Paul
On Aug 21, 2004, at 1:11 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
David Madsen wrote:
How much "digital power" do they want?
More than I can supply :)
Minimum requirement - something that will print 11 x 17 at 300 dpi. Adobe photosphop 1998 colorspace.
I told her that my digicam's largest file and leas compression netted 8 1/2 x 11 - not good enough. And as I understand it, although there might be some interpolation that could be done, I probably would mess it up.
THe idea is that they need to have files that will print across a gutter should the client need it - nevermind that most stuff that is bought might only be a half or quarter page or even smaller - the client fiddles with the stuff later,too - cropping, etc.
annsan
-----Original Message----- From: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Well...
after a long talk with my stock agency gal on the phone a couple of days ago I've found out a lot about what I can't do when submitting stuff - so thought I'd share.
Bottom line, unless I spent thousands of dollars to upgrade my equipment, the digital stuff I could produce to show them is useless.
The stock company will accept my slides, as they always have done, but they then scan them and send them out.
The Epson 1640SUP doesn't scan slides and negs well enough to make files that are up to spec for industry standards. And even if I shoot digital and get something done professionally because I think the stock agency would love it, I don't have enough digital power to do it.
(Herb once said I didn't know enough to ask the right questions, and I have to confess I bristled at that but he was undoubtedly right.)
The agency gave me the correct info, they just didn't know that my equipment was not strong enough to handle the requirements - and I really can't afford to get into it full blast.
The rejection rate has gone way up for those photogs in the agency who have tried to do the scanning and clean-up themselves.
Black and white photography for them is dead. (at least my prints are in a safe place :) ) Clients who want black and white just change it from color.
And then there are my eyes, which have a very hard time recognizing "razor sharp" and noticing the noise.
The one thing I did do that she found "interesting" was using the flatbed as a camera - for tight close-ups of natural objects - but there was too much noise in what I sent her, and I'm really not into spending a lot of time working on stuff like that.
I was very grateful for the time she took to explain a lot to me, but a bit discouraged about my nature stock at this point.
annsan
