Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Jens Bladt wrote:
Good _ so I'm not alone :) actually, I have a 4mg Canon - someone said IThere 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
snip snip ...
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.
needed at least a 6mg to
possibly produce a digital file big enough for my
stock agency
Hmmm.
I would guess that if they want ask for a 50Mb file they want 50Mb of *true* pixel data, not the 18Mb (which is already interpolated, by the way) of a 6Mp sensor interpolated up to 50Mb. If they wanted 50Mb *after interpolation*, wouldn't they rather ask for the 18Mb file (or 12Mb from your 4Mb sensor) and to the interpolation themselves?
For 50Mb from a digital camera you'll need something like one of the new medium format digital backs, although the Kodak DSLRs would come pretty close.
But maybe the point is that the resolution of current digital cameras isn't high enough for them, and they require high-quality scans of high-quality film? Also, 50Mb from 35mm film isn't entirely unrealistic, is it? A 5400dpi scan would give approximately 35Mp or 105Mb at 24 bits-per-pixel - but I guess a resolution like that would be pointless with your average El Cheapo scanner (but then again, those are perhaps not 5400dpi anyway) due to other kinds of inaccuracies, and you couldn't use any old film, either, I suppose, as you would then get a lower resolution on the original than the scan (and you don't win much by scanning at a very high resolution if the original has a limited, and lower one.)
- Toralf
(Who knows nothing about photography, but a thing or two about scanning and image processing...)
annsan who cant sleep and needs to
-----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
