Magazine photography question

[Ben Calwell]

We subscribe to Southern Living Magazine, and as I was looking over some of the photos -- food, interiors, etc. -- I wondered if they were all produced with digital capture.
They are all nicely done. One of the photographers whose work appears frequently in Southern Living is Laurey Glenn. If memory serves, her work was profiled years ago in View Camera Magazine, or maybe I'm mistaking her for another photographer.
Anyway, does anyone know if magazine photographers these days have switched to digital, or does it depend on the assignment?

[Gordon Moat]

Depends upon the type of magazine, though still largely up to the photographer in many cases. If it is a news weekly, probably a good guess that not much film is in use. Any other type of magazine, whether automotive, architecture, fashion, music, or lifestyle, the cameras and formats used can still be all over the place. Many publications have a great deal of lead time prior to publication, implying little need for immediate results.

The one aspect that is becoming very common is sending in image files, instead of film or dupes. This implies that if you want to shoot film for magazine assignments, then you either need your own scanning set-up, or you need some lab to do it for you. Many magazines have published submission guidelines, or you can get those directly be asking.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[PViapiano]

I met an architect last week after a concert I played. One of my friends also mentioned that I was a photographer. 4x5 he asked? I said yes, but strictly amateur. He said he wanted to see my work because his photographer lived so far away. Hello in there...strictly amateur. Then he asked, film or digital. I told him film. That's when he wrinkled his nose, said he hated drum scans, digital is better, blah, blah, blah...

I didn't have time for any more of his nonsense...but it surprised me that he expected digital 4x5 output.

[Kirk Gittings]

I didn't have time for any more of his nonsense...but it surprised me that he expected digital 4x5 output.

Most of my clients are architects. You will find that each one has a hodge podge of information and mis-information about digital shooting. They all think they know what they are talking about, but mostly they have at some point half listened to some overselling arch photographer who was trying to impress him with his psuedo knowledge and equipment list.

[Walter Calahan]

Many of my assignments are for magazines. I can count on one hand all the magazines that want film. Digital streamlines their production cycle.

[paulr]

Many of my assignments are for magazines. I can count on one hand all the magazines that want film. Digital streamlines their production cycle.

Yeah, it seems like over the last few years magazines have been using technology to offload more of the work on their advertisers (and on their contributors, and on everyone else). I'm sure they don't mind if you shoot film, as long as you spring for the drum scan. The main thing is that they want a digital file from you, that requires little or no work on their part. Just like they want a digital file (like a press ready PDF) of any ad that gets submitted. Not true for all magazines yet, but it's slowly becoming the standard.

Once upon a time it was the magazine's job to do all the scanning and other prepress work. Now technology has come along that lets them pass it off.

[Frank Petronio]

Why would anyone do a drum scan for a magazine job!? I can't conceive of a single good reason ever to do that.

If they hire you for generic photos and rush deadlines, you have to shoot digital. If they hire you to shoot for character and quality, you can scan your film, work it up in Photoshop, and deliver a perfect file.

Why would you want somebody else messing your images? Having this resposibility is great.

I don't usually let them edit my take either, I am difficult.

[steve simmons]

I did an assignment that I just turned in for New Mexico magazine and they did not want digital files, they wanted slides.

steve simmons

[Kirk Gittings]

About half of what NMM publishes is digital, but they prefer film. Many magazines do not want digital files unless they have no choice, because they get so many crappy files from photographers who don't know what they are doing. Some magazines prefer digital and don't want to see anything but files. There is no standard, though clearly the general direction is away from film.

[roteague]

There is no standard, though clearly the general direction is away from film.

I can believe that. Some of the images printed in magazines is pure crap these days. Just a few days ago I picked up one of my favorites; Backpacker. It had a short article on hiking the Grand Canyon and the image they chose, wasn't even sharp, much less well composed or accurate colors. Sad. :(

[Marko]

I can believe that. Some of the images printed in magazines is pure crap these days.(

True, although that has nothing to do with choice of media. It's simply shoddy processing and careless (cheap) editorial choice.

[roteague]

True, although that has nothing to do with choice of media. It's simply shoddy processing and careless (cheap) editorial choice.

Yes, I think "cheap" is the optimum word here. A good photographer wouldn't create such images, regardless of the type of camera used.

