Is 20D good enough for stock submission?

[jwheeler]

Didger, could you please point us in the direction of your published work?

[BryanHansel]

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.

[BJL]

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.)

[howard smith]

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.

[howard smith]

Jason, why don't you take this up with AH?  Show them the errors of their ways.  Rather than be irked, change it.

[didger]

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
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.

[didger]

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.

[didger]

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.

[howard smith]

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.

[howard smith]

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.

[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?

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?

[Jonathan Wienke]

He'll probably do so right after you...

[Quentin]

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

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

[howard smith]

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.

[BJL]

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.

[JasonK]

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....

[jwheeler]

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.

[howard smith]

"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?

[howard smith]

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]

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.