Re: AW: [STOCKPHOTO] Stock Submissions & EXIF Data
David Barr
>
>Doing this deletes all the exif-information and the keywording is done
>seperately after this.
>
>Also i must say that i have some pictures running with several agencies that
>are made with a compact digital camera and there where no complains about
>those pictures :o)
>
>Greetings
>Dietmar
Hi Deitmar
I have a similar workflow but saving a copy as a JPG thankfully does
not remove the information about the camera or any of the other
associated keywords and contact details.
I had a look at your site and if a client pulls a picture off of your
screen to try in a comp and then can't remember where they grabbed
the picture from how would they find you with all your info fields
empty? You don't even include a copyright notice.
If the client keeps that picture on their computer and at a later
date unable to find you,claims the picture as an orphan work and uses
it on a web page would your have any recourse? I know that orphan
works legislation has been stopped for the moment in the US but just
in case it does pass at some time I would prefer that all info remain
with my pictures.
David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search <http://www.photobar.com>Photobar
<http://www.cama.org/>CAMA
<http://www.nama.org/>NAMA
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Thomas Hallstein
David,
What I meant by screen-grab is a screen shot also known as Print Screen.
Using drag and drop as you did is the same as "save picture as" on the right-click context menu.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: David Barr
To: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: AW: [STOCKPHOTO] Stock Submissions & EXIF Data
>
>Just a small clarification here: Metadata is not copied when you do a
>screen-grab. You're only snatching pixels. If a person saves an image via
>"Save Picture as" in their browser, they are copying the complete
>file and will
>get any embedded metadata.
>
>Best to All,
>Tom
>^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
>Thomas Hallstein
Hi Tom
I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
came with all the embedded data?
Is this different because I'm using a MAC?
David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search <http://www.photobar.com>Photobar
<http://www.cama.org/>CAMA
<http://www.nama.org/>NAMA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Riecks
At 09:42 AM 1/3/2007, Dietmar Scholtz wrote:
>i use photoshop to run all the
>images into .jpg.
>Doing this deletes all the exif-information and the keywording is done
>seperately after this.
Dietmar:
Just saving an image as a Jpeg with photoshop
doesn't delete the EXIF data, unless you are
using the "Save For Web" (SFW) option.
Unfortunately, using the SFW option will also
remove ALL of your image metadata, not just EXIF.
PLUS you have to remember to check the ICC
profile box if you want that saved as well. Using
SFW is IMO, the fastest way to create Orphan images.
That's why, in the Metadata Manifesto
(http://metadatamanifesto.blogspot.com/) that we
made the suggestion that actions that remove
metadata should NOT be the default in how imaging
applications work, and that if metadata is to be
removed the user should be explicitly warned of
this in advance of their action.
There is an option buried in the Output Settings
dialog of the SFW feature (hidden beneath the
black triangle and using the "Edit Output
Settings" to reveal the dialog) that you might want to check out.
If you go in and make sure that the "Settings"
pull down is at "Default Settings" then change
the second pull down to "Saving Files" and make
sure that the "Include Copyright" box is checked
at the bottom of that dialog box before clicking
the OK button, then you might think that you are
saving your copyright information. However you'd
be wrong. That information no longer appears
within the IPTC, IPTC Core or EXIF sections of
your image. Instead, it's hidden somewhere
outside of those in a portion of the header that
is not used by any system of which I'm aware.
Here's what it looks like for a studio portrait that I tested this on.....
ÿØÿà JFIF d d ÿì «Ducky d @ A s h e r R
u n d e l l , s t u d i o p o r t r a i t
R ' © 2 0 0 6 D a v i d R i e c k s , a l
l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d ÿâXICC_PROFILE HLino mntrRGB XYZ Î
Nice, huh?
David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
david@riecks.com http://www.riecks.com/
Midwest/Chicago ASMP
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Thomas Hallstein
----- Original Message -----
From: David Barr
>To: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com
>I had a look at your site and if a client pulls a picture off of your
>screen to try in a comp and then can't remember where they grabbed
>the picture from how would they find you with all your info fields
>empty? You don't even include a copyright notice.
