OT - do magazines still want slides?

[Spearhead]

<i>Conde Nast seem quite happy to slum it with film.</i><p>

 

<a href="http://www.kashyahildebrand.org/newyork/aaronson_complete/press001.html">This guy</a> shoots for CondeNast.

[EricM]

"And if you think digital camera output will give you better quality than a drum scanner, you're deluding yourself."

 

what!? you think a drum scanned tranny out performs an imacon back?

[andrewlamb]

Jeff,

 

Yes! Conde Nast accept Digital. They also accept slide which is the topic of

this thread.

 

The shocking truth is that you don't become a groovier, edgier/delete as

applicable/ photographer by shooting on digital. Magazines are happy to

accept to film providing you're good enough.

 

I shoot for, amongst others, British Vogue, US vogue, US Elle Decoration, UK

Elle Decoration, Harper's Bazaar, Arena etc. All commissioned work. I'm

rather proud about this and I won't deny it.

 

They're not asking me to shoot on digital and I'm not feeling left behind. When

I have to change to I will. It's not rocket science, is it? I'm happy to shoot digital

for other other clients but I admit to having a preference for film.

 

When will people get it into their thick heads that creative photography has

nothing to with digital/ Leica glow/ or whatever anal retention you may wish to

conjure up?

 

Does anyone want to take a pop at Nick Knight because he doesn't shoot on

digital?

 

Sanford: magazines still accept slides.

[EricM]

"When will people get it into their thick heads that creative photography has nothing to with digital/ Leica glow/ or whatever anal retention you may wish to conjure up?"

 

wow. you got a screw loose. i've maintanied all along that most are hybrid, none are exclusive to film but some are now exclusive to digital.

 

"Sanford: magazines still accept slides."

 

no. not all of them.

[boris_ochan]

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

 

I'll be equally blunt, you're simply wrong. Pretty much all mainstream magazines use a

combination of assigned and agency stock material, that applies just as much to the UK

as the US. If you use stock then you have to accept digital files, it really is that simple. A

few agencies will still supply hard copy, but no major magazine can survive without at

some stage using material from the giants Getty and Corbis. Between them they've sucked

up so many specialist archives that you have no choice but to deal with them, and,

therefore, to deal

with their digital files. Name the major British mags which have an essentially "all

analogue" workflow. You obviously work in the industry at a fairly high level, but equally

obviously you have little understanding of production workflows and the implications of

digital versus analogue. Your clumsy earlier reference to a scan at "300 dpi at 220 x

300mm" (if you understood imaging you'd simply give a file size) and your blanket

statement that only the "delusional" would believe a digital back could match a drum scan

(there's actually been a move away from drum scanners because they have problems all of

their own, particularly with color neg) shows that it's a world you just don't understand. An

awful lot of misinformation comes from "old school" production house guys who just

haven't understood that a file from a digital camera is very different to a scanned film file -

all they do is look at the numbers and mutter "not big enough". It really is year zero for

photography, and because of this many publishers are hiring digital imaging specialists

who understand both the strengths and weaknesses of digital images.

[boris_ochan]

Andrew: "Does anyone want to take a pop at Nick Knight because he doesn't shoot on

digital?"

 

Is this some strange attempt at irony? If it isn't, then it's hard to imagine a worse example

to illustrate your point. Nick Knight has embraced the implications of digital from day one.

Here's a quote (from the V & A website) from the man himself:

 

"It is very tricky now to really honestly call yourself a photographer because a lot of what I

do doesn't adhere to the rules of photography. For example, with the introduction of

digital and the more frequent use of that in the creation of the image, you are really not

following the rules of photography any more.......I find that photography seems to be

going pretty much nowhere. I'm quite happy to see it's demise - not out of any nastiness

but out out of a sense that the medium that's rising from it, that's becoming the new

medium, is much more exciting....."

[andrewlamb]

Eric,

 

I wasn't have a pop at you and I apologise if you thought I was. I understand

what you said. As I said before, I haven't come across an exclusively digital

magazine. Could you name some please?

