RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
But for the second crop you have downsized for the web, haven't you? If that's the case you wouldn't expect to see much difference as the interpolated data has since been averaged out. To be fair you need to compare the crop before downsizing to the 72dpi crop. Dan Quoting Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I forgot to say that this crop is app. 7% of the total frame/photograph. Jens I have posted two files: One is a crop of the original 5Mp file (2560x1920 pixel-72 ppi - a 3Mb JPEG file - 14 Mb as a Tiff file) The other is same shot and crop interpolated to 300 ppi. The whole photograph would have been 61 Mp as a Tiff file) http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p6922908.html http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p6922909.html
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
For Bayer sensors, 6MP is 1.5M red, 1.5M blue and 3M green photosites. The interpolation will generally use more than 4 photosites to get one full colour pixel (see comparison of techniques at http://www-ise.stanford.edu/~tingchen/). If you consider the sensor to only be 1.5MP then you are throwing away a lot of luminance resolution. For Foveon sensors the Mpixels claims are inflated as they count photosites as pixels, even though the photosites are layered on top of each other so do not contribute to added resolution. Caveman, have you tried comparing large (say 12) prints from the 5MP and the 3MP? If they are still similar try upsampling them both to 8MP. At this point you should definitely see the advantage to have 5MP of data to start with. Dan Quoting J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Isnt it a fact that all digital sensors are rated in Mpixels but that is counting each of the mono red, green and blue pixels and when they convert to full color the image is interpolated upward to achive the same Mpixel figure. i.e. since it takes 4 mono pixels to create one color pixel, a 6Mpixel rated sensor is really a 1.5 Mpixel color sensor but the marketing guys like to keep that a secret. JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Funny, this morning I was doing a similar experiment but in the opposite direction. I was curious if the 5MP from a 5MP digicam (Canon S60 in this case) are really holding 5MP of real information or if there are invented pixels there. So I took pics with the same subject at nominal 5MP and the other MP sizes supported by the camera (3MP and 2 MP, and I didn't bother with the 640x480). I resampled the 3 and 2 MP images to 5 MP and compared with the genuine 5MP image. The 2 MP obviously lost some fine details, however the resized 3MP one was oh so similar to the 5MP one, except some JPG artifacts in a grass covered area. Except those artifacts, the fine details were virtually identical.
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Isnt it a fact that all digital sensors are rated in Mpixels but that is counting each of the mono red, green and blue pixels and when they convert to full color the image is interpolated upward to achive the same Mpixel figure. i.e. since it takes 4 mono pixels to create one color pixel, a 6Mpixel rated sensor is really a 1.5 Mpixel color sensor but the marketing guys like to keep that a secret. No, that's not quite the case. The simplest way of converting a bayer pattern to an RGB bitmap is as you describe, but you can do cunning tricks that take advantage of the fact that the individual colour sensors are separated spatially to improve the recorded detail. As a very rough rule of thumb, you could regard a 6MP bayer-pattern sensor to be equivalent in terms of resolving detail to a 3MP sensor that uses pixels sensitive to all three colour components (eg the Foveon sensors). This is a very debatable subject though. :-) S
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Pixels do not have a size! It's just a number or code in the computer. The size depends on how you see it. On a screen or a print. A good print is 300 ppi. That is app. 12 pixel/mm, making one pixel app. 0,08mm. On a screen (72 ppi) the same photograph will show one pixel app. 4,16 times larger, which is app. 0.34 mm - unless you scale it down to fit the svreen, of cource. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. august 2004 01:00 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology How big is one of those pixels compared to film grain ? J. C. O'Connell wrote: You can get over 100 Mpixel images from 4x5 film with inexpensive Epson 3200 scanners. JCO
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
There 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 Can someone please explain to me how your getting away with this? Is there something hidden in this raw file that I'm not understanding? My 4MP digicam puts out a image @2272 x 1704 that uncompressed is about 11.1MB in size. The *istD is somewhat bigger, but still no where near 50MB. I can take my original described image in Photoshop and make it 6000 x 4500 by interpolating the pixels and it will print an image 20 inches x 15 inches at 300 dpi. The uncompressed file size is now 77.3MB in size. But of course we all know that the updated image has no more actual information then the original file did. Well not totally, but is only a computers best guess at what to put in. Aren't you actually at some point in the software doing the same thing from that raw file your talking about as I just described in Photoshop? 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. -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
