Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
"Journalist-North" <journalist-north@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s9P7e.90363$Nr5.41652@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
> news:425fa5a8$3_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>> I was reading a Popular Photography article about submitting work to
>> stock
>> agencies. It seems to indicate that it is necessary to submit images that
>> can handle 11x14 at 300 dpi. This would seem to indicate that at least a
> 14
>> mp digital camera would be needed and this shuts out perhaps 95% of all
>> professional digital SLRs in use.
>>
>> I remember years ago one stock agency would accept only medium format
>> transparencies. Oh well, I'm not planning to submit any photos, but it
>> sounded interesting.
>> -S
>>
> ---------
>
> Before the inevitable argument starts - that requirement, when it is set
> like that, is for NATIVE resolutions NOT interpolated or up-scaled
> resolutions. It can also be a scan of conventional film (usually a drum
> scan) at the same or better resolution. They may also require submissions
> as
> TIF/TIFF format and not JPG/JPEG.
>
> The reason? Those stock uses are keyed to full page magazine (and larger)
> reproductions and, size wise, must allow for crop/position on the page/and
> aspect ratio of the printed page vs: the image. Note how they set the
> image
> size as a page size in inches and a resolution in ppi and not merely as
> Xpixels/Ypixels?
>
> You are right -S, it requires massive pixel power to get there if you
> shoot
> digital... but it's dead easy to meet that spec if you still shoot MF/LF
> film stock.
>
> I have actually seen one or two stock libraries that ask for images of
> 16"x20"x300ppi (sometimes even larger) in digital formats. Some (a few)
> still require film media that they custom scan themselves on-demand for
> clients and will not deal with photographer generated digital files
> because
> of quality problems.
>
> There's "pro" digital equipment and there's "PRO" digital gear. The
> difference is usually about a 20-30K investment differential. I know a
> couple of the real "PRO" class, every shot for potential publication,
> digital shooters that go out to location shoots with as much as 100+ grand
> worth of equipment in their bags. Several have, after the fact, regretted
> ever selling their film based gear and going the digital route, and have
> said so.
>
> Journalist
>
>
That's funny, at least one stock agency I've seen has detailed instructions
on how to up-sample a (6MP) digital image to meet their 50MP requirements;
even as far as suggesting Genuine Fractals. Makes you think all their MP
requirements are really BS.
Jim
Facebook
Twitter