Just a small clarification here: Metadata is not copied when you do a
screen-grab. You're only snatching pixels. If a person saves an image via
"Save Picture as" in their browser, they are copying the complete file and will
get any embedded metadata.
Best to All,
Tom
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Thomas Hallstein
Outsight Photography
Santa Rosa, CA USA
http://www.outsight.com
i l l u s t r a t i o n t o i n s p i r a t i o n
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Peter Bennett
Hi David,
I know Tom uses a Windows machine so he may not know how to do a screen grab
on a Mac. What you described is not a screen grab but rather a download,
albeit you dragged it to your desktop. You can do a screen grab by pressing
Command Shift 3. What will appear on your desktop is a screen grab literally
of your whole desktop, which you can open in PS or Preview. It will be named
Picture 1. It's a handy little tool.
Thanks
Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640
Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
>
> From: David Barr <photobar@PHOTOBAR.COM>
>>
>> Just a small clarification here: Metadata is not copied when you do a
>> screen-grab. You're only snatching pixels. If a person saves an image via
>> "Save Picture as" in their browser, they are copying the complete
>> file and will
>> get any embedded metadata.
>>
>> Best to All,
>> Tom
>> ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
>> Thomas Hallstein
>
> Hi Tom
>
> I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
> of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
> came with all the embedded data?
>
> Is this different because I'm using a MAC?
>
> David Barr
> --
> Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
> Simplify your Search <http://www.photobar.com>Photobar
>
> <http://www.cama.org/>CAMA
> <http://www.nama.org/>NAMA
>
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Rich Green
When submitting images for stock from a digital camera, is it acceptable or not to eliminate
the EXIF Data (by copying the image to new document). I'm not particularly excited about
anyone knowing how I took a photo, but if it's required, then I will comply. I've only
submitted a few images (so far), and they've been from scanned film where the EXIF info is
obviously not a problem.
Thank you for any response.
Rich Green
www.rjgreenphoto.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Barr
>
>Just a small clarification here: Metadata is not copied when you do a
>screen-grab. You're only snatching pixels. If a person saves an image via
>"Save Picture as" in their browser, they are copying the complete
>file and will
>get any embedded metadata.
>
>Best to All,
>Tom
>^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
>Thomas Hallstein
Hi Tom
I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
came with all the embedded data?
Is this different because I'm using a MAC?
David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search <http://www.photobar.com>Photobar
<http://www.cama.org/>CAMA
<http://www.nama.org/>NAMA
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Dietmar Scholtz
Hi all,
never had problems with that so far. In my workflow i develop the RAW DATA
into 16bit tif and make if neccessary some changes in Photoshop. After all
is done in the complete series of pictures, i use photoshop to run all the
images into .jpg.
Doing this deletes all the exif-information and the keywording is done
seperately after this.
Also i must say that i have some pictures running with several agencies that
are made with a compact digital camera and there where no complains about
those pictures :o)
Greetings
Dietmar
_____
Von: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von David Riecks
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2007 16:01
An: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Stock Submissions & EXIF Data
Rich Green wrote:
> When submitting images for stock from a digital camera, is it
acceptable or not to eliminate
> the EXIF Data (by copying the image to new document). I'm not
particularly excited about
> anyone knowing how I took a photo...
Rich:
Obviously if no EXIF is present (as in a scan from film) there is
nothing worth saving. However, it's interesting you should ask this
right now. There was something I just read that was a plea from a
large standards body (one that has three letters for their
abbreviation) asking all involved with metadata to preserve not only
IPTC but EXIF and other forms of meta information as well. They were
particularly interested in preserving color profile information, so
that might give you a hint.
I do understand the need for photographers not wishing to
share "proprietary" information, like focal length, shutter and
aperture settings, as well as how the flash may have been employed,
etc. However, many photographers have exploited this system by
removing the EXIF information regarding their camera make/model to
hide the fact that they may be using a digital camera that's deemed
inadequate by their distributor (what we used to call agencies).
IMHO, this is a fault of both distributor and photographer.