[andrewlamb]

Boris,

 

It's precisely because Nick Knight is such an innovative 'image maker' that I

cited him. He still shoots on film and he's quoted as saying so on

showstudio.com.

 

I can't remember the exact quote but it had something to do with Nick

expressing reservations about the archival quality of digital. The quote is less

than a year old. I'm fairly certain that he hasn't changed.

 

The recent Cindy Crawford shoot for British Vogue was shot on film. This is

what I was told by someone on the shoot anyway.

[boris_ochan]

Andrew, why not actually comment directly on the quote I give from Knight? It's surely

pertinent

that one of the very few internationally succesful Brit photographers feels so strongly

about the potential of digital. I know that he still works with film, he's one of the people I

had in mind when earlier in the thread I said it wasn't that unusual for a photographer to

mix film and digital on the same assignment.

[andrewlamb]

Boris,

 

It's a quite a convoluted quote. What does he mean by 'rules of photography'

and when does he think he's breaking them? Do you think he's breaking

them?

 

Is it something to the amount of time spent on post production? Haven't

fashion and advertising photgraphers always done this?

[andrewlamb]

Boris,

 

I have to put my hands and say that I'm not really arguing a particular cause.

All I know is that the mags I deal with are happy to accept slide or neg. A

couple of them have expressly asked me not to shoot on digital. This is all I

know.

 

I can't comment much on Nick Knight other than I know he shoots on film

which is something I've become parrot-like about. Although I admire his work I

dont like it because it's not my area of interest and therefore I feel I'm not

qualified to add anything more. Did I tell you that he still shoots on film?

 

A couple of people here have said that there are, in fact, some mags who are

now exclusively digital. Out of curiousity and professional concern, I'd like to

hear who they are.

 

At some point in the future I will have to get a digital back. This much I know.

[boris_ochan]

Andrew, personally, I don't think he's breaking any "rules" of photography, he's simply

making the point that there's been a truly radical shift in terms of how we, as

photographers,

can now work. Have you worked seriously with digital capture (rather than digital post-

processing) yourself? Unless you have, then I think there's little you can meaningfully add

to the debate. I was very sceptical about what digital had to offer until I tried it myself (I

really am a photographer when I'm not making a fool of myself here as Boris Chan), but

it's an astonishing medium to work with. Initially intimidating (at least it was to me), but

worth the almost vertical learning curve. Financially, if you're working editorially, it actually

represents a loss (no mark up on every roll of film plus processing), but, creatively, it more

than makes up for this........

[paul t]

Sorry Boris, I'm right, because you're choosing to infer

something from my statement that I did not say.<p>

Reread my statements. By 'analogue workflow' I specifically said

I was referring to a non-digital workflow, which does not rule out

using digital material from Corbis or Getty. By digital workflow, I

specifically referred to magazines doing their own page

make-up, using Adobe Indesign, a process that will hugely

reduce their repro bills, because they will go straight from scan

to PDF to plate. This is a process that will eventually happen

worldwide but at present is used only by a few magazines in the

UK. When this happens worldwide, Sanford WILL be forced to

deliver digitally by most of his clients. <p>At present, most

magazines still use repro houses in the conventional way they

always have, even if a large number of their photos arrive in

digital form. As long as they continue to do so, these magazines

will continue to accept film/negatives, because it will not cost

them any more to do so, unless of course their photographers

run up huge processing bills. <p>Once again, Boris, I am NOT

saying that magazines don't use a huge number of digital scans

(and I'm aware that, within the last 18 months or so, it's become

impossible to get prints from Corbis). I AM saying they will

continue to accept conventional film. <p>

As far as magazines that don't use an all-digital workflow, how

about FHM? Is that big enough for you? It still uses conventional

repro, using a company called Colour Systems,

(www.coloursystems.com) even if once the shoots are scanned

and retouched beyond recognition they're all stored digitally and

sent to licensees around the world. Likewise Conde Naste,

Haymarket and, to my knowledge, every glossy IPC title. Out of

the 12 or so titles I have first hand knowledge of, only ONE uses

an all-digital workflow, because it uses all-pap shots, has very

short deadlines, and is as cheap as chips.<P>Re scanning

terminology, Boris, I am not claiming to be an expert; I am,

however, telling you first-hand how magazines are structured,

because if you understand that, you will understand the financial

drivers behind Sanford's question.

