OT - do magazines still want slides?

[boris_ochan]

Andrew, has anyone said there are magazines which won't accept film? if you read back

you'll see that I've already stated that many photo editors will allow photographers to work

with whatever medium they're comfortable with on a particular story - film, digital or a

combination of the two. I commented on Nat Geo because someone else referred to their

use of film, which has a certain irony as they've recently announced an intention to

embrace digital (though cost rather than quality is the underlying reason).

[andrewlamb]

Boris,

 

"has anyone said there are magazines which won't accept film?" . This is the

topic of the thread. Stanford wanted to know if it was ok to submit slides to

magazines. I have replied yes. I haven't stated that there are magazines who

won't accept slides.

 

However, Eric said that there were mags out there that are all digital and I am

simply questioning this. No mag is all film and no mag is all digital. But I

repeat there are mags out there who have stated to me (maybe it's only me)

that they prefer film. US Elle Decoration only want slide not even even neg or

they did five months ago. UK Elle Decoration, on the other hand, do accept

digital.

[boris_ochan]

Andrew, I don't think that we're disagreeing - I responded because you began with a quote

from me. I do find it odd though that any mag would

limit itself just to transparency, even without the presence of digital that would seem a

perverse policy when there are so many interesting color neg emulsions out there.

[paul t]

The bigger issue here as about cost. For more downmarket

magazines - and celebrity weeklies, which are increasingly

important - there will be big cost savings from an all-digital

workflow. For upmarket mags, savings will be minimal. <p>

I'm not relying on gossip from friends; I was the editorial

representative on a working group for one of Europe's biggest

publishers, which owned Elle, Elle Decoration, FHM etc; together

we assessed various pitches for digital work-flow projects, all in

order to save money, many of which won't roll-in for five years or

more. I also know first-hand the digital plans for Dorling

Kindersley, the world's biggest publisher of illustrated books.<p>

If a magazine uses a separate repro company, savings are

actually minimal by moving to all-digital pix; most of the cost is

actually proofing, and correcting page construction, burning in

shadows etc. Practically all of these magazines will

prefer/remain happy with film/transparencies for the next five

years or more. In the majority of cases, art directors actively

prefer prints/transparencies, because it's much easier to check

quality. On-screen proofing is still lousy, and even digital

cromalins don't give an accurate impression. This point is the

one that needs stressing; the problem with digital is largely one

of proofing, not necessarily of resolution. <p>

At the lower end, magazines will now start doing their own page

make-up, and for this will need an all-digital workflow. This will

be made easier by the fall of Quark, and the adoption of Adobe

InDesign, which allows designers to make up a page ready for

repro. This end of the market will move to all remote or

on-screen proofing. And right now, they almost exclusively want

digital or scanned shots. <p>

If you're shooting for high quality publications, I wouldn't sweat

about digital. This morning I took delivery of a box of Jim Marshall

shots - they're available digitally, but we wanted proper prints,

printed up specifically for us, so we can get decent results at A4.

We'll still be doing that five years from now.<p>

Yet it's inevitable that in the middle market, an all-digital workflow

will take over. We'll see a huge drop in the quality of magazine

reproduction - in fact, we're seeing it already.

[andrewlamb]

Paul,

 

Did you work for Hachette or Emap?

 

Either way, thanks for your comments. I found them very interesting.

[andrewlamb]

Boris,

 

I suddenly realised we weren't disagreeing. Sorry for the confusion :)

 

I think some mags stipulate slide over neg because of the extra costs involved

in the latter ie contact sheets and final prints.

 

I enjoy the opportunity to work on neg because even high speed emulsions

can be virtually grainless.

[paul t]

I worked for Everlasting Meeting and Parties! Still involved with

them.<p> It owned Ell and Elle Deco in the UK, before Hachette

took back their licence.

[andrewlamb]

Paul,

 

My wife used to be on the board. She's still chummy with Dawn Bebe. I'm

currently preparing for an interiors shoot for Grazia (UK) that I'm doing

tomorrow. Have you been involved with that?

[brambor]

I wonder whether any magazines wonder about authenticity and thus preffer to see the film or the negative. I'm not saying it is impossible to steal the negative or the slide but if I was a magazine accepting work from someone I don't know I would probably feel better if I saw the film than if they just e-mailed me the file.

