Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is 20D good enough for stock submission?  (Read 10630 times)
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2004, 11:36:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...but generally speaking: MO is BETTA !!!
There are several threads in several forums presently very active, where this is my conclusion and the general drift is also starting to go that way.  You can't be hurt by a lens that's unnecessarily (for a given situation) sharp or a sensor that's unnessesarily large, but you can limit yourself with too little.  It really boils down to individual priorities and what you can afford, though often people whose priorities and finances dictate less will argue vehemently that less is just as good as more.  Not so; no way.
Logged
jwheeler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2004, 07:02:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Didger, have you ever submitted anything to Backpacker mag or any other similar pubs?
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2004, 12:21:00 PM »
ReplyReply

You need to know "what" you sold.  If you have sold XYZ exclusive rights and ABC a one time use, you could be the one in trouble.

If you are pricing for a one time use and XYZ is using it for many uses, you are short changing yourself.

Ansel Adams left his dark room shortly before he died.  He didn't want to die in the dark room, and wanted to do more shooting.  That is one reason I retired, I didn't want to die at my desk toiling at some useless task.
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1098



WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2004, 05:54:54 AM »
ReplyReply

See:

http://www.barleigh.com/stock/photographers_pack.pdf

I'm not saying we are typical, but the original question did ask about 20D images, and this is therefore specific and detailed information from one small agency.

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 #44 on: November 07, 2004, 06:59:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What utter tosh
If tosh means more or less the same thing as bullsh*t, I'd say so too.  Arizona Highways is a nice mag, but that doesn't mean that their editorial policy invalidates the huge amount of good work being done with digital photography.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2004, 11:10:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Arizona Highways won't take digital.  So, no matter how good digital is, it isn't what Arizona Highways will accept.

I suggest that, because they look at many more high quality images a year than most of us, maybe they have a slight chance of knowing what they are talking about.  But, it is their opinion and thier magazine, so that is that for now.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2004, 02:21:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
leads them to exclude any image captured with anything less than a 1Ds?
It's a lot stupider than that.  They don't accept any digital capture whatsoever, not just less than 1ds.  NO DIGITAL, and that would presumably include zillion $ digital backs for MF.  

I don't doubt "they do some homework sometimes", but I think sometimes maybe they also don't.
Logged
JasonK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2004, 03:24:11 PM »
ReplyReply

The arguement is, they don't look credible with 'shoot from the hip' statements like the ones they'd made.

They have their own company which allows them to set their own standards.  That's wonderful... but stating that they've 'done their homework' is plain out silly if you ask me... the proof is in the pudding... and everyone who opens their eyes sees plenty of pudding.
Logged

JasonK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2004, 05:09:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Be a crusader for digital rights?  Nah... it's been adopted to broadly already for that to be worthwhile.  Not to mention I've never fired a shutter in Arizona.

Besides.. its been tried.  Do a search on the dpreview forums for AH... you'll see records of countless letters and correspondences on the subject with them.  Which were fruitless.
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1098



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 10, 2004, 10:55:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...Could this hopefully sufficiently novel Sierra approach possibly be viable for your company? I don't expect to actually have anything to submit for some time (though I already have thousands of raw images), but once I start really getting into the processing phase I should be getting quite a few things. I assume it would be possible to use the same images for stock as for a book I publish myself?
Could well be, although as I explained to another enquirer, we are mainly focused on the UK market, so I don't know how much interest there would be in North American material - if we had enough of it, I suppose it might be a new direction for us :-)

It is possible to use stock submissions for your own personal work.  We set it all out somewhere in out terms.  

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
JasonK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2004, 03:58:58 PM »
ReplyReply

You came out twice on this thread stating that AH had done their homework.  Thus, I asked you earlier on to provide any possible homework they could've done which might support the belief that images captured on a digital SLR didn't possess the quality to be published in a magazine.

Considering your response, you obviously don't have any tangible reason to say that.  So you're making an assumption with no basis other than blind trust in a photo editor that works their.  Fine.  Your choice.