Thank you for telling me drum scanners are on the way out,

what are they being replaced with? <p>

Lastly, I've collaborated with many photographers, a couple of

them first division, who work with digital, one way or another,

primarily because they like doing their own composites or

retouching. But in every case I can remember, they had the repro

house do the actual scanning. I also know, first hand, that over

the last 18 months quite a few guys are doing fashion shoots

using digital backs, and that a lot of art directors' reservations

over things like skin tones are disappearing. But that doesn't

transform the production process behind the magazines. <p>

Boris, I accept probably all of your statements about photo

agencies. But that doesn't affect my argument, which is: due to

the internal production processes within the majority of the UK's

magazines, and probably those in the US, there is no reason for

them to refuse to use film - and they will continue to accept film

for the next five years and, in many cases, more.

[paul t]

Oh, and if it's a case of last man standing, you can win. However

high my position in publishing might or indeed might not be, it

will be a lot lower if I spend more time on this.

[boris_ochan]

Paul: "I AM saying they will continue to accept conventional film"

 

Sure they will, in the short term - I'm the guy who says magazines will use any medium if

the images are strong enough. The Indesign v Quark thing is no big deal in terms of

whether a mag will take Sanfords transparencies. With regard to FHM (big but tacky) your

definition of analogue becomes meaningless - like I said earlier, the editorial "suits" just

don't understand production workflow (you should hear what the photo editors say about

you all). Last man standing? Well, that's all about time zones - you're settling into the

office, I'm going out for dinner........

[paul t]

"The Indesign v Quark thing is no big deal in terms of whether a

mag will take Sanfords transparencies. "<p>

No no no. You can make a final PDF directly from InDesign,

burn-in shadows etc. This is not the only reason magazines are

moving to InDesign (cost and Mac OSX are key drivers) but it

takes a vital process in the chain from the repro house, back to

the publisher. With Quark you need a repro house to do this. So

this has an absolute bearing on whether they'll take Sanford's

transparencies. <p>

ENjoy yer dinner.

[andrewlamb]

Boris,

 

I happily agree with you that I have very little that is meaningful to the digital

debate. I thought I'd already that quite clear! :)

 

I have used digital seriously on a few occasions and I have a major, non-

editorial, job coming up where they asked for it to be to shot on digi. I would

like to think I'm not entirely unfamiliar with it.

 

Creatively, do you think that you have improved as a photographer by moving

to digital? You're going to say yes. If I had a digital on my RZ, or whatever, I

think I'd still do the same lighting. Ask for the same poses.

 

I just wonder whether I would 'say' anything differently if I were to shoot on

digital? I think I'm saying that I see as less of a radical shift creatively than

others do.

 

What is it that digital has done to your work to make it better? How have your

images improved?

 

BTW, what kind of work do you do?

[boris_ochan]

Paul, my last comment tonight, you've gotta sort out your tech guys (they take the piss

because they know that you don't know) - QuarkXpress 6,

available now and compatible with OS X. Enjoy your lunch......

[paul t]

If you have any tecchie friends who tell you Xpress 6 will make it,

THEY'RE taking the p*ss. Quark Xpress 6 is hugely over-priced,

and you can't make PDFs directly from it, because Adobe owns

the technology. I can guarantee you that as companies migrate

to OSX, they will switch to InDesign rather than Quark - who will

be lucky to last the five years we keep harping on about.

