to process adequately any kind of file, but the lack of experience and knowledge of others should not be an obstacle for your creations. What counts is the photographers eye and the statement he/she pursues with the photograph, be it done with a pinhole camera, 8x10 slide or a digital back. My 2 cents.

Sergio[/font]
Logged

KevinT

  • Guest
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2002, 01:32:50 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Check out this link for a view of the current state of affairs from a stock perspective.  Nature Photographer's Forum[/font]
Logged

Dan Sroka

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 597
    • http://www.danielsroka.com
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2002, 05:23:40 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']It's not elitism, but workflow. I can see why they want slides: having all submission in one format helps them go throught the hundreds or thousands of slides they must evaluate. Trouble with digital files is they are so flexible: in format, color, medium, etc. Anyone who's worked in prepress knows that even "professionals" sometimes send corrupted files in incompatible formats that "looked good" on their machines.

That said, I think any mag worth its salt will have to set up standards for accepting digital files. We'll see![/font]
Logged

Mike Spinak

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2002, 04:34:00 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Here's an update regarding my earlier post about my aunt's experiences:

She told me yesterday that the stock agency for her architectural photography, Arcaid, told her that they now prefer digital, and that they want all of her future submissions to be digital only.

Perhaps the tide is starting to turn.[/font]
Logged

Scott

  • Guest
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2002, 02:13:10 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']If I want to have my images published in a magazine, what are the pros and cons of digital capture? I'm considering a digital SLR, but if chromes are still [much] more widely accepted, I may wait a while. Also, by submitting a digital image for publication consideration, how does the photographer prove the image is the original (i.e., not digitally manipulated)? With slides/negatives, you pretty much have proof of an original.

There must be some ethical issues with respect to digital capture versus film.  My question is, are they BIG issues?

Also, even with today's 6MP (and higher res) SLRs, are there any shortcomings (versus 35mm film) in enlargement to say, 20x30 in. gallery prints?

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks![/font]
Logged

Rainer SLP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
    • RS-Fotografia
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2002, 06:39:47 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Mike,

I guess your aunt surely has considered to make slides out of the digital shots and offer those people the so badly needed slides.

As far as I know you do not need maore than 16-18MB files for doing a slide from a digital file.

Just an Idea[/font]
Logged
Thanks and regards Rainer
 I am here for

Marshal

  • Guest
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2002, 01:38:31 am »

[font color=\'#000000\']I meant to say "very high quality digital camera shots in news and sports magazines among others", but you probably knew what I meant.[/font]
Logged

jwarthman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 99
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2002, 12:59:23 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Sergio,
You say:
Quote
I believe that there is no such issue as for which is the origin of the photograph.

Yet many publications have a workflow which requires that images be on transparency film or negatives. One good example is the prestigious Arizona Highways magazine. If your work is outstanding in every way, but you cannot provide film, they simply will not accept it for publication.

Certainly we can find many publications that have migrated to a digital workflow. Each day, digital is accepted in more places. But to think that we can work our craft in whatever way we choose is unrealistic in the world where we must work with other people, with their own requirements, tools, and processes.

Enjoy!

-- Jim[/font]
Logged

Marshal

  • Guest
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2002, 03:30:02 am »

[font color=\'#000000\']If you choose to shoot film along with digital for different purposes and/or different clients, that's fine. If you're shooting in AZ for instance, you could shoot digital for yourself and anyone else and with film for those like AZ Highways who still demand film. Remember that your digicam, be it a Canon G2 or EOS-1Ds, Coolpix 99# or Kodak 14n is good for both testing compositions and exposures for film use at the very least. If I was at the Grand Canyon or Antelope Canyon with a 14n, I would definitely be using that as my main camera.  :D

Eventually even the magazine will be forced to take digital in the future, when digicams drop from $6-9K down to what an N80 film camera costs today and most people shoot with them or MF digital. Just remember, only afew years ago, a 2 megapixel "Pro" digicam cost around $20,000. And today...well, I rest my case.[/font]
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Guest
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2002, 01:01:15 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Somone wrote:

"Yet many publications have a workflow which requires that images be on transparency film or negatives. One good example is the prestigious Arizona Highways magazine. If your work is outstanding in every way, but you cannot provide film, they simply will not accept it for publication"

Excuse me, but I can't help myself.  How incredibly silly!  To me, that's just elitism at its worst.  Of course, it's their mag and their money, but ....

FWIW, I've written and supplied photography for one of Canada's top-end motorcycle publications.  My most recent article opened with a two-page spread from a single image.  The camera?  A Nikon 990.  It looked great.  In fact, the entire article comprised six photos, all of them with the same Nikon.[/font]
Logged

sergio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • http://www.sergiobartelsman.com
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2002, 08:48:29 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']Don't let other peoples limitations limit you. Just go and make photograph with the best you have at hand. If your images are really worth it, believe me they will publish them. I've made editorial work with a bag load of disposables. Nice look.
Use what you have. This is about making pictures.

My thoughts.[/font]
Logged

Tim

  • Guest
Digital Images - Published
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2002, 08:22:10 pm »

[font color=\'#000000\']How rediculous. Are they distributing the end result as a transparency? Of course not, they go to paper and I'll bet they do it digitally. As far as the comment regarding it being easier for them to sort through lots of shots- rubish! Have you ever used a good thumbnail viewer such as Thumbs plus??? Any publisher still insisting on transparency is in the process of changing or just can't figure out how to turn on a computer yet (I should say ignorant but that would be impolite).
   :p[/font]
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up