filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)

2001-09-06 Thread Rob Geraghty
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 u

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)

2001-09-06 Thread Anthony Atkielski
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

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)

2001-09-06 Thread SKID Photography
> > > 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 (magazin

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)

2001-09-07 Thread Anthony Atkielski
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 comprom

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)

2001-09-07 Thread SKID Photography
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 t

RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)

2001-09-07 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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 ne

filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT (a bit): Publishing pictures :)

2001-09-06 Thread Rob Geraghty
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