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)
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
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
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
On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 17:04:43 -0400 SKID Photography ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Every magazine we have worked for insists on at least 300 dpi in any
digital image (this includes the 'majors'
like Time).
Absolutely my experience too. 300dpi@repro size has become a standard
requirement,
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
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
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_
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
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
, 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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
