I think publishers are probably paranoid from getting lots of low res files and don't want to take chances. I work for a printer and we constantly have jobs delayed because someone wants to use a low res jpeg they got off the net or took with their $200 digital camera. They just get upset when you try to tell them that just because it looks good on a computer screen doesn't mean it will print well. Meanwhile the deadline looms and they are scrambling to find something else to use. We always seem to wind up looking like the bad guys- it's our fault that either they missed their deadline or there images look awful. You might ask if you could contact the publisher or printer directly and maybe you could assure them that you can supply print ready files at the required resolution and in the required format. All the best Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta
----- Original Message ----- From: "wendy beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:27 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 > >