[Maris Rusis]

With the ubiquity of electronic picture making in press and pre-press work I have become bitterly cynical about the basic truth of ANY pictures produced by web offset printing. This includes brochures, magazines, posters and in general virtually all industrial scale printed illustration.

Unless the picture is credibly captioned as a reproduction of a well defined original (gelatin-silver photograph, oil painting, etching, lithograph...that sort of thing) it may as well be regarded as a plausible (or implausible) confection that may entertain but offers no assurance of deeper truth value.

I know, I know, too much skepticism is toxic but I catch myself thinking: "Never existed, never happened, never looked like that..." every time I look in a magazine. Digital and disbelief go together.

[GPS]

It's been 16 years that I put my fodder to stock agencies, always slides. Surely, at some point they make them digital, I don't even care. I don't know if I cared to do the same on my end, have never been asked either. I cannot say if my situation is typical or not.

[gregstidham]

I would much rather shoot my magazine work with my Leica or LF, but I in the new digital acquisition world I would have to shoulder the cost of scans or do the work myself. Working these costs into the estimate is impossible for me and my clients. Unfortunately, my magazine clients don't want to hear the word film. Sometimes I am called for cover shoots, so a big file is needed. I did these jobs in the past with 2 1/4 or LF, but now they all want the file moved via ftp and don't want to pay for a drum scan like they did in the past.

I would like to think I am hired for my work as a photographer, but lately I think it is because I have the right megapixels for the shoot.

[tim atherton]

With the ubiquity of electronic picture making in press and pre-press work I have become bitterly cynical about the basic truth of ANY pictures produced by web offset printing. This includes brochures, magazines, posters and in general virtually all industrial scale printed illustration.

Unless the picture is credibly captioned as a reproduction of a well defined original (gelatin-silver photograph, oil painting, etching, lithograph...that sort of thing) it may as well be regarded as a plausible (or implausible) confection that may entertain but offers no assurance of deeper truth value.

I know, I know, too much skepticism is toxic but I catch myself thinking: "Never existed, never happened, never looked like that..." every time I look in a magazine. Digital and disbelief go together.

I'm afraid you are sadly off track if you ever equated photography with truth


"I've finally figured out what's wrong with photography. It's a one-eyed man looking through a little 'ole. Now, how much reality can there be in that?" -David Hockney

[Marko]

I would like to think I am hired for my work as a photographer, but lately I think it is because I have the right megapixels for the shoot.

Conversely, I'm sure your clients also prefer to hire you as a photographer, not because of your media preference. Shouldn't blame them for refusing to pay for scanning any more either - they are running a business, just like you do. If they can get an image in the format that fits in their workflow in such a manner as to cut both their costs and amount of work needed, I see no reason why they shouldn't do it.

It's the same as with writing - I am pretty sure that virtually all magazines out there require their writers to submit the texts in the computer-readable form, most often via ftp. They don't pay for typists anymore either, and if, for whatever strange reason, someone still wanted to use a typewriter as part of their creative process, then they would be expected to pay someone to type it into the computer for them before submission.

In fact, this situation and most of the arguments used closely resemble what was happening back in the late 80's when personal computers started transforming the way we work. Writing was the first creative and business activity to be affected simply because its technical requirements were easiest to fulfil. Many journalists and other creative writers were enraged and claimed that "the sound of the typewriter and the act of putting words on real, physical paper" were part of their creative process and that the computers "threatened to ruin it all and make it all a mass-production".

Sounds familiar? ;)

Well, save for caligraphy, it turned out that computers were the best thing that could happen to both creative writing and to ways to communicate those writings to other people. Creative writing is still very much alive and well, and I have no reason to think it will be any different with photography.

[Colin Robertson]

Yeah, now we have shit-load of writers way better than those dead-beats Keats, Shakespeare, Milton, Tolstoy, Kafka, Camus . . .

[Marko]

Someone once said "give the monkey a typewriter and it will eventually come up with something worthy of Shakespeare".

That was, of course meant to be a criticism of typewriters, not Shakespeare. Looks like it might be even more applicable to computers.

:rolleyes:

[Colin Robertson]

Actually, the suggestion was, "give an infinite numer of monkeys typewriters and let them type for eternity and they will, by chance, produce the complete works of Shakespeare". It relates to the nature of chance, and the action of completely random systems.
Much like digital photography, where an infinite number of chimps on PhotoNet armed with digital cameras now and again make good photos by the simple expedient of taking thousands and thousands of pictures. if you believe more=better then the digital revolution is, certainly, wonderful.

