On 11/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >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?
Interesting. I was flipping through a book the other day that proudly proclaimed that all the illustrations were from digital files (EG digital camera originals). It must be down to publishers' policies? If Publisher No. 1 has had poor experience with digital, then persuading them that 1Ds pics are great for books will be a waste of breath. What about MF digital back shots? I think it unlikely that a blanket ban would be imposed. Besides, to be pedantic, film would have to be scanned and turned into digital images to be used in the book anyway. Personally I think the publisher is being Luddite, but need more facts. Chinese whispers........... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
