Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
The printers demand 300dpi ... They may demand it, but they don't need it. That's around 200 lpi for printing, and virtually no one is printing with screens that fine. Even good magazines are at around 150 lpi, as far as I know. But...If you don't give them what they want (magazines) you *still* might not get hired again. Finally, the rules are the rules. Logic doesn't seem to enter the equation. :- ) Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Harvey writes: But...If you don't give them what they want (magazines) you *still* might not get hired again. It depends on how good your pictures are. If dpi numbers are a sine qua non for them, no matter what the photos look like, I tend to question their priorities. Of course, a compromise may be in order. However, unless you do a lot of business with a client or are making lots of money for the business you do, it seems that going out of your way to provide the images in the specific format he wants may not be cost-effective. For example, I have 2700-dpi scans of my photos that I prepare myself. If that's not good enough for someone who wants to license a photo, he's going to pay at least an order of magnitude more for a drum scan, and still more if he actually wants a slide.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Harvey writes: But...If you don't give them what they want (magazines) you *still* might not get hired again. It depends on how good your pictures are. If dpi numbers are a sine qua non for them, no matter what the photos look like, I tend to question their priorities. And what magazines do you regularly work for? Of course our photos are good, but if a client wants something, as a professional, we should try to provide what they want. Of course, a compromise may be in order. It's called 'service' However, unless you do a lot of business with a client or are making lots of money for the business you do, it seems that going out of your way to provide the images in the specific format he wants may not be cost-effective. For example, I have 2700-dpi scans of my photos that I prepare myself. If that's not good enough for someone who wants to license a photo, he's going to pay at least an order of magnitude more for a drum scan, and still more if he actually wants a slide. Obviously...If a client insists on a particular product, they pay for it. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
For example, I have 2700-dpi scans of my photos that I prepare myself. If that's not good enough for someone who wants to license a photo, he's going to pay at least an order of magnitude more for a drum scan, But that contradicts your previous claim...that 2700 spi is all that is needed...there is no benefit from scanning at more than 2700... How can that be?
Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Austin writes: That depends on the film format, and what you mean by poster-sized, and what your expected quality is. It's pretty easy to calculate. If the viewing distance is equal to or greater than 6875 multiplied by the size of a pixel, then the resolution is high enough. That is _extremely_ conservative, however, and in fact about 2300 x pixel size would be sufficient. At 150 lpi, that's a distance of 15 inches, and so 150 lpi is sufficient for use in things like magazines. This would require 225 ppi in the image; at 2700 ppi, that would mean a maximum image size of about 11x17 inches, easily enough for a full page or beyond. Large enlargements of 35mm film are more likely to be limited by the grain structure of the film than by the resolution of the scan.
RE: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Austin writes: That depends on the film format, and what you mean by poster-sized, and what your expected quality is. It's pretty easy to calculate. Of course it's easy to calculate, but that has nothing to do with your claim and my comment. You claimed that 2700 spi scan is good enough for anything but poster sized publication, and that is not necessarily true. As I stated, it depends on a number of things. that would mean a maximum image size of about 11x17 inches, easily enough for a full page or beyond. You said poster sized and IMO, 11x17 is not really poster sized. Large enlargements of 35mm film are more likely to be limited by the grain structure of the film than by the resolution of the scan. That depends on the film, development and exposure. I have no trouble getting great scans at 5080 out of 35mm film, without being, as you say, grain limited. It isn't just as simple as you may want to state/believe it is. I believe you would be better off stating under what conditions you are making such claims, then there would be no ambiguity.
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
I don't think I sent this as it was still in the drafts folder. Apologies if it's a duplicate. Anthony wrote: The publisher didn't whine about receiving a photo scanned by yourself? As I mentioned, my brother produces the magazine for the AUF. In order to reduce costs, he does everything up to the point of printing. AFAIK he delivers a PDF to the printers and they print it. The printers complained about being supplied with RGB scans, so we have to convert everything to CMYK. That leads to some colour matching issues but the process seems to be adequate. I was under the impression (although it is perhaps a myth nowadays) that a fair number of publishers want to do their own scans (and I have been asked for a transparency on at least one occasion, which I refused). This is probably still true of a lot of big publishers. I know Tony Sleep has mentioned it. I'd like to think that more publishers are realising the benefit of accepting scans rather than have he added expense themselves. A 2700-dpi scan is good enough for anything short of a poster-sized publication, though (and even for that it may well suffice), even if some publishers refuse to recognize this. I don't know how true this is. The printers demand 300dpi, and scanning at 2700ppi off 35mm film won't give 300dpi printed at much more than A4, especially if you have to crop. I've printed a 2700dpi scan to A3 on my Epson 1160 from a colour neg that dates back to 1980. It looks fine to me! But the output of the Epson tends to blur pixellation anyway. The printer's own artifacts are more obvious than those from the image. Having said all that, I'm reasonably convinced that a 2700dpi scan should resize to A3 or more and print well on any medium. It just depends on how picky you are. :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:55:30 +0200 Anthony Atkielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was under the impression (although it is perhaps a myth nowadays) that a fair number of publishers want to do their own scans Not a myth at all, a real problem IME. Usually it is because the repro house wants the business, and say it can't be done any other way. I'd not rely on being able to push a 2700ppi 35mm scan to beyond 10x15, for repro. Aliasing can also muck things up, and noise, and CM, and conversion to CMYK, and ... and.. and.. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Rob writes: The printers demand 300dpi ... They may demand it, but they don't need it. That's around 200 lpi for printing, and virtually no one is printing with screens that fine. Even good magazines are at around 150 lpi, as far as I know. ... and scanning at 2700ppi off 35mm film won't give 300dpi printed at much more than A4, especially if you have to crop. How many photos are printed at A4 size, though?
