Any magazines still using slides?

I have noticed that a lot of fashion magazines are using digital. Or at least

it seems to my eye. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

Are there any magazines left that still use film more than digital? I hope the

National Geographic and Arizona Highways do, but I have not had the chance to

look through a recent copy. It is probably irrelevent anyway. I am just

curious.

i too am curious; why do you hope NG & AH still use slides??

That's a pretty difficult question as there are so many magazines and to know how much

slides vs. digital each one uses would require inside information. I can comment with

confidence that many magazines are still happy to use transparencies. And of course,

there's lots fo good reason for magazines to adapt to accepting digital submissions. The

changes are happening fast; it's all in a state of change right now. I wrote the publishers

of Sailing magazine last week, inquiring about photo submissions. Their masthead

mentioned only that they accept transparencies. But the responding editor said, "we

should read our fine print more often! Looks like it's time to update the masthead--of

course we accept digital."

 

As to National Geographic, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they're WAY more digital than

film now.

 

As to fashion mags, I personally know fashion and editorial photographers who use

medium format film. Consider the cost of medium format digital backs! When a client

requires digital, they can have scans made of their transparencies, and everyone's happy.

Digital is revolutionizing photography, or ruining it depending on your point of view.

AH still uses slides - they had an arcticle on this issue in one of their recent issues

As long as you can scan film, it really doesn't matter. Even the most hardcore digital-fans would not have anything against a good grainless scan from film (LF and MF). The trouble comes when you try to compete with 35mm film against digital around people who don't accept grain.

Thorir,

 

That is a good question. I am not sure why, just a sense of nostalgia and tradition.

 

And for personal reasons as well, I like slide film, especially in the 6x7cm and 4x5" format, and I figured as long as the the magazines used it I will still be able to buy it.

 

I am becoming a little concerned about the availability of chrome. Especially after my beloved Velvia 50 was discontinued. Additionally, I still have plenty of K64 and very few places to process it.

Not an easy question.....here's what I have to say;

 

Many magazines still prefer slide film because it gives instant feedback (faster than digital). Hold a transparency against the light and you can immediately see if it's good shot. Selecting a photo is faster and easier. Scan the transparency on a drumscanner and there you have your digital file with exceptional dynamic range. National Geographic, in their current issue have an article on Brazil. Shot with a Leica MP on Velvia and then scanned. Excellent pictures if I may say so. It depends on the throughput and lead time. If you need really fast images, like newspapers, use digital. For all else a transparency is perfectly acceptable.

Until recently the NG website listed information about (most of) the photographs contained within each magazine article (media, iso, aperture, shutter speed etc etc). I looked through about 6 months worth (from about Jan to June 06) and estimated that about two thirds of all photographs were taken with digital cameras. They stopped providing this information a few months ago, so can`t check the current ratio.

I do know NEWSWEEK is still operating their darkroom, but other weekly news mags are presently digital. Hope this helps.

What Edgar said. Plenty of publications still accept slide submissions according to Photographer's Market. Some guidelines still express a preference for color transparencies. On the other extreme, some folks ask for Mac-compatible images. It's really difficult to be all things for all people right now. Good luck.

JD

 

From Arizona Highways' online submission guidelines:

 

"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." (Bold print is from the source.)

 

Source:

 

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=About_Submissions_Photo

 

Jim

<i>On the other extreme, some folks ask for Mac-compatible images. </i><p>

 

What publications ask for this? Their personnel should be replaced. A Mac can read any image in standard format and anyone who has worked in graphic design for more than a week knows this. Maybe you can let us know, should be some good job opportunities coming up.

"Many magazines still prefer slide film because it gives instant feedback (faster than

digital). Hold a transparency against the light and you can immediately see if it's good

shot. Selecting a photo is faster and easier"

 

It's conceivable that a photo editor might prefer transparency over digital for a particular

"look" (for example, Kodachrome), but when it comes to instant feedback it's way faster

and more informative to view and edit digital images via a browser than transparencies on

a light box. It also allows a group (it's normally a three way dynamic - photo editor, art

director, story editor) of people to discuss the relative merits of the images in question

way more conveniently than a loupe and a light table.

 

"It depends on the throughput and lead time. If you need really fast images, like

newspapers, use digital. For all else a transparency is perfectly acceptable"

 

What drives the increasing choice of digital over film in the publishing world is cost, not

lead times - don't forget that the newspapers had no trouble getting up to date images on

their front pages long before digital. It's also cost factors, rather than aesthetic, that led to

the restructuring of the NatGeo photo department in an effort to move primarily to a

digital workflow.