[EricM]

"However, Eric said that there were mags out there that are all digital and I am simply questioning this."

 

ah, no i didn't.

[andrewlamb]

Eric,

 

Grovelling apologies!!! Grant said it.

 

Andrew

[Spearhead]

<i>I wonder whether any magazines wonder about authenticity and thus preffer to see the film or the negative.</i><p>

 

Given that almost all news is purely digital, and news is the area where this matters most, it's obvious that it's not a driving concern. Authenticity is, but it's not an issue of film vs digital original.

[EricM]

but he is right. there are magazines that are 100% digital. grant shoots for some of them.

[andrewlamb]

Eric,

 

This is what Grant said: "most are going all digital these days".

 

At the risk of sounding pendantic, I would dispute this. I personally don't know

of any magazine that is "all digital" and, out of curiousity-no more than that, I'd

like to hear of one that is "all digital".

 

I don't want to make a beef out of this but I am curious.

[boris_ochan]

Paul: "The bigger issue here as about cost. For more downmarket magazines.....there will

be big cost savings from an all-digital workflow. For upmarket mags, savings will be

minimal."

 

It really depends on the type of "upmarket" mag. If the mag is mainly in the business of

assigning portraits then you're right, but if they're assigning multi-day reportage stories

(as Time, Newsweek, US News, Nat Geo, Stern, L'Express all do) then the savings from

having

photographers work on digital are massive. If you hire, say, Pinkhassov from Magnum,

then his bill for Kodachrome 200 could end up as high as his day rate.

 

"This morning I took delivery of a box of Jim Marshall shots - they're available digitally,

but we wanted proper prints.....so we can get decent results at A4. We'll still be doing that

five years from now."

 

Y'know there really isn't any problem at all getting "decent results at A4" from digital files

- your production people are just going to scan the prints anyway. I'm guessing you must

work with one of the Brit "Dad Rock" mags (EMAP + Jim Marshall = Q, Mojo?) so your

nostalgia for "proper prints" is in tune with the ethos of the place you work.

[paul t]

"Y'know there really isn't any problem at all getting "decent

results at A4" from digital files - your production people are just

going to scan the prints anyway."<p>

Not my production people; a repro house that uses drum

scanners. But as far as getting decent scans from Magnum, for

instance, your area of expertise? forgetaboutit. I've had art

directors send scans back several times over because they're

supposed to be 300 dpi at 220 x 300mm, and when the file

comes in it's too small.<p>

Believe me, the day when every agency supplies truly decent

scans, we will all be happy bunnies. I'm very interested in what

you have to say about where US magazines are going (they've

generally always had bigger photographic budgets than UK

ones) but as far as IPC, Conde Nast, Haymarket and Emap's

monthlies in the UK, the workflow is almost exclusively

analogue. If you're suggesting otherwise, you're simply ignorant

of the facts. <p>

I'm not suggesting you're being evangelistic, but I note you've not

addressed my main point. Art directors prefer physical prints or

negs because this represents a real reference point; digital

proofing is still lousy. That's my only bugbear, not how the

photos are made - they're all going to end up as dots on a page,

anyway. <p>

[boris_ochan]

Paul, 300dpi at the size you mention is only around 25mb (?), Magnum, or any other non-

wire agency, can easily give you a way bigger scan than that. The only reason a file-size

smaller than that would be offered would be if the original was made with a 5 or 6MP digi

camera - even then rezzing up is simple.

 

I'm not sure how you can claim that the workflow "is almost exclusively analogue" on the

UK mags (and let's not forget that IPC is now part of the Time Inc empire, with all that

that implies), because, even

if a mag wanted it that way, the simple fact is that a lot of

agencies won't now supply hard copy. Even if you assign it yourselves you have to accept

the fact that a lot of high-end portrait photographers are making the transition from film

to digi backs - although I acknowledge that compared to the US fewer UK photographers

have

yet made the switch.

 

With regard to your comment that art directors have a preference for "physical prints or

negs because this represents a real reference point", well, I guess we've worked with

different people. Unlike most photo editors (who are the people at the sharp end if things

go wrong), my experience of art directors is that they're largely ignorant of the technical

implications of using one type of image over another.