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Anthony wrote: Rob writes: The printers demand 300dpi ... They may demand it, but they don't need it. That's around 200 lpi for printing, and virtually no one is printing with screens that fine. Even good magazines are at around 150 lpi, as far as I know. I thought the lpi was half the dpi because you need at least two pixels to make a difference like the nyquist limit in audio? :-7 So the lpi of 300dpi would be 150? ... and scanning at 2700ppi off 35mm film won't give 300dpi printed at much more than A4, especially if you have to crop. How many photos are printed at A4 size, though? A full front cover on a magazine is close! But for magazine purposes, larger than A4 is unlikely to be needed - again it depends on how much you have to crop. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Congratulations Rob! It is cool. Maris - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :) | I just wanted to share my excitement about getting the cover photo and two | articles in the September issue of Australian Ultralight magazine. I confess | my brother produces the magazine for the AUF, but it's still cool to have | my photos published in a news-stand magazine. The photos were taken on | Kodak Supra 100 and Provia 100F, and scanned with my Nikon LS30. Apparently | the laser proofs looked better than the printed magazine - mostly because | the printing company's better press was being used for a month to do another | job. | | It's probably ho hum for the pro photographers on the list, but this is | still exciting for me being able to go into a newsagency and see a photo | I took on the cover of a magazine. Especially when I took the photo and | scanned it! :) | | Rob | | | Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://wordweb.com | | |
Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Congratulations!!! - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :) I just wanted to share my excitement about getting the cover photo and two articles in the September issue of Australian Ultralight magazine. I confess my brother produces the magazine for the AUF, but it's still cool to have my photos published in a news-stand magazine. The photos were taken on Kodak Supra 100 and Provia 100F, and scanned with my Nikon LS30. Apparently the laser proofs looked better than the printed magazine - mostly because the printing company's better press was being used for a month to do another job. It's probably ho hum for the pro photographers on the list, but this is still exciting for me being able to go into a newsagency and see a photo I took on the cover of a magazine. Especially when I took the photo and scanned it! :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.276 / Virus Database: 145 - Release Date: 9/3/01
RE: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
Exciting stuff Rob! I love seeing your airplane pictures. Keep up the good work. I probably won't see the magazine over here, but you should share a link where we can see them on-line. Congratulations. Jack -Original Message- From: Rob Geraghty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :) I just wanted to share my excitement about getting the cover photo and two articles in the September issue of Australian Ultralight magazine. I confess my brother produces the magazine for the AUF, but it's still cool to have my photos published in a news-stand magazine. The photos were taken on Kodak Supra 100 and Provia 100F, and scanned with my Nikon LS30. Apparently the laser proofs looked better than the printed magazine - mostly because the printing company's better press was being used for a month to do another job. It's probably ho hum for the pro photographers on the list, but this is still exciting for me being able to go into a newsagency and see a photo I took on the cover of a magazine. Especially when I took the photo and scanned it! :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)
The publisher didn't whine about receiving a photo scanned by yourself? I was under the impression (although it is perhaps a myth nowadays) that a fair number of publishers want to do their own scans (and I have been asked for a transparency on at least one occasion, which I refused). A 2700-dpi scan is good enough for anything short of a poster-sized publication, though (and even for that it may well suffice), even if some publishers refuse to recognize this. - Original Message - From: Denise E. Kissinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 20:10 Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :) Congratulations!!! - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :) I just wanted to share my excitement about getting the cover photo and two articles in the September issue of Australian Ultralight magazine. I confess my brother produces the magazine for the AUF, but it's still cool to have my photos published in a news-stand magazine. The photos were taken on Kodak Supra 100 and Provia 100F, and scanned with my Nikon LS30. Apparently the laser proofs looked better than the printed magazine - mostly because the printing company's better press was being used for a month to do another job. It's probably ho hum for the pro photographers on the list, but this is still exciting for me being able to go into a newsagency and see a photo I took on the cover of a magazine. Especially when I took the photo and scanned it! :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.276 / Virus Database: 145 - Release Date: 9/3/01
