So you’re saying they want a physical print? I thought everyone wanted digital files these days.
Bob
It occurred to me that it’s possible they are just tired of educating everyone on what to submit in terms of res and format. Some people figure "heck I’m tired of this, just tell everyone they have to be physical prints". Just a guess though.
Peace,
Tony
Robert,
Arizona Highways may accept digital files IF they are drum scanned from medium format film. No doubt the requirements of their advertising dept. are not so lofty. Although my work will be for an advertisement, I can’t rely on getting good feedback from advertising departments that don’t really care how well my ad prints.
Rob
Tony,
Thanks for your speculation. I am, however, really most interested in hard, cold experience.
Rob
Point taken Rob. I’ll bow out.
I can understand where Arizona Highways is coming from. They are getting medium and large format film from some of the best landscape photograpers in the country. But they are short sighted and egotistical thinking that there is actually a difference in what they’re using and high quality digital files.
When I shot my Southwest essay last year with the CoolPix 5000, I offered to submit an article on my trip (which eventually ran in eDigitalPhoto). They said that they already had someone submitting an article on shooting digitally and didn’t even want to see my work. And they did mention to me that they don’t normally accept digital files for articles.
I’ve never experienced that with any other publication and the forums are filled with success stories of photographers shooting digitally. The latest issue of National Geographic has the first ever totally digital article shot by Joe McNally. The article and the photos are reproduced excellently in the magazine.
Larry Berman
Mac,
That’s encouraging and useful. Thanks.
Rob
I’m betting Nat’l Geo has been a little slower jumping on board because of their digital "scandal" a few years ago … remember the pyramid cover?
On the other hand, essentially ALL photos ARE digitized for the actual press run in one way or another any more.
Mac
From what I am hearing from photographers, some magazines are not making that migration yet to digital, kind of if it ain’t broke don’t fix it mindset. I don’t know where you read your article, but I came across an article on the Rangefinder site <
http://http://www.rangefindermag.com/Magazine/Dec03/digiphot .tml> and found it very interesting.
Mac,
You are right about photos being digitized for the actual press run. The point Peter seemd to make was that no digital photo can compare to a drum scan from medium format film.
Rob
I have had few magazines decline digital images, but I have had such from a large int’l stock agency, as well as art/photo galleries. On the other hand, I’ll have an article in the next Rangefinder using digital capture images.
Ken Storch
Just read recently that "Sports Illustrated", has gone all digital.
Magazines being what they are (lpi and all), seems to me only a few printed on the highest quality non-porus stock (and I suppose this *would* include Arizona Highways and the like), could still (maybe) barely achieve better results with drumscans from film than with 5-11MP digicam shots.
Heck, as far as scans from film, drumscans aren’t noticeably better from MF than from Nikon 8000/Minolta Multi Pro MF scanners either.
Mac
Considering Kodak have just reported a drop of $1 billion in conventional film sales, and have taken the decision to cease production of any new conventional film models in the USA and Europe, (film sales are still growing in Asia and Africa), I suspect that refusing digital camera images is a policy doomed to failure.
Medium format cameras now have literally a zero 2nd. hand value. They will disappear. Our Hasselblad kit which originally cost in excess of £10,000 wouldn’t raise £250 in part exchange today. (You’d be lucky to find anyone to take it in part-ex, and NOT because of condition or age)
At one time, all the big catalogues shot everything on 5 x 4 (10 x 8 for full-page sets), but no longer. Going digital has reduced production costs to a fraction of what they were. Film is expensive. Film processing is expensive. Scanning is expensive.
The choice of medium and large format film emulsions is now severely limited, and getting more so. As demand dwindles, supply will follow, and – Catch22 – as supply dwindles so will demand.
Film is doomed to go the way of Tintypes, Collotypes, Ambro’s and Daguerreotypes. The only question is "How soon". I shall miss it when it happens…
….then, scanners will not be far behind. At least, film scanners. But I see that Epson still is improving their flat beds and upping the spec for the film part. Hopefully, they will have corrected a problem which showed up on the 3200 but not present on the 2450.
In a magazine I’m responsible of (alpine ski – extreme – lifestyle – magazine with an excessive photo illustrations), about 50 % of images are shot digitally. If proper hardware is used (eg. 11Mpixel EOS), results are magnificient.
Actually 11M images from a professional distributor are some of the best digital originals I’ve ever encountered. True digital clarity. Easily spread across 42 cm plus bleeds.
But of course it all depends on their workflow.
In a magazine I’m responsible of (alpine ski – extreme – lifestyle – magazine with an excessive photo illustrations),
I hope you mean "extensive", not "excessive". 🙂
OK, Len, I’ll bite:
Whatcha got in the way of really cheap Hasselblad gear (serious buyer, here…… I’m still getting abfab results shooting B&W film on the ‘blad & scanning the negs in 16-bit on my Nikon 8000 ED. I’ve yet to see a purely digital result that comes close, plus I get to use the lenses at their true focal lengths).
Fred.
Just a cynical thought?
Perhaps they need to justify their investment in the drum scanners rather than accept that a well prepared digital image is "really" of the standard that is well up to the job required.
It is my understanding that many product brochures and top end estate agencies (realtors) are more than happy with the extremely high quality of digital images. And their demand for excellence is lead by the the fact that the image sells the product.
As I say just a thought.
Laurence,
Not every photograph taken is expressly taken for publication in the printed media.
Some photographs (the majority, perhaps?) are in fact taken to be finished photographs, nothing more.
And if "realtor" photographs are to be the benchmark of quality photography, then we may as well all pack up and go home. I’d like to think that there was a hell of a lot more to photography than simply the illustration of something that was for sale.
Fred.
Film is doomed
Yes. Wether we like it or not, digital photography is here to stay. And that won’t change because some printed media or stock agencies still refuse to accept them. That is so because many of them are already using straight digital pictures or even serving their own clients with digital copies of analogic pictures, as strange as this may seem (judging by the quality of the final results).
Some media and users (proffesional or hobbysts alike) may choose to remain an stronghold of chemically developed images. It’s all right, but that won’t change the general picture: Analogical pictures are earmarked for extinction. It may took more or less time. But it’s already happening.
That’s what I can see from inside an Spanish newspaper and magazine.
Not for sale, Fred.
The kit consists of 1 CM and 1 CX body, 4 A12 backs, 40mm, 50mm, 80mm and 105 macro (all T*) lenses, 2 metering prism finders, sets of extension tubes etc. etc.
Didn’t think so, Len – but thought it wouldn’t hurt to ask (got most of that, and then some, anyway).
Hopefully I’ll still be able to buy 120 B&W stock for the 15-20 years working life I may have left in me – I will always prefer the salts of silver if only for that process’ indefinitely retrievable nature. Maybe it’s just an ego thing, but I’d like to leave something of my work other than unreadable shiny drink coasters when I finally exit this mortal world.
Fred.
