Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is 20D good enough for stock submission?  (Read 11438 times)
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« on: October 29, 2004, 10:34:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I recognize the typo, but I don't get your comment.  I guess I will go to the principal.
Logged
gtal
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2004, 03:15:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Rather than speculate, why not contact the stock agencies you're interested in working with and ask them about their guidelines and current/future plans for digital submissions?

Some agencies specializing in calendars will not accept anything less than 4x5. If that happens to be a major market for you, none of the above is even relevant.

Guy
Logged

Scenic Wild Photography
http://www.scenicwild.com
jwheeler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2004, 03:08:55 PM »
ReplyReply

"I'm not sure if this was meant to be a put down; it could be a straight question."

It is a straight question. Not a put down. But I do want to know what your level of qualification is. I have read several threads, to some of which I have contributed, and you do come across as someone who believes he is knowledgeable and very experienced in digital photography. I believe I have read your posts by which you express that amatures here need to be directed correctly. Here is one from the visible dust brush thread; " Yeah, I sometimes find myself responding to extreme cluelessness for the same reason, namely to perhaps prevent a beginner from being mislead. "
I guess I too am trying to make sure no one, me included, is being misled.

If you are a knowledgeable pro who can speak from experience then that is great and much appreciated. If you are like some of us, me included, new to digital capture then please present yourself as such so we can all learn together.

"I like shooting too much more than sitting in front of a computer all the time."

Over 800 posts since April of this year? I think you do need to get out more.

"I'm sure not interested in getting into a "more professional than though" pissing contest."

I certainly am not either. By my own admission I am an amature not a pro. I do appreciate the gospel spoken by those who are truly experienced and not by those who claim to be by way of academics only.

"He'll probably do so right after you..."

Gee Jonathan, im NOT published. But thanks for your interest.
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2004, 05:58:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
One of the sites mentioned in that Inkjet article was gently asking their film contributors to get their collective acts together since their scannning/noise managment techniques were not leading to images competitive with digital.

Quote
Film vs. Digital

by Peter Ensenberger,
Arizona Highways Director of Photography

As technology advancements in digital photography race to the shelves of camera stores, one of the hottest discussion topics among photographers is the image-quality comparison of photographs shot on film vs. that of digital-capture. Indeed, there are some advantages in shooting with a digital camera: seeing your photographs immediately; editing as you shoot, saving only the best for printing; and the ability to make your own high-quality color enlargements on an inexpensive digital printer. But is the image quality of digital-capture high enough for large reproductions in a magazine like Arizona Highways that is known for the quality of its photography?

Presently, the answer is "no."

One of the most-asked questions...

Here's a link to the full article:

Film vs. Digital
What utter tosh

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2004, 12:18:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think, for stock agenices, placing those guildlines up gives them a nice tag to put on the side of the image when marketing it.
Again the exact same sort of reasoning applies in the audio world.  Studios have to have the "right" brand names.  An album has to be recorded with the "latest and greatest" gizmos, whether it makes any real audible difference or not.
I have a pro commercial photographer friend who uses a Canon 3.4 Mpixel point and shoot now and then for actual client shots if that's the appropriate resolution.  However, he never ever lets the clients see that camera.  Depending on subject matter, he's also gotten some very respectable 16x20 prints with this camera.  Reality and marketing are never in the same camp.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2004, 02:32:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Jason, I said it was my hunch.  No evidence available or required.  If I had evidence, it wouldn't be a hunce, would it.  

I am not saying the editors are right, wrong or justified (except they run the show and don't need any other justification).  Frankly, I don't care whether the editors are stupid, ignorant, prejudgous, or their 401(k)s are fully vested in Fuji.  It is just my hunch (again) that they try to put out a high quality magazine and they believe, for whatever reason, that digital isn't what they want.  It is my opinion that the photo quality of the magazine is quite good.

Elsewhere in this thread is a note alleged to be from AH that says they don't look at digital.
Logged
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2004, 01:43:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's a link to a post where a DPReview patron posted the e-mail she'd sent to AH. I think it's pretty well written.

That would be me folks - (he not she) and Peter (Dir of Photography at AH) and I had a heated discussion about this over there.

It's obvious that AH doesn't want thousands of submissions from people with point and shoot digicams and that the article was likely intended to discourage that. In so doing, Peter made numerous blunders and errors and as anyone who has read it and has a clue about professional use of digital equipment can attest, painted a highly biased and technically incorrect picture of both the capabilities and limitations of digital technology.

I admonished him for comparing an eight bit file from a 1DS to a 48 bit scan from MF film and for suggesting that people "backup" their digital files with film (shoot dual images) and for generally misleading the readers. He was highly insulted and the resulting threads degenerated as both knowledgeable and un-knowledgeable contributors began responding.

In essence his original intent was directed at a very unsophisticated audience and raised the ire of all who have a clue about the current state of digital capabilities and limitations.

To make a long story short, it was an ill conceived article which resulted in a huge landslide of emails to AH and a loss of respect for their management for not correcting the errors by many of us who make our livings with digital equipment.

In no way does this imply that AH is not a class magazine or that they have less that wonderful images by a team of great photographers. I've been a reader of AH for over 50 years and my family was reading it 20 years before I read my first copy! By all appearances, they simply have a strong film bias and they have every right to that opinion. On the other hand, they were strongly criticized for publishing this "tripe" on their web and rightly so in my opinion.

Lin
Logged

Lin
JasonK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2004, 11:13:07 AM »
ReplyReply

And I know that many - myself included - appreciate how you stepped up to the plate on that particular issue, Lin.  Smiley
Logged

jwheeler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2004, 03:52:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey! I own a Land Rover...    Cheesy
Logged
philthygeezer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2004, 04:29:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I've sold the 10D and I have a 20D on hold at the camera store.  I figure I'll go out and pick it up.  Then I will make my best effort to sell my existing 10D and 20D images.  If the resolutions don't cut it but the image does, then I will have to consider how much I want to foot the coin for the 1Ds MKII.

Seems like I won't have trouble finding a niche with the 20D though.
Logged

[span style='font-size:5pt;line-height:100%']My photos on photo.net  -----  My photos for your screensaver.[/span]
philthygeezer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2004, 08:43:49 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing about forums: People always seem to migrate to their lowest standards of conduct. When I saw a bunch of extra posts I was looking forward to reading more about my new 20D. I was disappointed instead.

Try to live on a higher level, people. Life is about joy, respect and good karma. If you are not saying things to further good nature, then I suggest not saying anything at all.
Logged

[span style='font-size:5pt;line-height:100%']My photos on photo.net  -----  My photos for your screensaver.[/span]
philthygeezer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2004, 08:28:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I put a 20D on hold for a few days while I ponder this.

Would 8mp 20D files be generally accepted for stock submission?   Also, could someone provide a list of stock agency links that I could reserch?

Thanks!
Logged

[span style='font-size:5pt;line-height:100%']My photos on photo.net  -----  My photos for your screensaver.[/span]
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2004, 11:59:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have a question that may be quite basic, but how does a stock house know what camera you used?
They couldn't.  However, if a stock house editor is worth his salary, then he'd for sure know the difference between a portfolio of native pixel 1ds images and a portfolio of uprezzed 35mm film or lower resolution digital camera images.  I'd be very hesitant about uprezzing and lying.  It probably wouldn't work in any case and if you're ever caught, or strongly suspected of lying, your credibility is down the drain.  Honesty is the best policy here and in the long run everywhere else too.
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2004, 02:16:53 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the sites mentioned in that Inkjet article was gently asking their film contributors to get their collective acts together since their scannning/noise managment techniques were not leading to images competitive with digital.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2004, 07:11:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you are a knowledgeable pro who can speak from experience then that is great and much appreciated......
I do appreciate the gospel spoken by those who are truly experienced and not by those who claim to be by way of academics only....
Over 800 posts since April of this year? I think you do need to get out more.
You seem to be strongly implying that only a full on pro (not a mere "semi-pro" like me) can possibly speak from experience rather than academics only.  I've been taking pictures for about 45 years and digital capture for the last several.
As for "getting out more often",  I doubt that there's anyone anywhere that's gotten out more than me for the past several months.  I've been out almost constantly, working a lot of 12+ hour days.
In any case, there are a lot of folks on this forum with a huge amount of experience but not making a living with photography.  I try to judge a suggestion or an item of information by its practical worth and whether it makes sense to me and whether that person's other messages have made sense to me, rather than by how much money that person makes with photography.  The idea that any of us here are "speaking a gospel" of any sort seems a bit silly.  We each (amateur or pro) have our own unique approach and something to share and no one is so "professional" that his opinions are beyond any possible error.  
Since I clearly fail your professionality test for credibility, I invite you (as I have others in the past) to avoid wasting any more time on my messages.  Life is too short and I do not encourage you to risk being misled.
 
