 |
 | 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 / Film Photography / Medium format / July 2006How many megapixels for "magazine quality images"?
How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing expect? Also, do they prefer 4:3 or 3:2. I guess they prefer raw images. Would that be right? I will be going to live in Switzerland soon and I will maybe try to sell some photos as a side line so I need to have some idea of what they want. Recently, rolandberry@hotmail.com <rolandberry@hotmail.com> posted: > How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality > images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sell some photos as a side line so I need to have some idea of what > they want. Most print applications would find images at 300 ppi in tiff or .jpg format to be adequate. They would most likely *not* want RAW format images, as there are too many variables to get them ready for print. The photographer is expected to prepare the images according to their specs and deliver files that are "ready to go". The specific requirements will vary with the publication. Hope this helps. Neil > Recently, rolandberry@hotmail.com <rolandberry@hotmail.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Neil Thanks, it helps. Would the magazine specify the size they wanted and then the photographer would resize the image down if need be? What about stock photography? Is there a standard size at 300 ppi that would be required for this? >rolandberry@hotmail.com wrote: > > What about stock photography? Is there a standard size at 300 ppi that > would be required for this? Some of the best ones ask for 48 MByte files (tiffs), which implies 16 Mpixel cameras for entry level ... but many pros are able to upsize 11 or 12 (or sometimes even 8) MPixel images to 16 Mpix and get away with it. But again, it varies from company to company so contact a few of them for their particulars. > I will be going to live in Switzerland soon and I will maybe try to > sell some photos as a side line so I need to have some idea of what > they want. Yer screwed! In Switzerland you need to be certified and licensed to be a photographer. You would have better luck becoming a brain surgeon. > Yer screwed! In Switzerland you need to be certified and licensed to be a > photographer. You would have better luck becoming a brain surgeon. Support that statement!  Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > > Yer screwed! In Switzerland you need to be certified and licensed to be a > > photographer. You would have better luck becoming a brain surgeon. > > Support that statement! He he - I could probably move there, I have family with a castle :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >rolandberry@hotmail.com wrote: > How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality > images"? Six megapixels is the starting point, more is better in case they crop or go double page ... at least that's what the editor of one of the Geo magazines told us last summer (I think it was "Geo Traveler"). >What do these companies that accept images for printing > expect? Also, do they prefer 4:3 or 3:2. They will crop to fit the layout of the piece, so aspect ratio isn't important, but 3:2 implies dSLR bodies and 4:3 implies small sensor point-and-shoots and they definitely prefer images from the larger sensor bodies. Unless of course your 4:3 body is a medium format back ... >I guess they prefer raw > images. Would that be right? No, typically want to see jpegs with the proposal so they can view the files easier ... and many will accept high rez jpegs for the final submission, though some will ask for 8 bit/channel tiffs. If they ask to see your RAW files it's just to make sure you haven't done too much cheating in Photoshop, is my experience. > I will be going to live in Switzerland soon and I will maybe try to > sell some photos as a side line so I need to have some idea of what > they want. So contact a few of the magazines of interest and ask them what their policy is for submissions ... Bill : How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality : images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing : expect? Also, do they prefer 4:3 or 3:2. I guess they prefer raw : images. Would that be right? : I will be going to live in Switzerland soon and I will maybe try to : sell some photos as a side line so I need to have some idea of what : they want. You'll need at least 17trillion pixels for a magazine quality image. Or you could shoot MF film. Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you > : How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality > : images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You'll need at least 17trillion pixels for a magazine quality image. > Or you could shoot MF film. I've got many MF cameras. I will be using a Pentax 67 and a Widepan Pro II for serious work. But I appreciate the convenience of using digital cameras. I recently bought a Sony DSC-R1 and was thinking that if I shoot raw then this 10.3 megapixel camera might be knocking on the door of magazine quality. Not a double spread, of course, but for single pages. I was just wondering of magazines would accept them or should I stick to using the Pentax 67. > I've got many MF cameras. I will be using a Pentax 67 and a Widepan Pro > II for serious work. Sure. >>: How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality >>: images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > pages. I was just wondering of magazines would accept them or should I > stick to using the Pentax 67. Full page spread with bleed, on either a 150 lpi or better press, using a general rule of thumb . . . just under 10 MP. However, file sizes are not the only issue. You should be aware that some publishing companies rarely run full page images from unknown photographers, though you are going the right direction by being prepared. Last big name magazine I knew of being printed in Switzerland was Graphis, though I think they might have moved to another press location. There are some prominant architecture magazines, quite likely with offices in that area of EU or Switzerland. Be super careful with magazines. Some pay nothing, but getting your images in them could land some big paying ad work. Others pay poorly, though are good for the exposure . . . especially if they have advertisers you might want to work with. There are a few magazines that pay well, though usually if you have something of a name in photography. Prepare to be surprised by some of the responses, and consider the value of "advertising" having your images in certain publication might do for you. Want to just pick up some cash on the side . . . probably stick to royalty free micro stock sites like Alamy.com or similar. After a few hundred or thousand images posted, you might make some "spare cash". Nearly all the big names in stock photography are owned by Getty or Corbis or Jupiter Images, and getting into one of the more lucrative rights managed collections can be tough. You might actually do better with fine art. Try to find a nice printing place, and make connections so you can get your work shown. If you want a casual approach, rather than diving into photography as a profession, then consider doing fine art photography. If you are really serious about getting your work into magazines, then I suggest skipping this newsgroup and heading over to PDN Forums. There you can find numerous archived posts about stock imaging, stock agencies, approved cameras at some stock agencies, and the who and how of contacting publications. I don't want to discourage you, but you need to be somewhat organized and dedicated to make this work for you. There are so many people with cameras that it is very rare for someone to casually fall into getting published. You also need to be careful what you wish for . . . if it works, be prepared to jump in and deal with working on very important shoots. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > >>: How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality > >>: images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> Thanks, I make a living as a programmer so photography is just a hobby for me. But I have some serious cameras - MF cameras included. I am just looking to make beer money from photography to give me a lasting but not large income. It could be that "stock imaging" is for me. What are PDN forums? > > >>: How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality > > >>: images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > but not large income. It could be that "stock imaging" is for me. What > are PDN forums? I found a good site to at least give me an idea about what is a technically acceptable image. http://www.stockphotography.co.uk/ > Thanks, I make a living as a programmer Then please trim your posts. No excuse. > so photography is just a hobby Funny, programming is my hobby. > . . . . . . . . What > are PDN forums? <http://www.pdngallery.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi> PDN is Photo District News, which is a publication intended for professional photographers. The Forums include many stock photographers, and lots of business discussions. You would find substantially more information there than you could find on Usenet newsgroups. If the above link does not work properly, the home page is at: <http://www.pdnonline.com> with the Forums located under the "PDN NETWORK" heading Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > Full page spread with bleed, on either a 150 lpi or better press, using > a general rule of thumb . . . just under 10 MP. However, file sizes are [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> Magazine quality is a non secquiter. I currenty work for a couple, of local life style publications- interiors & posteriors ;) "In any" my work has run full page and across two. Usually the one 6 mp is quite adequate for one 8.5 x11 page, and quite seriously rivals 6x6 cropped when handled well. Raw is fine IF AND Only IF the the printer has imagination or the publisher knows how to understand the translation. Across two pages; well those have been from film, and either very sharp 120 or: as always sharp 4x5. Bigger Jpegs will get better results in more places. I want the 12 mp jpeg camera right now at 3k then I'll be happy. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >Bigger Jpegs will get better results in more places. I want the 12 mp >jpeg camera right now at 3k then I'll be happy. Eh? What are you waiting for, then? The Canon 5D is 12.8 MP, and well under $3K. I'm sure it will capture to JPG if you want, though it would be a shame (IMO.) What's the difficulty in doing your own RAW to JPG conversion? Particularly for commercial work. Sheesh.... From all that I've seen, the 5D will match scanned 645, in spite of having far fewer pixels. But you'll need to use the best lenses on it... Canon L series should do fine <grin.> rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > >Bigger Jpegs will get better results in more places. I want the 12 mp > >jpeg camera right now at 3k then I'll be happy. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > spite of having far fewer pixels. But you'll need to use the > best lenses on it... Canon L series should do fine <grin.> I see what you mean about getting the lens quality better. Take a look at the full size shot of Tower Bridge here. It is the sixth photo in and click to download the orginal file. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page33.asp On the bridge to the left you can see the chromatic abberation and the details underneath the bridge as well on the extreme left. It trashes the image. I'd be thinking of returning the lens to get my money back if I saw that. And yet, before the days of digital, nobody would have bothered about it. > I see what you mean about getting the lens quality better. Take a look > at the full size shot of Tower Bridge here. It is the sixth photo in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > details underneath the bridge as well on the extreme left. It trashes > the image. You just pointed out why I haven't bought into the canon system. They INSULT their users by continuing to milk the life out of the crappy wide angle film lenses they have been selling for decades.. There is no excuse to sell these high end camera bodies with no good WA lenses to use on them. If you research some, you'll find people who are serious about image quality use other makers WA optics on them manually via an adapter since canon can't seem to make decent ones themselves. SignatureStacey > > I see what you mean about getting the lens quality better. Take a look > > at the full size shot of Tower Bridge here. It is the sixth photo in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > quality use other makers WA optics on them manually via an adapter since > canon can't seem to make decent ones themselves. I've never been happy with any Canon lens I have owned, but then I could never afford the "L" lenses. Stacey writes: >I've never been happy with any Canon lens I have owned, but then I >could never afford the "L" lenses. Stacey, I don't know what their magic is, but they make a difference. When I bought my 10D, I got a Tokina zoom to go with it. I used the Tokina for a few days and was quite disappointed. I returned the Tokina and bought the equivalent Canon L (17-40) -- and the difference was apparent in the very first shot. The only lens in my entire kit that's in that same price range is the Nikon SW90 that I use on my 4x5. I'm not saying all 3rd-party lenses are crap. I have several that I used happily with my Nikons. In fact, my all-time favorite lens for the Nikons is 28-70 zoom branded by "Access" -- whoever they might be. Probably half the images on my web site were taken with that lens. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Stacey writes: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Stacey, I don't know what their magic is, but they make a > difference. Fluorite glass-L actually stands for Luorilite <sp> Canon's version of Fluorite (Geesh a know it all like you - I would think you'd know that!! ;^) > When I bought my 10D, I got a Tokina zoom to > go with it. I used the Tokina for a few days and was quite [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The only lens in my entire kit that's in that same price > range is the Nikon SW90 that I use on my 4x5. The 90 & 65 Sw's are superb lenses.....for transparency films. > I'm not saying all 3rd-party lenses are crap. I have several > that I used happily with my Nikons. In fact, my all-time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > >Bigger Jpegs will get better results in more places. I want the 12 mp > >jpeg camera right now at 3k then I'll be happy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What's the difficulty in doing your own RAW to JPG conversion? > Particularly for commercial work. Sheesh.... Getting the publications to give calibration information, a conversion only works if you know the intended Color Space and their system is inline with yours- Or someone their is understanding of your interpretation. Otherwise I have no problem doing so at all- :SHEESH:. > From all that I've seen, the 5D will match scanned 645, in > spite of having far fewer pixels. But you'll need to use the > best lenses on it... Canon L series should do fine <grin.> > > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com I would only do the 3k if I don't have to immediately buy new glass, I have two Nikon D70's. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> Eh? What are you waiting for, then? The Canon 5D is 12.8 MP, >> and well under $3K. I'm sure it will capture to JPG if you want, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Otherwise I have no problem >doing so at all- :SHEESH:. How is capturing in JPG going to solve any of this? What "calibration information" are you speaking of? You have an image. It's in some color space. End of story. What client doesn't understand AdobeRGB or sRGB? Your comments suggest a general ignorance of color management. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > You'll need at least 17trillion pixels for a magazine quality image. 'cause Swedish pixels are smaller than American pixels, and besides they are rationed as part of the Socialist plan. > > You'll need at least 17trillion pixels for a magazine quality image. > > 'cause Swedish pixels are smaller than American pixels, and besides they are > rationed as part of the Socialist plan. Got it! 2's IQ is just that. So is Frank's. Buzz off, Idiots. > How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality > images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sell some photos as a side line so I need to have some idea of what > they want. Best way to find out is a book called The Photographers Market. It contains submission guidelines & contact information. Use the book as a starting point and then contact them for specifics. > > How many megapixels, roughly, are required for "magazine quality > > images"? What do these companies that accept images for printing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > contains submission guidelines & contact information. Use the book as a > starting point and then contact them for specifics. Thanks. I now know the DSC-R1 has the potential, thanks to following the help of people here, and I will learn how to convert raw files to get the best out of it. I am an amateur photographer and just want to take the pictures I like of scenics in Switzerland and so I will build up a collection. But if I could share them and get paid a bit for it then that would make me happier and perhaps keep me in beer. |
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
|
©2008 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.