Sanford Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I know of at least one publishing company (Desert Publications) that still likes to look at slides, the bigger the better, and discourages digital files. What is your experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_meeker Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Sanford, I shoot for several magazines and they all prefer transparencies (med.format, 4x5, 35mm in a crunch) for feature shots but will accept digital files for detail shots (they prefer the 35mm tran. even for these). One of the mags will accept digital shots if there is a time crunch and the file sizes are at least 50mm @300dpi. Regards, Frank M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I haven't submitted anything except digital files for at least four years. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_meeker Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Sanford, Another part of the question might be what type of magazine, and in what country. For my part: British garden magazines, American food and home/garden magazines. 1/4 page up to double-truck images. A friend that shoots for People mag. uses only digital now because of short lead-times and small images. Hope this helps, Frank M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Mine have gone to art magazines, slick and not-slick music publications, high-end hotel room publications (oddly, they specified medium format transparencies used to take the photos but only wanted my scans), and an images-only photography magazine. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I agree with Frank. I find magazines have a preference for film. Of course, they can deal with all sorts of image capture media whatever but they definitely have a prefence for silver halide. I make it a habit to check with photo editors and art directors about the film/ digital debate and they nearly always comment that they experience problems with digital. Of course, there will come a time when they won't. Newspapers have made the switch so I guess magazines can. However, in the last few months, there have been a number of occasions when mags have commissioned me and specified that they didn't want the shoot done on digital. This suits me fine as I currently prefer film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwilkins Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 <i>(oddly, they specified medium format transparencies used to take the photos but only wanted my scans)</i><p> Presumably their art director or photo editor has some idea that they want the "look" of film but somewhere along the line they no doubt decided that good scans were expensive and that the photographer should pay for them. :)<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabrina_h. Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I've worked with a few mags and most wanted slides. I did a shoot last week for a feature (portrait) and sent in slides yesterday. The smaller mags that i've worked with didn't care what the media was. I've sent them high res digital files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I've only come across one magazine that wanted slides. They even specified that they wanted med format Kodachromes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_simmons Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 A friend who regularly publishes architectural work in shelter and lifestyle magazines says his clients want it shot on 4x5 or medium format film and then delivered on CDs at around 30-100mb. One client still wants transparencies, but the rest are happy to get the digital file and don't care if he shoots trannies or negative, so he shoots negative, does his own scans and PS work, and sends them the CDs. In the end, they're hiring him because his pictures are technically superb and the light is beautiful. Shooting film and delivering CDs will, I think, be a standard method for quite a while in these types of situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulstenquist Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I shoot for some car magazines. They'll take transparencies but prefer digital tiffs of about 50 megabytes. Most books seem to be moving in that direction. The last to go will probably be architectural magazines where a view camera can be an advantage. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 hmmm. this seems silly. film is a nice request for viewing easy around the office or on the light table during concept meetings. but what a hassel to get film into photoshop and import to quark/indesign. it's not rocket science on how small of a file you actually need for an 8.5x11 page. film is redundant but some of the cameras needed to make certain shots, are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_meeker Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 BTW,My first post should have read"...50MB @300dpi" not 50mm.And those files would be tifs, of course.Sorry, Frank M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul t Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 My experience: half a dozen slick music magazines, still prefer slide or print, likewise most of the consumer mags friends of mine work for. Digital OK for fast turnover, front-of-book stuff. Most people still prefer scanning to be done via their own repro house rather than trusting the photog. <p> But, over the last 18 months, still life/pack shots moving almost completely to digital, and 'customer mags' (produced for third parties) moving to digital, so the 'client' can not make a decision, even later in the process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_west Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 in japan they want scanned film or digital files. they'll accept slides but scan it themsleves. only data is handed off to the printer these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_ochan Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 At the higher end of the market the picture editor would normally allow the photographer to use whatever medium he or she felt was right. It wouldn't be unusual for a photographer to mix neg and transparency or film and digital (or even all three) on the same assignment. The "look" of the image is more important than the file size. Even a 6MP digital camera will make images that will comfortably give a high quality magazine doublepage - there might be some rezzing up going on but that's no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 depends on the publication of course, but most are going all digital these days...just the way it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzdavid Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 The question is, can you tell the difference? Look at Arizona Highways (superb images, med or large format I am told). Nat Geo, 35mm transparencies. House and Garden and architecture magazines still like transparencies, the larger the better. I did some for US Chief Engineer magazine both as slides and and also had them scanned onto CD (the quality of the scan will make the difference). As a general rule, more newsy type magazines will go for digital. The quality is increasing compared with a few years ago, but even so there's a hell of a lot of brochure material out there, and even some magazine pictures, where the quality is woefully lacking compared to a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_hicks1 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Dear Sanford, For maximum quality most of the ones I know prefer film, or high-quality scans from film, but high-quality digital origination is increasingly acceptable. Few editors are happy to run a 6 megapixel image any bigger than about half page, hence its usefulness for pack and product shots, how-to sequences, etc. My observations are based on 50+ books published and probably thousands of magazine articles. If anyone says 'film is redundant' ask them who they shoot for -- it depends on the publication. Cheers, Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 "most are going all digital these days" Out of curiousity, which mags are these? "Digital Camera" does not count :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_ochan Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Well, somebody mentioned Nat Geo and transparency - you're gonna start seeing a whole lot more digital in their pages pretty soon. They're in the middle of a big editorial shake- up and one of the changes is a move towards digital...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_ochan Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Roger, you're badly behind the times if you think most mags are reluctant to go beyond a half-page from a 6MP file. As examples Time and SI are routinely getting high quality double-pages and covers from 6 and 8MP files, and not just when deadlines dictate the use of digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 "My observations are based on 50+ books published and probably thousands of magazine articles." that was yesterday Roger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris_ochan Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I think it was actually the day before yesterday...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 "one of the changes is a move towards digital......" All the magazines are moving towards digital. It's just that none of the magazines are all digital yet. Two of the magazines I have been commissioned by recently, US Vogue and US Elle Decoration, specified that they did not want digital. Curiously, I did not feel compelled to tell them that they were old fashioned or Luddite. I don't want to this to be an anti-digital rant 'cause it's not. I'm simply pointing out that the mags I deal with still accept film. 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