Is it possible that the publishers experience was with downloaded low resolution jpeg images? The kind that you can usually click on and download to your computer. These would be a no brainer not to use. But if you had availibility to the original tiff file I really doubt they would know the difference. One other possibility is the question of copyright issues. If you provided the editor with the original negative or slide they might feel more comfortable. However slides can be made from digital images so go figure. ----- Original Message ----- From: "wendy beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 3:27 PM Subject: Publishing and digital photos
> Someone on one of the mailing lists I'm on needed photographs for one of the > chapters in her soon to be published book. One of the stipulations from the > publisher was that they were not to be digital photographs as they didn't > reproduce well. > Anyone heard of such a thing? It certainly surprised me to hear it. > Is it ~that~ obvious if a photograph is digital? If I took a file down to my local photolab and got them to print up an 8x10, is anyone going to know that it wasn't from film? > Hot Air, misinformation or what? > > > > wendy beard > ottawa, canada > http://www.beard-redfern.com > > >