I stated that the proof was in the pudding.  Whether you like it or not, photos from various levels of digital capture (a little 3mp prosumer cam right through a 20+mp digital back) are being published in thousands of publications (is National Geographic a bad example?).   -That- is the pudding ... unless AH is your religion, that is.
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1098



WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2004, 07:04:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Unfortunately, the letter mentioned in the Dpreview thread was a little belligerent in its tone. The mag is wrong to exclude digital capture, in my view, but none of us will get them to change their minds by being rude or agresive to them in correspondence with them.

The digital ban would presumably extend to scan back images, whose resolution is exceptional and at least the equal of 4x5 film, which illustrates how crazy it is.

On the issue of stock file sizes, a lot of buyers just want to run an image at 1/8 or 1/4 page, and then ask for the file to be sent over as a compressed jpeg, by email. In that context, a 3mp point and shoot image will have sufficient resolution, and again, we post max repro sizes based on our experience on Barleigh Stock specifically to guide potential buyers of the max size an image will reproduce at with good detail. That size may be greater than the pixel count suggests in the case of a good sharp digital image. It seems ridicuous not to make a great image available simply because the file size is too small for it to cover the side of a truck, if it is good enough for, say, A4.

Quentin
Logged

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

Posts: 5124


« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2004, 10:52:42 AM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2004, 12:11:17 PM »
ReplyReply

didger, you missed my point.  I have no problem with you doing whatever it is you do, but don't expect everyone else to see it your way.  I didn't get the idea that Backpacker was suggesting you include yuppies with the latest equipment drinking Chardonney on the tailgate of their Land Rover.  They merely were saying your submittal didn't meet their requirements, and suggested what it would take if you really wanted to be printed in their magazine.  You said you didn't want anything tp do with magazines like Backpacker, and I guess they aren't interested in your work either.  I don't think that justifies a "bullsh*t outfit" label.  I doubt National Geographic or New Yorker would want your article either.

To be commercially successful, you need to know the market.
Logged
philthygeezer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2004, 03:53:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow.  Look at all these posts!    Cheesy

The gist I am getting out of the whole thing is that the 20D would be quite enough for selling stock about 80% of the time.

Do I read this right?
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 #55 on: November 10, 2004, 08:15:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, the 20D is safely at home. It arrived at the store on Oct 30 with Firmware 1.05 already installed and I've had it on hold, while I pondered my EOS future, until tonight.

The first things I checked were wether the TS24 f/3.5L and Angle Finder C fit.  Positive on both counts.  So far I love the instant-on and really don't like that gaudy blue and red strap.  

I had seller's remorse this afternoon but there is no going back now. We'll see how this one settles in...
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 #56 on: November 11, 2004, 08:31:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
get a life...   No offense intended
Now that's a low credibility combination of a demand and intention behind the command.  You would perhaps not be offended?  At least you're not offering unsolicited advice, you're actually giving orders.  I'm not sure that's a lot better and I'm also not sure of your qualifications to give anyone orders nor to enforce them.
Logged
BryanHansel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 11, 2004, 02:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, this was over a page ago on this forum, but I just got done reading an article in Backpacker magazine, and I looked at the photos.  I couldn't make out any new piece of gear or logo in any of the pictures.  As a mater of fact, it had nothing to do with backpacking at all.  It had to do with a bunch of creationists rafting down the Grand Canyon.  

didger, maybe their standards have changed, and you should resubmit?
Logged

didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #58 on: October 29, 2004, 09:17:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Tim.  That goes into my permanent "marketing" archives.  I found this article on the whole more encouraging than discouraging.  I especially found the concept that really great unique images should not be marketed in the same way as more ordinary ones quite valuable.

I'll still keep shooting what turns me on the most and hope that that will be marketable as stock, but be prepared to just do my own fine art marketing.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #59 on: October 29, 2004, 05:10:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can someone summarize their conclusions about digital stock sale options? One part of that article hints that there are some avenues for online selling of images from 1800x2400 and up. As a fantasy, my E-1 just fits!

P. S. to Howard Smith: the EXIF headers of a file identify it as coming from a particular camera, or scanner, or image manipulation program, though I imagine it is possible to falsify the headers.

Some of the stock rules I have read about seem based less on direct image quality needs than as time savers, allowing editors to avoid some of the work of judging image quality themselves. I can envision people printing a digital image, scanning the print, and presenting it as scanned from film!
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad