 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006Magazine work?
I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm equipment and I will go for the best camera I can afford. But will the quality be good enough for publication in the 'glossy' magazines? I was out the other day and spoke to a man using a Nikon D2X. I asked him the same question. His reply, "Not quite yet". Is this correct? Derry > But will the quality be good enough for publication in the 'glossy' > magazines? Yes. > I was out the other day and spoke to a man using a Nikon D2X. I asked him > the same question. His reply, "Not quite yet". Is this correct? No. Unless the magazine in question is looking for extreme medium-format quality. A D2x surpasses anything you could get from normal 35mm film and will do just fine even as a two-page spread. Ditto for the high-end Canon models. (Pick up a Sports Illustrated; pretty high quality. You think anything in there is still shot on film?)  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about > digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I was out the other day and spoke to a man using a Nikon D2X. I asked him > the same question. His reply, "Not quite yet". Is this correct? Search this group for discussion of 'Arizona Highways' magazine for more discussion. That's a larger size layout and a last holdout (until recently?). For a 2-page spread they probably would expect medium format film or an $8,000 16MP Canon 1DsMII. Optimal digital printing is generally considered 300dpi so: the 16.6 MP Canon: 4992 x 3328 at 16.6" x 11" -this has been compared to MF by some, especially considering the exceptional quality and full frame sensor. (The D2x has a smaller cropped sensor at 12.8 MP) and the D200's cropped 10.2 MP: 3872 x 2592 at 13" x 8.6" -which is big enough for a regular size cover but not a 2-page spread. And a regular 6 MP dSLR: 3000 x 2000 at 10" x 6.7" -which is real close to being big enough for a cover. >> I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about >> digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >recently?). For a 2-page spread they probably would expect medium format >film or an $8,000 16MP Canon 1DsMII. No, a 39MP 'blad would work just fine.... ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ >>>I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about >>>digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No, a 39MP 'blad would work just fine.... That's for poster-size art prints. >> I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about >> digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > recently?). For a 2-page spread they probably would expect medium format > film or an $8,000 16MP Canon 1DsMII. But we shouldn't judge "magazine work" by Arizona Highway's standards... SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > Search this group for discussion of 'Arizona Highways' magazine for more > discussion. That's a larger size layout and a last holdout (until [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > exceptional quality and full frame sensor. > (The D2x has a smaller cropped sensor at 12.8 MP) A few days ago I had a chance to witness a 40" wide print from a 1Ds Mk II. It was a picture of running horses, and had a fair amount of detail. I was completely, 100% blown away by what I saw. Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have believed that it was possible to look that amazing at just two feet away when printed at that size. steve > I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about > digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm > equipment and I will go for the best camera I can afford. > > But will the quality be good enough for publication in the 'glossy' > magazines? There are two questions; would it look good enough, and would they buy it. The answers to the two questions are not the same. A D200 would be marginal for a two-page spread. I would have not the slightest worries about reproducing the picture full-page, though. And the two-page spread might look first-rate, depending on the precise picture. Most pictures in magazines are reproduced less than full-page. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little > about digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I was out the other day and spoke to a man using a Nikon D2X. I asked > him the same question. His reply, "Not quite yet". Is this correct? National Geographic has run images from a 6MP Digital Rebel, and I've shot covers with the 10D. The most exacting magazines would require 16MP or more, but you left out what range you'd be shooting for, so it's hard to give you exact advice. > The most exacting magazines would require 16MP or more, but you left out > what range you'd be shooting for, so it's hard to give you exact advice. Thank you, Eric, and others who replied. That is the sort of reply I needed. I will go ahead and buy the D200. I photograph wildlife/hunting scenes mostly to illustrate my own articles and there is nothing more annoying than getting some good shots which won't sell for some reason or other. Many of these will be opportunist. An example: I got a series of shots (actually a whole 36 exposure roll of 35mm) of stoats fighting, mostly full frame. But they are all in black and white because the camera happened to be loaded for another job! However, I managed to sell a few to The Countryman Magazine which used to use b&w exclusively under the caption "Stoatal Warfare"! I am a writer first, photographer second. Now, if those shots had been in colour.... Derry Derry Argue <invalid@invalid.net> wrote in news:462lf8F9562qU3 @individual.net: > Thank you, Eric, and others who replied. That is the sort of reply I > needed. I will go ahead and buy the D200. You should be fine. I'll bet you be hooked by digital after the first time you post-process the images. If the D200 becomes too limiting, all it takes is more money...;-} > I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about > digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm > equipment and I will go for the best camera I can afford. > > But will the quality be good enough for publication in the 'glossy' > magazines? You know little about photography, but are concerned that the D200 will be good enough for magazine reproduction. DOH! >> I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about >> digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You know little about photography, but are concerned that the D200 will > be good enough for magazine reproduction. DOH! I believe he said "digital photography". However, I do think if one was concerned about whether ones camera was good enough for "glossy" magazines and was considering publishing then by this point in time the photographer should have a pretty good idea of what the industry expects. My photography is not likely to get published in a high end magazine, and I find my 6.1 mp camera fine for the work I do. SignatureJim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo >>> I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about >>> digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > My photography is not likely to get published in a high end magazine, and > I find my 6.1 mp camera fine for the work I do. Most of the magazines I work for still tend to specify 35mm and MF photography, though they ALL except good digital work. At least for another few years, there's no need for any photographer to know anything about digital cameras to shoot for magazines. I'm using a Pentax *istD (6.1 MP) for my work now, and have had no problems with acceptance of shots for books and magazines. When Pentax offers a 10+ MP DSLR, I'll probably upgrade, but for the average sized magazine shot, there's simply no current need--and there probably won't be a need in the future for anyone not shooting two page spreads. >> I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about >> digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You know little about photography, but are concerned that the D200 will > be good enough for magazine reproduction. DOH! Well, I seem to know more about photography than you do about reading English! Read my posts again -- I wrote "digital photoghaphy", not just "photography". Having a bad day? Derry >Well, I seem to know more about photography than you do about reading >English! Read my posts again -- I wrote "digital photoghaphy", not just >"photography". One option is the search the reviews sites for full resolution D200 images. Compare those images to the scans you get from your film images. If you know the quality requirements of your target magazines, it should be easy to fingure out yourself whether or not the D200 is going to be good enough. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Well, I seem to know more about photography than you do about reading > English! Read my posts again -- I wrote "digital photoghaphy", not just > "photography". Having a bad day? If you've been shooting 35mm, how much could you know? >> Well, I seem to know more about photography than you do about reading >> English! Read my posts again -- I wrote "digital photoghaphy", not just >> "photography". Having a bad day? > > If you've been shooting 35mm, how much could you know? >> Well, I seem to know more about photography than you do about reading >> English! Read my posts again -- I wrote "digital photoghaphy", not just >> "photography". Having a bad day? > > If you've been shooting 35mm, how much could you know? Do you recall George Burns' classic line to Gracie Allen when she said something of inspired stupidity? To paraphrase, "Say goodnight, Randy." >>Well, I seem to know more about photography than you do about reading >>English! Read my posts again -- I wrote "digital photoghaphy", not just >>"photography". Having a bad day? > > If you've been shooting 35mm, how much could you know? What sort of a w.nk statement is that? So I guess if you have only ever driven Fords, Chryslers and Chevs, what could you possibly know about cars (I mean to say, surely you have to drive a Ferrari, Porsche or Rolls Royce to know anything about cars!) Maybe the line of photography undertaken by the OP only requires 35mm equipment. How many people run around at the football with MF cameras? >> I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about >> digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You know little about photography, but are concerned that the D200 will > be good enough for magazine reproduction. DOH! Read it again. He knows little about DIGITAL photography. Nowhere did he say he knew little about photography. Apparently he knows far more about photography than you know about civil behavior. >> I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about >> digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You know little about photography, but are concerned that the D200 will > be good enough for magazine reproduction. DOH! >I am considering purchasing the Nikon D200 but I know very little about > digital photography, only that I would need a DSLR to replace my 35mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I was out the other day and spoke to a man using a Nikon D2X. I asked him > the same question. His reply, "Not quite yet". Is this correct? Jeez, I thought my last name was a pain in the butt on a by-line, but.... Check out www.dpreview.com. That might be www.dpreviews.com. I tend to confuse them. They review cameras and, IIRC, have done the D200, as well as a host of others. I've been selling digital photos for a number of years now, with no problems. I think www.stevesdigicams.com is also a good site. Those two are the tops, but there are others. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.