David Madsen wrote: > > How much "digital power" do they want?
More than I can supply :) Minimum requirement - something that will print 11 x 17 at 300 dpi. Adobe photosphop 1998 colorspace. I told her that my digicam's largest file and leas compression netted 8 1/2 x 11 - not good enough. And as I understand it, although there might be some interpolation that could be done, I probably would mess it up. THe idea is that they need to have files that will print across a gutter should the client need it - nevermind that most stuff that is bought might only be a half or quarter page or even smaller - the client fiddles with the stuff later,too - cropping, etc. annsan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 9:40 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology > > 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
