I don't remember the exact numbers, but in the beginning the requirement was about A4 format (21x30cm) with 300dpi printing.
The numbers you mention here looks like the same range that she is able to do now, but she uses another program specially made for the purpose. I have all these names and numbers at home, but I dont have the time to find them today. DagT > fra: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What is the size requirement of the stock house to which you refer? You > can convert to six megapixel image to a nice 72 meg, 8 bit file in the > PSCS RAW converter. No stock house I've contacted wants images larger > than that. The Hearst and Primedia photo editors I've worked with > prefer them at about 36 megs for all but spread photos, which require > only 50 megs or so. Yes, I want ten megapixels, but six are adequate > for quite a lot of the work that even a mid-level working pro would > attempt. > On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:30 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> fra: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> On 17 Feb 2006 at 6:23, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> > >>> Gosh, someone better tell the magazines I shoot for and the stock > >>> house > >>> that sels my pics that six megapixels isn't good enough. They have > >>> hundreds of my images that are working just fine for them. How could > >>> that be? > >> > >> There's no need to be condescending, if 6MP images are good enough > >> for you and > >> your stock house/magazine publishers that's great, you've got just > >> the tool to > >> do the job but it doesn't mean that it's good enough for everyone. > > > > My stock house had some limitationswhich in practice set the lower > > limited to 8MP a couple of years ago, but they've got some new > > software that make this less important. The lady who runs the stock > > house is a former photo editor from one of Norways largest publishers, > > so I think she knows something about what is regarded as "good enough" > > for the costumers. > > > > DagT > > > >