 

ps you didn't respond to the "Dad Rock" query?

[paul t]

I'm not "claiming the workflow is primarily analogue". I'm telling

you. By this, I mean they're not using a digital workflow, and in

most cases these UK magazines prefer conventional

prints/trannies because they're more predictable, and don't cost

them any more. And I'm talking about commissioned work,

where the art director will discuss with the photographer what

they want. <p>

Agencies of course will prefer to send a scan, because that's

cheaper for them. But on works (ie books) where I've called in

photos myself, i know of cases where I've ordered three

successive scans, which weren't good enough, before insisting

on a print. At least one was a Dorothea Lange print, which I think

was from Corbis, but I've a feeling I had the same problem with

Eve Arnold, which would've been Magnum. <p>

Dad rock? I didn't respond because it seemed silly. The working

group I mentioned was for half a dozen titles which had a

median age of around 25, including several aimed at

pre-pubescent girls. They didn't vary the production process

according to their readership. <p>

To cut to Sanford's question again, I don't know of any magazine

that would discourage print/trannies; apart from the categories I

mentioned. What's more to say? If you're saying the trend is

towards digital, who's arguing? This is actually an intriguing,

complex area, it bears on how magazines look, and how much

they cost to produce - I'm interested in what photogs, or agency

staff have to say about it, and how the process is changing but I

don't see the point in bringing out a soapbox.

[EricM]

Sorry Paul, but most of what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Digital isn't predictable? But a scan in photoshop is? Huh? Digital proofing is lousy? But my humble little calibrated monitor and lightjet prints are bang on but your huge productions houses dealing with 150 dpi cmyk isn't? Are these places you mention still sending flats with prints glued on them out to be printed?

[paul t]

Whether you understand or not, life is a bit more complicated

than your 'calibrated' monitor. Your monitor displays RGB.

Printing is CMYK - screened. Please read carefully; I am not

saying that digital photos are unacceptable to any magazine. I

am saying there is not a huge financial benefit for a magazine -

and hence pressure from THEM for photographers to go digital -

unless they go to an all-digital workflow, and there are still big

problems inherent to this, not least proofing. <p>BTW, I've

worked with entirely digital publications, in once instance the first

time a particular, huge, book publisher had tried it. I accepted

certain compromises, saved tens of thousands of pounds and

pocketed huge bonuses for doing so.

[EricM]

now this is sounding entirely different than what i infered earlier from you. i doubt you will see film accepted within a few very short years. it's already on the way out except for some tilt and shift 4x5. scanning is a pain; it is slow, expensive, interupts the digital workflow and has no where near the quality of digital capture.

[Spearhead]

Sports Illustrated is almost all digital now, per <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821">their own statements.</a>

[andrewlamb]

Eric,

 

"it's already on the way out except for some tilt and shift 4x5."

 

I guess there are magazines and there are magazines. Conde Nast seem

quite happy to slum it with film.

[EricM]

slum with film? that's not fair nor how i feel about film Andrew.

[paul t]

I saw that Sports Illustrated piece when it came out. really

interesting. Every sport photographer I know has gone to digital.

And, you know, I like the idea of small-scale magazines that are

all-digital, bypassing the repro company, going straight to plate

(CTP); you could knock 48 hours off your press deadlines. <P>

 

But that doesn't affect the response to the original question. Eric,

I'll trade your 'few short years' for five years and add another one.

And for Conde Nast, I'll add another three or four. For some

magazines it will be a decade before you're forced to deliver

digital files. i know how reluctant publishers are to shell out on

hardware for an unspecified return. Sport Illustrated shouldered

a huge film & processing burden, because they like choosing

that final image from literally thousands of shots. Their savings

are obvious, for others it's not so simple. And if you think digital

camera output will give you better quality than a drum scanner,

you're deluding yourself. As for the economics - say a magazine

has six photographers who contribute regularly - should they all

buy digital backs? It will take 20 magazines to keep one guy busy

on a drum scanner? Get my drift? YOU don't have to take on that

burden, unless you want to. <p>

 

I'm not arguing that any magazine would refuse digital output

from a photographer whose work they respected. But it's a long

way from being obligatory, and if they like your work, they'll accept

it any way it comes. Why shouldn't they?