OT - do magazines still want slides?

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?

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.

I haven't submitted anything except digital files for at least four years.

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.

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.

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.

<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>

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.

I've only come across one magazine that wanted slides. They even specified that they wanted med format Kodachromes.

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.

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

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.

BTW,

My first post should have read"...50MB @300dpi" not 50mm.

And those files would be tifs, of course.

Sorry,

 

Frank M.

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...

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.

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.

depends on the publication of course, but most are going all digital these days...just the way it is...

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.

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

"most are going all digital these days"

 

Out of curiousity, which mags are these? "Digital Camera" does not count :)

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......

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.

"My observations are based on 50+ books published and probably thousands of magazine articles."

 

that was yesterday Roger.

I think it was actually the day before yesterday......

"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.