david_killick9 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I haven't asked a question for a while, so here are several for the price of one, (sort of related): In what format do magazines prefer pictures these days? Does this vary in the US and elsewhere? I am based in New Zealand and enjoy using Agfa slide film - partly because it is good value, partly because it has a very neutral colour palette. I was pleased when a US magazine liked my pictures shot on Agfa, taken with my M3 and 50 Summicron. They specified slides, but do many magazines still require slides; if so why? Is there really any advantage with slides over prints? Or would scanning pictures onto CD and either sending that or emailing them be a better choice? Is there still a widespread preference for highly saturated pictures? Is everyone going completely digital? Why stick to film? (bearing in mind I am talking about feature material, not hard news where time is of the essence). Finally, who still uses an old camera/film set up professionally, and why? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
floyd_takeuchi Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 David: I'm sure the answer(s) will depend on the publications. I can tell you that at the company that I run -- a regional publisher that produces four monthly consumer magazines, a bimonthly fashion/shopping magazine, and seven speciality magazine-format speciality publications -- we work with both digital and film photographers. Digital makes the workflow quicker -- we don't have to factor in time to send transparency or negative film out for scanning (usually on an Imacon, occasionally on a true drum scanner). Over time, I suspect, we will favor digital more and more (for time and cost reasons). A photographer's ability to use artificial lighting well is more important than film type or how saturated an image is. Photoshop is the reason, of course. The film/digital question becomes more critical in cover shoots. Given the choice, we'd usually favor a medium-format film image over most digital images for a cover, save an image shot with a medium-format digital back. In fact, that's the best of all worlds for us: a cover shoot done by a photographer with a medium-format system with a digital back. The publication's art director, who usually directs the cover shoot, can check images on the computer tethered to the camera, and will know when we get the image we want. Still, if we have a photographer who is particularly good and uses film, we will work with him or her. One of our magazines -- a home and garden monthly -- uses a photographer who shoots 4x5 transparencies. The quality is gorgeous, and he has full control over perspective, etc. We're in no rush to urge him to make the transition to digital. Hope that helps a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 The ad agency I am Creative Director at hasn't used film for any printed advertising in years... including all magazine ads. Everything is digital from start to finish. As stated above, the work destined to be in a full page ad or for an outdoor board or in-store poster is shot on a Medium Format cameras with a high meg. digital back. People work is done with a single shot backs like the Kodak ProBack. Still work is often done with a multi-pass scanning back which produces a huge file for exacting product detail. On occasion, a 4X5 camera is used for still work with a "tiling adapter" which allows each quadrant of the 4X5 area to be captured separately by a digital back, ( some car catalog work is now done this way). Art Directors and clients now attend shoots where the image is captured directly to the computer and reviewed in real time. With model fees, stylists fees, assistant fees, travel expenses, gear rental, verses tight client budgets these days, re-shoots are not an option. Digital has the art director leaving the shoot with a 40 meg portable hard drive full of "approved keepers". However, should a specific photographer be desired for their unique approach, and they prefer shooting film, then we go with it and drum scan the selects. Here is an example of a MF digital shot used in a 6 foot tall Credit Union poster, newspaper ad and magazine ad touting Home Equity loans to build "Mother-in-law suites (home improvement). The color may be a bit off because all printed work is done in CMYK color space rather than the RGB we use for photos.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Oops, make that a "the art director leaves with a 40 Gig portable hard drive", (not a 40 meg, which wouldn't be big enough to hold even one of these MF digital back files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Frank's right, any source will do. However, I wouldn't call a client being cheap for being reluctant to pay for scans these days. In the job I mentioned above, we created a library of images which totaled almost 100. The scans had to accommodate all sizes from huge Duratrans to magazine ads. At $70 per drum scan plus film, processing and gang proofing, the tab for using film was an extra $8,000+. $8000 is a BIG difference to any client these days... especially when it all ends up as digital reproduction anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_somerset1 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 The answer to this is that it depends on the art director. My experience (in Canada) has been that some magazines actually prefer film, because then at least they know what they're getting. That attitude is the result of files they can't open, CDs they can't read, etc. If you send film the AD knows he has complete control over the process. Of course they're just as happy to get digital files as long as you know what you're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulstenquist Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I do some car photography for enthusiast magazines. The one I work for most often wants 40 megabyte files. I scan them from 6x7 transparencies. I shoot transparency film so that I'll have a good reference for accurate color. Because some of the cars are restorations, I sometimes send the transparencies along so the art directors will have color reference. They would be happy with digital images if I could produce that large a file. When I can achieve that with a camera that costs less than $1000, I'll probably switch to digital. I figure a couple of years at most. However, I'm very pleased with the film acanning process. Like I said, transparency film provides an excellent color reference, and there may be some control advantages in the intermediate step of going from film to a digital scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_perkins2 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I use film quite a bit. For stuff that wants to be double page spreads, (I work for the Independent weekend magazines in London) 35mm slow slide film is good, medium format even better. They scan that themselves at stupid resolutions. Agencies like at least a 50mb 8 bit RGB scan on file for cases when they need to do double pages. For slides, negs are fine, but for b&w prints are preferred. For viewing, emailing small jpegs is acceptable practice. I'll probably ditch my EOS kit and slide film for digital next year (use Nikon D1 for some work, but it's not mine), keeping a rangefinder for b&w or difficult stories - closed military areas, places with bad electricity, places where you don't want to look like a professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_killick9 Posted December 11, 2003 Author Share Posted December 11, 2003 Aha, it is as I thought: the bottom line is still how good a picture is it - but digital is making big inroads. I think 50MB sounds a bit like overkill. The newspaper where I work would do a full page pic at about that, but of course newsprint does not show fine detail clearly - though it can be surprisingly good these days. One photog said: sure, digital does a whole lot more and has made life easier for some, but he reckons the over-all quality of some published pictures has declined. I think, generally, the quality of US magazine photos is extremely high. When people submit images to us, we used to have a lot of problems with file sizes being far too small; that has changed. But few people said if they use Leica rangefinders very much! Any further comments welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now