Distributors need to actually look at and evaluate the image, rather
than sorting and evaluating images solely based on metadata. It's
deceptively easy to give a quality control inspector instructions to
only allow images shot with Canon 1DS mark II's and Nikon D2X's and
reject all the rest.
However that simply means that some photographers will react by hiding
that information from the distributor forcing them to evaluate the
image on it's own merits.
Personally, at this point in time, I leave that information in all my
archive master files. However, it's your decision on what to do with
images that you send on to your distributor.
Hope that helps.
David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
http://www.riecks. <http://www.riecks.com> com , Chicago Midwest ASMP member
http://zillionbucks <http://zillionbucks.com> .com "The Webhost for your
Creative Business"
Chair, SAA Imaging Technology Standards committee
Version 2 of the Controlled Vocabulary Keyword Catalog is out
http://controlledvo
<http://controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/cvkc_order.html>
cabulary.com/imagedatabases/cvkc_order.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Riecks
At 05:07 PM 1/3/2007, David Barr wrote:
>I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
>of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
>came with all the embedded data?
>
>Is this different because I'm using a MAC?
David:
Yes, it's different. Dragging an image from a webpage with a mac is
the same as using the "right click" and save image as with a windows
computer. In that sense it's a "real image" rather than a screen
grab, and thus, can include metadata.
David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
See the new Universal Photo Digi-Image Guidelines at http://www.updig.org/
Chairman, SAA Imaging Technology Standards Committee
Visit http://ControlledVocabulary.com if you are creating an image database
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Riecks
David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
http://www.riecks.com , Chicago Midwest ASMP member
http://zillionbucks.com "The Webhost for your Creative Business"
Chair, SAA Imaging Technology Standards committee
Version 2 of the Controlled Vocabulary Keyword Catalog is out
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Shaughn Clements
Hi David
Just tried it with a PC and IE. The metadata came across.
Shaughn
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Singh, Shangara
On 3 Jan 2007, at 15:00, David Riecks wrote:
> Personally, at this point in time, I leave that information in all my
> archive master files. However, it's your decision on what to do with
> images that you send on to your distributor.
Camera EXIF info isn't that difficult to remove. You can use a script
by Brian Price from the Adobe site and use it to batch files. It
basically creates a duplicate file that doesn't have any EXIF info
and then dumps the contents of the original file into it.
I was probably one of the first few to discover the above route,
which isn't that difficult to sus if you know Photoshop, and then
Brian Price came along and wrote the script after a discussion on
another list.
Interestingly, the info that we all want to preserve, such as
copyright and contact info, can be removed without any problem by
anyone with "newbie" knowledge of Photoshop but the info that most
photographers would rather not reveal cannot be removed as easily. Go
figure.
If replying to this email, please do NOT quote my address.
Shangara Singh.
Author & Photographer
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Hacking Photoshop CS2 http://www.shangarasingh.co.uk
Stock Photography http://www.mpxstockimages.co.uk
Examaids for Adobe-Macromedia http://www.examaids.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
lens...@aol.com
From: david@riecks.com:
" It's deceptively easy to give a quality control inspector instructions to
only allow images shot with Canon 1DS mark II's and Nikon D2X's and
reject all the rest. However that simply means that some photographers will react by hiding
that information from the distributor forcing them to evaluate the
image on it's own merits."
Are there really agents (distributors) that arrogant and close minded that they wouldn't review submissions based on the type of camera used ???
I know the answer is, unfortunately and amazingly, yes. However, anyone with common sense knows it's not the tools used to make the image, but the marketability of the image that is paramount. Obviously, any camera, no matter how expensive, and how many megapixels, is useless if its output is not marketable.
Would agents (distributors) really want to forgo marketable imagery based solely on the tools used to create it? A scary, illogical, short sighted policy indeed !
regards
Len Holsborg
lenswork1@aol.com
http://cgibackgrounds.com
direct to end users
__________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Leonide Principe
Hi all, I dont know if this is my distraction, but I cant preserve
IPTC and EXIF data in the Save for Web Photoshop option.