[Colin Robertson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[Marko]

So, what's your point in light of the original topic here? Other than proving that you can read and write (type) in a random fashion, of course...

[Marko]

On the second thought, you needn't bother, I really don't care all that much and I already said my bit anyway. Out.

[Robert Skeoch]

Couple of points... regarding the monkeys on the typewriters. I think a British scientist tried this.... only a couple monkeys, and a couple months work. I think he concluded that monkeys could type ssss but that was about it. Must of been a grant.

I work for a magazine as a photo editor. I would take a GettyImage with their high standards over most film work that gets submitted.... and I wouldn't even consider paying for the scans. Now most of the people who supply the pictures are shooting hi-rez digital anyway. It's just easier to work with and when I need a picture, I need it now.
-Rob Skeoch

[Kirk Gittings]

Robert,

Just curious....do you do the CMYK conversions or are they submitted that way. And what are the GettyImage "High Standards"?

[Robert Skeoch]

Hi Kirk
The cmyk conversion is usually done by the person designing the page. He usually resizes the picture once he has the layout done, cleans it up a bit, adds any effect if one is needed as part of the design work and gets it ready for production.

Most of the files I get from an ageny like GettyImages are usually 10-12 inches on the long side at 300 dpi. The photos I get from photographers are usually smaller, have incomplete caption information, might have been scanned from a print, need digital spotting, and all-in-all need to have more work done to them. I'm not implying that all photographers work in this manner but at least with the agency things are much more consistant.
The more I work with photographers as a Photo Editor, the less impressed I am. There's lots of room for improvement in general. Once again, though some people are golden and great to work with.
Of course, the disadvantage of working with an agency is they get the money and we all know very little of it reaches the photographer.
-Rob Skeoch

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks robert, Just curious. I am doing a casual survey of graphics professionals that I have contact with about their expectations and workflow when dealing with image files.

[John Flavell]

At our newspaper, we nearly everything digital with the long end of the image at 8-10 inches at 300dpi. For our quarterly magazine, we shoot raw images, edit in Nikon software or iPhoto. Those images are then converted to high res Tiffs before putting them on the page.

This is not to say we wouldn't shoot film, or accept film assignments. There are some who believe that some assignments just look athsetically better on film. That probably has something to do with the photographer's mindset about process--the process of shooting the assignment on film. Then, going through the process of printing or scanning. Photographers who get into it that much seem to believe they're more invested in the pictures. I think it's just a motivator, but if it works I'm all for it.

For scanning film we have a nice Nikon scanner and access to an Epson 4990, in case I get the urge to shoot large format projects. I have two of those going.

Images made in a high school gym with crappy light, on deadline, miles away from the newspaper, are shot on digital every time.

The point is, when the assignment calls for film and the deadline allows for it, we have that choice. In the world of 24-hour web sites and tight dealines, we shoot digital and it's up to us to use it well.

J

[gregstidham]

Conversely, I'm sure your clients also prefer to hire you as a photographer, not because of your media preference. Shouldn't blame them for refusing to pay for scanning any more either - they are running a business, just like you do. If they can get an image in the format that fits in their workflow in such a manner as to cut both their costs and amount of work needed, I see no reason why they shouldn't do it.
Yeah, your probably right. I just wish we would talk more about the assignment and less about the tools used. It helps that I send them gifts as well. :)

One bright note about digital in the magazine world. The cameras are finally at the point where an affordable body can produce full cover or double truck resolution. Maybe I won't have to replace my digital cameras every year :) . And the technology is losing the WOW factor it once had. IMO, this means we can concentrate on the work and less on the tools.

[Marko]

Yeah, your probably right. I just wish we would talk more about the assignment and less about the tools used. It helps that I send them gifts as well. :)

One bright note about digital in the magazine world. The cameras are finally at the point where an affordable body can produce full cover or double truck resolution. Maybe I won't have to replace my digital cameras every year :) . And the technology is losing the WOW factor it once had. IMO, this means we can concentrate on the work and less on the tools.