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
As an MX aficionado, (I'd say lover but that would open me up to wise a** comments from just about every one, Frank, Cotty you know who you are!) I take exception to that bald faced prevarication, MX's are extremely desirable. But they can be inexpensive. Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Henri Toivonen wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: That's not true for desirable stuff, in my experience. Just bought a ME Super for $32 incl. shipping. Also take note the MX I got for $60 and the SFX I got for free, I sure agree with Don. Note desirable above :-) Kostas -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
On 22/8/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, offered: As an MX aficionado, (I'd say lover but that would open me up to wise a** comments from just about every one, Frank, Cotty you know who you are!) I take exception to that bald faced prevarication, MX's are extremely desirable. But they can be inexpensive. I know what you mean Kostas. MXs are incredibly fabulously deliciously deliriously scrumptious. Especially with some whipping cream :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
I forgot to say that this crop is app. 7% of the total frame/photograph. Jens I have posted two files: One is a crop of the original 5Mp file (2560x1920 pixel-72 ppi - a 3Mb JPEG file - 14 Mb as a Tiff file) The other is same shot and crop interpolated to 300 ppi. The whole photograph would have been 61 Mp as a Tiff file) http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p6922908.html http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p6922909.html Theres is realy very little difference between the to files - except for the file size. I only doubled the size (in each direction = 4 times the area). I could easily have made a even larger - perhaps 100-200 Mb. The trick is to do in steps - doubling each time. And reducing the pixel size to reach to desired size (5100x3400). Every time the computer invent new pixels to put in between the original recorded ones. I cant see why annsan can't resize her files to the desired resolution from her 3 Mp files. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. august 2004 18:25 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology On 22/8/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, offered: Kostas? Oh well what do you expect if the only ID on your emails is the 'from' field ?? However, my intent with whipping cream and MXs still stands. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Ann Sanfedele wrote: Jens Bladt wrote: There 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. Good _ so I'm not alone :) actually, I have a 4mg Canon - someone said I 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
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Funny, this morning I was doing a similar experiment but in the opposite direction. I was curious if the 5MP from a 5MP digicam (Canon S60 in this case) are really holding 5MP of real information or if there are invented pixels there. So I took pics with the same subject at nominal 5MP and the other MP sizes supported by the camera (3MP and 2 MP, and I didn't bother with the 640x480). I resampled the 3 and 2 MP images to 5 MP and compared with the genuine 5MP image. The 2 MP obviously lost some fine details, however the resized 3MP one was oh so similar to the 5MP one, except some JPG artifacts in a grass covered area. Except those artifacts, the fine details were virtually identical. Jens Bladt wrote: Theres is realy very little difference between the to files - except for the file size.
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Isnt it a fact that all digital sensors are rated in Mpixels but that is counting each of the mono red, green and blue pixels and when they convert to full color the image is interpolated upward to achive the same Mpixel figure. i.e. since it takes 4 mono pixels to create one color pixel, a 6Mpixel rated sensor is really a 1.5 Mpixel color sensor but the marketing guys like to keep that a secret. JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Funny, this morning I was doing a similar experiment but in the opposite direction. I was curious if the 5MP from a 5MP digicam (Canon S60 in this case) are really holding 5MP of real information or if there are invented pixels there. So I took pics with the same subject at nominal 5MP and the other MP sizes supported by the camera (3MP and 2 MP, and I didn't bother with the 640x480). I resampled the 3 and 2 MP images to 5 MP and compared with the genuine 5MP image. The 2 MP obviously lost some fine details, however the resized 3MP one was oh so similar to the 5MP one, except some JPG artifacts in a grass covered area. Except those artifacts, the fine details were virtually identical. Jens Bladt wrote: Theres is realy very little difference between the to files - except for the file size.
