OT - do magazines still want slides?

In recent weeks I shot two features for one of the in-flight magazines. One in Thailand with both 35mm slides and digital and the other in N.Y.C. in black and white neg and digital. With this particular design company, they have not had much success yet with digital but want their photographers to keep shooting some of the features in digital so that they can keep trying. Often the problem begins with the photographer delivering digital files that are flawed. The problems are compounded by deadlines. So film still is preferred in this case, with digital as backup, for difficult lighting, and for experimentation. Its also maybe a generational thing. Designers/editors who have spent the past 20+ years on the lightbox are comfortable there, while designers/editors in their 20's/30's are using digital from the beginning of their careers.

Paul: "I only have the experience of three big companies, plus one huge book publishing

company......"

 

Oh come on Paul, stop being so modest........

 

I don't doubt your industry experience, but remember that essentially this is an

anonymous forum and none of us really know who we're talking to. Generally people fall

back on flexing their credentials when they're struggling in an argument.

 

"If you've got comparable examples of others moving to Quark 6 I'd be fascinated to hear

about it"

 

You're being disingenuous. Of course Jeff can't give you examples of companies "moving"

to Quark, it's about whether they stay with Quark. Personally, from what little I know,

Indesign seems a really elegant alternative to Quark,

but it's still too early to tell whather it will become the industry standard. The primary

thing that stands in its way is the very same industry conservatism that you Paul embody

in

your

attitude to digital imaging........

Boris baby, actually I acknowledge re Quark V IndDesign this is

actually a grey area, and while the evidence is 80% in my favour,

it's not toally cut and dried. And if I professed conservatism re

digital imaging, that is in fact poor use of language, as what I've

tried to say is that I'm excited by the onward march of technology

and the possibilities it offers - however, I was keen to point out to

Sanford that his future options are not as narrow as some

people would like him to believe. By talkiing about magazine

process, I was trying to explain some of the factors that would

affect his options in the future.

<i><blockquote> Quark were forced to get a version of of their pdf writer

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

A shame you're not using a Macintosh. Mac OS X applications can print directly to PDF,

whose 'Quartz' 2-D rendering engine which is based on the same imaging model as

PostScript. To have a document as a PDF file simply open the Print dialog and click the

'Save As PDF' button. <p>

 

<center><img src="http://images.apple.com/applescript/print/gfx/

PDFWorkflow.jpg"><br> <i>This works on every single Mac app.</center>

Paul, let's do a deal. I'll stop challenging you on digital workflow, and in return you'll stop

Mojo publishing yet another tribute to some seedy old 70s rock band. You know it makes

sense. I'll go further, bring out a special issue acknowledging that disco was/is more

influential than punk and I'll actually get on board and back you on the thread of your

choice. I'm that easily bought.......

<i>A shame you're not using a Macintosh. Mac OS X applications

can print directly to PDF, whose 'Quartz' 2-D rendering engine

which is based on the same imaging model as PostScript. To

have a document as a PDF file simply open the Print dialog and

click the 'Save As PDF' button. </i><br><br>It's a shame you

don't know more about the issues because then you would

realise that using OS X to directly output a PDF suitable for print

production in the real world (rather than sending the contents of

a Word document to your mate) is a very poor idea. I can't be

bothered to list the reasons but <a href="http://

www.creativepro.com:80/story/feature/21266.html" target=

"_blank">this</a> article provides a good summary. Using the

'save as PDF' option directly in OS X is not the way to win friends

in the production departments of most of the mags I deal with.

Many (for example, Communication Arts in the US) are even

leery about PDFs created directly out of InDesign and insist that

they will only accept PDF/X files outputted via raw PS (postscript)

and run through Distiller.

When did I say it was PDF for going to plate?

I tried to read all these posts but they were amazingly boring. Sorry.

 

Don't you think these publishing companies should be looking at the photos? Or is it a case of ? proper photographers use this type of camera, and this type of image capture"

 

What a load of bollocks...they really need to move their heads from their rears.

I say old chap, I always use a contax, leica or blade myself. One does not want to dirty one's hands on that common stuff that they use.

 

Funny, some groat type sent me a thing on one. Ha ha, saved on toilet paper, what. Jolly chippers.

<i>Few editors are happy to run a 6 megapixel image any bigger than about half page</i></i>

<p>

This is simply not true in 2005. 6 MP cameras match film, they run virtually whole page A4 without interpolation. Having seen a DPS from the Fuji S2 and Olympus E-1 I can confidently say they are noticeably cleaner than from 35mm.</p>

<p>Returning to the question: many publishers still use slides, but equally the majority accept digital submissions, both scans and from digital cameras. In the UK the best place to read about their requirements is the BFP's market handbook.