Duplicating 35mm slides to MF slides for Image Editors

[rolland_elliott]

Does anyone regularly duplicate his/her 35mm slides up to a larger

format like 6x7 or 6x9 Medium format slides for submittal to image

editors? IF so does the larger format slides give you a better

success rate in getting your images accepted?

 

<p>

 

Doing this I think has two advantages. 1) You are submitting large

slides that editors can view easily and 2)They are also duplicates so

you aren't risking sending your originals.

 

<p>

 

Do you think this is a good tactic for getting your images notices

more by editors? You'd of course let the editor know that the MF

slides are actually dupes of 35mm slides.

 

<p>

 

I'd appreciate input. Thanks Rolland

[mark_windom]

More and more editors are asking for dupes in the initial submission,

primarily to reduce their liability in the event that something

should happen to the transparencies while in their possession. If

they see an image that interests them, the larger format size may or

may not be more suitable depending on the intended use. However,

many of those same editors that want dupes initially will ask for the

original when it comes time to reproduce it. And if 35mm isn't

suitable then you've lost a sale.

 

<p>

 

I shoot large and medium formats primarily. With the technology as

it is today I think the differences between the various formats is

shrinking in the eyes of many editors; at least that's what my stock

agency tells me. If you shoot wildlife then 35mm is what editors

expect to see. If you are shooting landscapes and submitting to

Sierra Club then you may be better off investing in MF or LF

equipment rather than duping 35mm to a larger size. If you have a

very unique image that an editor hasn't seen before I would doubt

that image size would matter much.

 

<p>

 

There is no clearcut answer to your question. It really depends on

the editor, the image itself, and the intended use for the image.

 

<p>

 

Ultimately the best way to get your images noticed more by editors is

to shoot high quality images that meet their needs.

[s_p]

I would vote not to do so.<p>

If you dupe up from 35mm to 6x7, they will be bigger and easier to see

to the naked eye than 35mm, but, compared to 6x7 dupes from 6x7

originals, they will look weak. You may send along cover letters,

notes on the matte, etc., but those will all seem like after the fact

excuses and there is no guarantee that anyone will read your

explanantion.<p>

I would second the previous poster's advice that the best way to get

the attention of the editor is to research his/her publication/needs

and provide that if you can.

[s_p]

Rolland;<p>

New info on your old question. I'm afraid I was only about 1/2

right on my previous posting. Recently I had a chance to talk to

a photographer who has been making his living shooting stock and

assignment photography for magazines for 20 years. He said he

almost always uses 35mm; he uses 90% slide film and the rest is

BW. He said his preference is to send original 35mm chromes; if

he can't or does not trust the magazine not to lose the original,

he sends a 70mm duplicate. Since he often sends the same film

out multiple times to different clients, he makes multiple

"originals" in the camera at the time that he takes the originals

if possible. They are supposedly better than any copy and I

figured out if I buy my film in bulk at have it processed at the

local lab it runs less than 0.40 cents per frame --- cheaper than

any duplicates.<p>

This guy was careful to say that I should not confuse "display"

dupes with high quality dupes. Display dupes cost about a buck

each and are just to show someone to give them an idea of what

you have. The high quality dupes cost $25.00 or more and can be

used by the printer to produce the printed piece. The

photographer told me that he uses the high quality dupes you

mentioned when he has a one of a kind piece of film. He said

that he has a few clients that he deals with on a regular basis

that he trusts not to lose his pictures and he usually send them

the originals. In 20 years and hundreds of submissions a year he

said he had only had his film lost or damaged a handful of

times.<p>