[Spearhead]

<i> Quark Xpress 6 is hugely over-priced, and you can't make PDFs directly from it, because Adobe owns the technology.</i><p>

 

Maybe you should read up on Xpress before you say what it can't do. If you look at <a href="http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/full_features.html">the list of Quark Xpress 6 features</a>, it's not that hard to find this little fact:<p>

 

<i> Output PDF files directly from QuarkXPress</i><p>

 

Gee, that sounds like it does exactly what you say it doesn't do.<p>

 

It also says this:<p>

 

<i>Export print document pages in PDF format</i>

 

If you really knew anything about PDF, you would also nknow that

PDF is a file format that Adobe wants the rest of the world to use, they post the <a href="http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/pdf/index_reference.html">specification</a> on their web site. The reason they post the specification is stated very clearly on that page:<p>

 

<i>The PDF Reference provides a description of the Portable Document Format and is intended for application developers wishing to develop applications that create PDF files directly.</I><P>

 

It sure doesn't sound like they want to stop Quark from ouputting files in PDF format does it?<p>

 

I'd recommend a bit more reading before making absolute statements.

[paul t]

As far as the last conversation I had, in May, there ARE pdf

production problems with Xpress 6.0 because its PDF

technology is NOT licensed from Adobe, who are rivals of Quark,

and is not the latest version - Adobe produce InDesign. There

are also backwards-compatibility problems with previous

verions of Xpress 4 (many users never updated to 5). AND site

licences are far more expensive than InDesign, AND if you

upgrade your Mac, ie add new memory, you have to re-register

your copy. Hence Quark have alienated both small and large

users. <p>

I was reluctant to move from Xpress to InDesign; actually, without

any substnative reason why we shouldn't, I wasn;t given any

choice; I had to do what the various DTP experts decreed. Since

then the move has become an avalanche. Penguin and Dorling

Kindersley are in the process of doing so or have done so

already; Emap jsut OK'd the budget for doing so but is getting

cold feet about migrating to OSX. <p>

I only have the experience of three big mag companies, plus one

huge book publishing company, in terms of everything I've said

here. If you've got comparable examples of others moving to

Quark 6, I'd be fascinated to hear about it.

[Spearhead]

I'd suggest you go read the Adobe website and try to understand how Adobe distributes the PDF specification. It's not that difficult to do.

[paul t]

Hello Jeff! I suggest you ask some friends who know about

PDF-X format. Ask them why Quark could only export to EPS

before, and why they had to adopt a third-party solution for 6.0,

which doesn't support PDF-X. You will still need an Adobe

program to do so. And you will have to pay extra for it, which

makes Xpress even more uncompetitive. <p>

Check out this <a

href="http://www.pfeifferreport.com/InDesignCS_ROI.pdf ">this

report</a> which describes how companies are migrating to

InDesign. It's not too hard!

<p>

[Spearhead]

I didn't say that companies weren't switching to InDesign. I simply pointed out that you made several inaccurate statements. Then you spent a bunch of words trying to qualify those statements.

 

I've spoken with Adobe about PDF and PDF libraries. There's a company in Germany that sells 100% compatible libraries for a fraction of the price. Anyone can develop their own libraries.

 

The quality of Quark's implementation wasn't the discussion. You said that Quark couldn't put out PDF because they didn't license it from Adobe. That statement is nonsense.

[paul t]

Jeff, it's not nonsense, Quark were forced to get a version of of

their pdf writer, as opposed to Adobe's own from a third party and

Adobe have moved the standard on, quite possibly to make life

more difficult for a competitor. You are forced to buy whatever

their PDF plug-in is called (PDF Distiller or something) in order

to use PDF-X.<p>This is not a new debate - Dorling Kindersley

migrated to InDesign for exaclty that reason, and I worked quite

specifically on a project with them where we had to send the

Xpress files to Germany to get the correct PDFs for CTP output.

AND the output f*cked up. <p>The opinions I am citing come

directly from the production supremo at DK, with whom I worked

closely because this was the first all-digital project they (and I)

have done. We spent around a month in the spring working

around all the various issues. Maybe you have a better

understanding of the issues involved than a guy who's

reponsible for 75,000 pages a year, but I believe him because

he's done it. <p>