It's normal. The technology is finally reaching the plateau - the maturity phase if you will - where any further improvements will be only incremental. This is the spot in the development of any technology when it really becomes mainstream, with everything that status carries. One of the consequences being precisely the loss of the WOW factor. The other being overall increase in affordability and the expectation to reliably produce whatever its main purpose may be.

[Frank Petronio]

The fairly reliable rumour mill has it that Canon's next pro-level digital will also come with higher end, newly designed lenses. While the improvement may only be incremental, the way the ad industry works means that nearly every top-tier pro shooter will probably have to invest $20K or so into a new set-up just to "keep up with the Joneses."

It already works that way -- some art directors undoubtedly have expectations that the best shooters will use an H2 for spot pix only 1000 pixels wide.

[Marko]

The fairly reliable rumour mill has it that Canon's next pro-level digital will also come with higher end, newly designed lenses. While the improvement may only be incremental, the way the ad industry works means that nearly every top-tier pro shooter will probably have to invest $20K or so into a new set-up just to "keep up with the Joneses."

It already works that way -- some art directors undoubtedly have expectations that the best shooters will use an H2 for spot pix only 1000 pixels wide.

Goody, so it means that the current line of "L" glass will get dumped for (relative) bargain, just like it happened with LF. :) It means that lots of amateurs will be able to tool up pretty efficiently, but it will most likely finally seal the fate of film-based MF.

Those hassys and their shooters will, btw, remain unaffordable for majority of magazine assignments, as they well should. It's simply a waste of resources.

[Kirk Gittings]

Being a month away from PMA rumors are flying. A full frame Nikon 18MP DSLR? The origins of that Canon rumor Frank mentioned apparently came from an assistant for Annie Leibowitz. Annie of late has been shooting a 22MP Canon DSLR. The issue has become that the 22Mp sensor is capable of greater resolution than the L series lenses can deliver. Hence (if this all true) there will be a new top tier set of lenses to keep up with the 22MP sensor. Except for the prices this is all a good thing.

This is like the cold war arms race with more and more killing power.

[Frank Petronio]

It's been pretty obvious that quality wide angles for the dSLRs are few and far between, what with people buying Leica and Zeiss manual lenses to mount on their Canon bodies because the Canon glass distorts so much.

I'm old school, I wish they would just make a series of nice, fast primes lenses and leave the 10X zooms for the amateurs.

[roteague]

Hopefully, Fuji will finally give us a start date for production of Velvia II.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm old school, I wish they would just make a series of nice, fast primes lenses and leave the 10X zooms for the amateurs.

Absolutely. I have a 135mm f2 L Canon that flat smokes. They should all be made to this standard.

[Marko]

I'm old school, I wish they would just make a series of nice, fast primes lenses and leave the 10X zooms for the amateurs.


Absolutely. I have a 135mm f2 L Canon that flat smokes. They should all be made to this standard.

I'm sufficiently old school myself in that I always liked the 135mm. Although contemporary 2x-4x "L" zooms can be both nice, practical and cost-effective too. Especially when one looks at his youth from a 20-year perspective or so.

[studmuffin]

As far as I know, film has pretty much gone away in professional photography. I shoot food, and I haven't used film in two or three years, maybe longer... And that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Faster, cheaper, more control, and yes, the quality is better (IMHO) because of all these things...

SM

http://www.foodportfolio.com/blog

[dbriannelson]

My work gets published a bit and the buyers don't much care how it was made as long as I can deliver it digitally. I scan the film on a flatbed, touch up in PS and upload RGB or greyscale tiff files to the buyer's spec, or if they don't specify size it'll be 300dpi x 10" on the long side.

Someone at the other end does CMYK conversion, resizing and sharpening, but I am not involved with that.

I haven't been asked to deliver chromes or B&W prints since 2002.

Reproduction quality in magazines varies from crappy to almost adequate.

-Don

[Brian K]

As far as I know, film has pretty much gone away in professional photography. I shoot food, and I haven't used film in two or three years, maybe longer... And that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Faster, cheaper, more control, and yes, the quality is better (IMHO) because of all these things...

SM

http://www.foodportfolio.com/blog

I agree with the faster, cheaper, more control part, but the quality is better part I have to take issue with. I shot food for more than 20 years, and it was usually shot 8x10 film. I'm sorry but digital capture is not the qualitative equivalent of 8x10 film.

[Jim Ewins]

As a builder and construction manager, I found that Architects always knew what they were taliing about-just ask them!