Logged
Sam NI
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2004, 07:35:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One of the sites mentioned in that Inkjet article was gently asking their film contributors to get their collective acts together since their scannning/noise managment techniques were not leading to images competitive with digital.

Quote
Film vs. Digital

by Peter Ensenberger,
Arizona Highways Director of Photography

As technology advancements in digital photography race to the shelves of camera stores, one of the hottest discussion topics among photographers is the image-quality comparison of photographs shot on film vs. that of digital-capture. Indeed, there are some advantages in shooting with a digital camera: seeing your photographs immediately; editing as you shoot, saving only the best for printing; and the ability to make your own high-quality color enlargements on an inexpensive digital printer. But is the image quality of digital-capture high enough for large reproductions in a magazine like Arizona Highways that is known for the quality of its photography?

Presently, the answer is "no."

One of the most-asked questions...

Here's a link to the full article:

Film vs. Digital
Logged
JasonK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2004, 12:09:46 PM »
ReplyReply

It's been my experience that while many stock agencies (not all, but many) have unnecessarily high guildlines for digitally captured images, the actual users of the photos (publications, advertisers, etc) often don't. Photo editors and other consumers who go direct to photographers to purchase their images often will purchase and successfully use even images captured by 3, 4 or 5 megapixel prosumer cameras.

I think, for stock agenices, placing those guildlines up gives them a nice tag to put on the side of the image when marketing it. It allows them to alay any fears in their market when they can claim digital capture with bleeding edge technology even when it may very well not make ANY visible difference to the photograph in the context of its anticipated use.

Then of course, you have those that simply have a 'film is better' credo whether or not it has any rational or logical foundation.

I personally believe that output from most 6mp and up digital SLRs is more than adequate for 95% of stock use purposes.
Logged

JasonK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2004, 03:01:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh I remember that whole deal (there were a couple of long running threads all about it at dpreview) - and also how the powers that be at AH couldn't provide any tangible evidence to backup any claims they'd made.  

I think digital capture has reached a point where it no longer needs to be proven for many many uses.  It's up to those disputing its usability that need to show the evidence - and I just haven't seen -any- evidence showing that digitally captured images aren't absolutely great for magazine publication.
Logged

didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2004, 07:40:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sounds like they're completely and purely uneducated to me.
Well, that's a little milder and more tactful than my insinuation of stupidity, but if the person that wrote that has a 3 digit I.Q. then the level of lack of photography education is truly astounding.
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2004, 11:19:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Almost buried in this tangential debate about AH is the fact that we have got some solid facts and reasoning on the original question about digital stock submissions from a real, live stock agency operator.

Thanks Quentin!


So, a follow up question: what range of photographic types do you see in good work from the Kodak 14/m and SLR/[n,c] models? Are they good for nothing except landscapes, as has been suggested in some places?
A pleasure  although I caution that we may not be typical (yet) of the whole stock industry.  But times are a changin'  ::  In a few years, when even point and shoot cameras are 10 or more mp, the size isue will become academic.

On your Kodak question, I mainly shoot on a Kodak 14nx, so you could say I'm biased in their favour.  Here is a very recent shot with the 14nx:-

http://www.barleigh.com/print/shopimages/homepage.jpg

One other photog has sent us 14nx images, and they were of exceptional quality.  We are still hoping he will formally submit some material to us.  I look forward to seeing some 1Ds Mk II shots soon.

The stock libraries curse is the dogy film scan.  As we don't accept film (ironically, the exact reverse of the AH mags approach), we get quite a lot of film scans of excellent work, but loads of grunge, passing accross our desks.  

The idea that digital is not yet good enough is quite laughable.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad