There an image calculator at www.shortcourses.com whuich can be downloaded here: http://www.shortcourses.com/pixels/index.htm This will explain, not only about pixels etc., but it can calculatet the file size (Mb) as well.
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: David Miers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. august 2004 02:35 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Can someone please explain to me how your getting away with this? Is there something hidden in this raw file that I'm not understanding? My 4MP digicam puts out a image @2272 x 1704 that uncompressed is about 11.1MB in size. The *istD is somewhat bigger, but still no where near 50MB. I can take my original described image in Photoshop and make it 6000 x 4500 by interpolating the pixels and it will print an image 20 inches x 15 inches at 300 dpi. The uncompressed file size is now 77.3MB in size. But of course we all know that the updated image has no more actual information then the original file did. Well not totally, but is only a computers best guess at what to put in. Aren't you actually at some point in the software doing the same thing from that raw file your talking about as I just described in Photoshop? I thought Ann had a 6MP digital Canon? How does a 6 MP Pentax improve the ability to shoot stock at an acceptable file size? You guys have got me really confused here now. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 2:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology > > > We need to enable you with an *istD. It's just fine for stock. Shoot in > RAW and convert to 50 meg files in PhotoShop CS. They're sharp and > virtually noise free when shot at iso 200 or 400. > Paul > On Aug 21, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > 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 > > > >
