--
Jostein wrote:
Weired story, Wendy. OTOH, a renowned nature photographer in Norway had an article coming up in a German photo mag, and the editor asked him for a slide. As the guy works with digital, he said he could send the raw file if they wanted. But alas, the mag wanted slides and slides only, so he ended up making slides from the digital files for them to scan...
Go figure...:-)
Both yours and his story sounds to me like lack of competence at the publisher's.
Jostein
oh, btw, here's the photographer's website. He's a complete Nikonoid. http://www.naturfotograf.com/
-----------------------------
Pictures at: http://oksne.net
-----------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: "wendy beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:27 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
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