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
No problem. Open you file in PS. Change the format to .tiff or .psd and SAVE. (Please note the following words are translated from Danish and may not be totally accurate) In Image choose Image Size, and a little box will open At the bottom chose bi-cubic and mark both keep aspect ratio and new data (this last one is VERY important, without this new pixels will not be calculated). Now change resolution from let's say 72 to 150 pixel/inch (ppi). As you do this, the total number of pixel will increase (app. 2x2) as well. Click OK. Your file size has now changed to a larger file. SAVE, if you want to, with a new name (to keep the original). Do it all again. This time change 150 ppi to 300 ppi. Then reduce total number of pixel to the desired size (i.e. 5100x3400). Click OK and save. You now have a photograph sized i.e. 5100x3400 pixel to be printed at 300ppi. If you want to know the print size (for 300ppi): Click the magnification glas. Then click show print size in the top beam of your screen. The computer screen will now show the printed size. You may now compress in jpeg if you like - but keep the tiff/psd. Some of my colleages says I should not click the new data box until the last possible moment, because I shouldn't alter the pixels before I know how much is realy necessary. I don't know - I always did like described above. Just keep in mind from the start how many pixels you really want in the end. Hope this makes sence. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. august 2004 19:28 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Jens, could you briefly explain to us PS challenged people how you do this? Don -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 12:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology I forgot to say that this crop is app. 7% of the total frame/photograph. Jens I have posted two files: One is a crop of the original 5Mp file (2560x1920 pixel-72 ppi - a 3Mb JPEG file - 14 Mb as a Tiff file) The other is same shot and crop interpolated to 300 ppi. The whole photograph would have been 61 Mp as a Tiff file) http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p6922908.html http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p6922909.html Theres is realy very little difference between the to files - except for the file size. I only doubled the size (in each direction = 4 times the area). I could easily have made a even larger - perhaps 100-200 Mb. The trick is to do in steps - doubling each time. And reducing the pixel size to reach to desired size (5100x3400). Every time the computer invent new pixels to put in between the original recorded ones. I cant see why annsan can't resize her files to the desired resolution from her 3 Mp files. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. august 2004 18:25 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology On 22/8/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, offered: Kostas? Oh well what do you expect if the only ID on your emails is the 'from' field ?? However, my intent with whipping cream and MXs still stands. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
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
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
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
My stock house wants 50 meg files, which are about the equivelant of 11x17 at 300. But they prefer generic rgb colorspace, which is great because that's what you need to run ColorSynch on a Mac. So I can use the same file for printing as I use for stock. However, I generally print from 72 meg files, which is the largest file you can generate from an *istD RAW file in PhotoShop CS. That gives you an 11 x17 at 360 dpi. Paul On Aug 21, 2004, at 1:11 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: 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
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
How about 6x4.5 or 6x7 chromes? You know, join The Brotherhood. I'm going to as soon as I finish nursing school next May. Robert - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:40 AM 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
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Hello Annsan Interesting, thanks for sharing. What is the full blast? Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. august 2004 17:40 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: 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
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
What method are you using for the file size increase? -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology My stock house wants 50 meg files, which are about the equivelant of 11x17 at 300. But they prefer generic rgb colorspace, which is great because that's what you need to run ColorSynch on a Mac. So I can use the same file for printing as I use for stock. However, I generally print from 72 meg files, which is the largest file you can generate from an *istD RAW file in PhotoShop CS. That gives you an 11 x17 at 360 dpi. Paul On Aug 21, 2004, at 1:11 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: 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
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Wow! 11x17 prints at 300 ppi means something like 17 MP (app. 5078x3308 pixel). That's a lot. But I guess a 6MP camera can do that if you run the files through Photoshop. Anyway, a good scanner can pull this much out of a high definition film - 35mm or MF. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. august 2004 19:12 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology 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
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
I love my 6x7, but medium format isn't a very good option for stock. You still have to process film and scan. The best bet is digital. You shoot RAW, process your files and upload them to the stock house server. Paul On Aug 21, 2004, at 2:54 PM, Robert Woerner wrote: How about 6x4.5 or 6x7 chromes? You know, join The Brotherhood. I'm going to as soon as I finish nursing school next May. Robert - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:40 AM 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
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Paul Stenquist wrote: 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 I'd love to enabled with an *isdD - however I either need a rich sugar daddy, a winning lotto ticket, or a good job with more pay. :) (if ebay really picks up in September I'll be fine :) ) Eventually... ann - unabletobenabled 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
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Robert Woerner wrote: How about 6x4.5 or 6x7 chromes? You know, join The Brotherhood. I'm going to as soon as I finish nursing school next May. Robert These days they are converting those to digital, too. ann - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:40 AM 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
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
I'm estimating 85+ Mpixels from 645 slides with the Epson 4870 scanner. I'll let you know when I get it all set up. Nick -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21/08/04 23:53:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology You can get over 100 Mpixel images from 4x5 film with inexpensive Epson 3200 scanners. JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Just a quick question. Are there some photogs really using 50 MP Foveon digital backs or is everybody just wildly interpolating in Photosomething ? Or are they supposed to scan from 8x10 slide sheets ? Herb Chong wrote: annsan and i have had an off-list discussion. it's out of her price range, especially when she upgrades her computer to run CS adequately.
