What method are you using for the file size increase? -----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
My stock house wants 50 meg files, which are about the equivelant of 11x17 at 300. But they prefer generic rgb colorspace, which is great because that's what you need to run ColorSynch on a Mac. So I can use the same file for printing as I use for stock. However, I generally print from 72 meg files, which is the largest file you can generate from an *istD RAW file in PhotoShop CS. That gives you an 11 x17 at 360 dpi. 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 >