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
depends on film used. But with 100 Mpixel images from 4x5 unless you print over 16x20 prints you will not be able to see grain in the print yet it is still very sharp. JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology How big is one of those pixels compared to film grain ? J. C. O'Connell wrote: You can get over 100 Mpixel images from 4x5 film with inexpensive Epson 3200 scanners. JCO
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
645 is going to look nearly as good as 4x5 no matter who many Mpixels you squeeze out of it with a hi-res scanner because all you are doing is magnifying the film grain and lens flaws when you scan over about 2400 ppi. JCO -Original Message- From: Nick Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology I'm estimating 85+ Mpixels from 645 slides with the Epson 4870 scanner. I'll let you know when I get it all set up. Nick -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21/08/04 23:53:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology You can get over 100 Mpixel images from 4x5 film with inexpensive Epson 3200 scanners. JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Just a quick question. Are there some photogs really using 50 MP Foveon digital backs or is everybody just wildly interpolating in Photosomething ? Or are they supposed to scan from 8x10 slide sheets ? Herb Chong wrote: annsan and i have had an off-list discussion. it's out of her price range, especially when she upgrades her computer to run CS adequately.
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
ISNT! not is! -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology 645 is going to look nearly as good as 4x5 no matter who many Mpixels you squeeze out of it with a hi-res scanner because all you are doing is magnifying the film grain and lens flaws when you scan over about 2400 ppi. JCO -Original Message- From: Nick Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology I'm estimating 85+ Mpixels from 645 slides with the Epson 4870 scanner. I'll let you know when I get it all set up. Nick -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21/08/04 23:53:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology You can get over 100 Mpixel images from 4x5 film with inexpensive Epson 3200 scanners. JCO -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Just a quick question. Are there some photogs really using 50 MP Foveon digital backs or is everybody just wildly interpolating in Photosomething ? Or are they supposed to scan from 8x10 slide sheets ? Herb Chong wrote: annsan and i have had an off-list discussion. it's out of her price range, especially when she upgrades her computer to run CS adequately.
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
- Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Just a quick question. Are there some photogs really using 50 MP Foveon digital backs or is everybody just wildly interpolating in Photosomething ? Or are they supposed to scan from 8x10 slide sheets ? The istD creates a ~34.6 mb straight out of the camera in RAW to 16 bit. A 50% interpolation, which isn't enough to damage the image takes it up to ~77.8mb William Robb
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
William Robb is getting his Megapixels mixed up with his MegaBYTEs. Original question was referring to MPIXELS. Interpolated Upsizing does not hurt an image but it doesn't make make it the same quality as one captured at the larger resolution. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 8:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology - Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology Just a quick question. Are there some photogs really using 50 MP Foveon digital backs or is everybody just wildly interpolating in Photosomething ? Or are they supposed to scan from 8x10 slide sheets ? The istD creates a ~34.6 mb straight out of the camera in RAW to 16 bit. A 50% interpolation, which isn't enough to damage the image takes it up to ~77.8mb William Robb
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
100 Mpixel from 20 square inches is the same as 6.7 Mpixel from a 35mm frame (which each work out to around 2200ppi). Just how much that shows up grain depends on the film; if you're shooting Tri-X you'll definitely see grain, while scans from Velvia will look fairly smooth. How big is one of those pixels compared to film grain ? J. C. O'Connell wrote: You can get over 100 Mpixel images from 4x5 film with inexpensive Epson 3200 scanners. JCO
RE: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
Sorry but forgot something there, with a 100Mpixel image the magnification in a given print is about 1/4 as much as it would be from a 6.7 Mixel image so the grain if any is about 1/16 the size! That's the whole point of LF, less enlargement means sharper image and way less grain often to the point of none visible until you start to make VERY large prints. The other thing is if you scan LF at lower resolution ( I often use 1200ppi for 5x7 and 5x9 negs), there is NO GRAIN in the print because the scanner cant resolve it at those scanning resolutions. But since the negs are so big the files and prints are still very sharp even at 30-40 Mpixels and GRAINLESS! JCO -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology 100 Mpixel from 20 square inches is the same as 6.7 Mpixel from a 35mm frame (which each work out to around 2200ppi). Just how much that shows up grain depends on the film; if you're shooting Tri-X you'll definitely see grain, while scans from Velvia will look fairly smooth. How big is one of those pixels compared to film grain ? J. C. O'Connell wrote: You can get over 100 Mpixel images from 4x5 film with inexpensive Epson 3200 scanners. JCO
Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology
High end architectural magazines are still demanding 4x5 chromes. Ann Sanfedele wrote: Robert Woerner wrote: How about 6x4.5 or 6x7 chromes? You know, join The Brotherhood. I'm going to as soon as I finish nursing school next May. Robert These days they are converting those to digital, too. ann - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 11:40 AM 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 -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