There is a way to do this?
Thanks for help, Leo
Leonide Principe - Amazon Stock Photography
Contact: info@leonideprincipe.com
http://www.leonideprincipe.com
On 03/01/2007, at 23:50, David Riecks wrote:
> At 05:07 PM 1/3/2007, David Barr wrote:
> >I just visited my own home page at http://www.photobar.com and pulled
> >of the happy new year picture by dragging it onto my desktop and it
> >came with all the embedded data?
> >
> >Is this different because I'm using a MAC?
>
> David:
>
> Yes, it's different. Dragging an image from a webpage with a mac is
> the same as using the "right click" and save image as with a windows
> computer. In that sense it's a "real image" rather than a screen
> grab, and thus, can include metadata.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
> See the new Universal Photo Digi-Image Guidelines at http://
> www.updig.org/
> Chairman, SAA Imaging Technology Standards Committee
> Visit http://ControlledVocabulary.com if you are creating an image
> database
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Peter Dean
In message <B949A4AA-A776-4942-B021-AA25B419408D@leonideprincipe.com>,
Leonide Principe <leo@leonideprincipe.com> writes
> I cant preserve
>IPTC and EXIF data in the Save for Web Photoshop option.
>There is a way to do this?
>
Leo
Save as sRGB rather than "for web" which presumably is also same sRGB
but cleaned of all info.
We are currently processing images for a new website and found that
saving as sRGB to preserve metadata meant much bigger jpgs than we
wanted for the very small thumbs so we save these small 110 pixels for
web but the larger ( most useful to steal ;-) previews in sRGB with all
info intact. Even with a lot of compression small jpgs are relatively
large in file size in sRGB with preserved metadata. Its not an issue for
the larger previews which typically display one at a time and therefore
sensible to include data.
Pete
--
Peter Dean (Photographer)
agripicture.com
+44(0)1398 331598
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Singh, Shangara
On 4 Jan 2007, at 20:21, Leonide Principe wrote:
> Hi all, I dont know if this is my distraction, but I cant preserve
> IPTC and EXIF data in the Save for Web Photoshop option.
> There is a way to do this?
Save for Web is way behind the times. It still believes people are
using 14bpc dialups, so tries to save bytes, instead of embedded
metadata. You can use ImageReady, which is more suited to web and
screen work, and opt to save metadata. Alternatively, use the Save As
command in Photoshop and then select a format.
Please do NOT include my address in any reply.
Shangara Singh.
Author & Photographer
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Hacking Photoshop CS2 http://www.shangarasingh.co.uk
Stock Photography http://www.mpxstockimages.co.uk
Examaids for Adobe-Macromedia http://www.examaids.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Jonathan Clymer
On 1/3/07 4:45 PM, "lenswork1@aol.com" <lenswork1@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Are there really agents (distributors) that arrogant and close minded that
> they wouldn't review submissions based on the type of camera used ???
>
> Would agents (distributors) really want to forgo marketable imagery based
> solely on the tools used to create it? A scary, illogical, short sighted
> policy indeed !
>
Here is the workflow of one of the major agencies we deal with. First, job
is shot and and our submission is sent to the agency in the form of small
files. Agency selects are sent back to us and we do prep work, either
in-house or farmed out. This stage may include some labor-intensive
compositing. Then, the final hi-res files are re-submitted and go through a
QC process that checks for sharpness, color, pixelization, etc.
A lot of time and energy has been spent on these images before anyone at the
agency gets to see a hi-res file. Although it seems logical that any
photographer should be responsible for the quality of the images being
submitted, many photographers, quite frankly, do not have the skills to
properly evaluate images that will go through a rigorous QC procedure done
by a third party, and this lack of skill will inevitably be magnified in a
high-production workflow. The requirement by agencies to take submissions
from an approved group of cameras is simply a way of eliminating a category
of images that may cause headaches late in the workflow. It doesn¹t mean
that images from approved cameras will be good or that unapproved cameras
will surely have poor quality. It¹s just a way of attempting to control an
unneeded variable.
At this studio we use Canon cameras, including 1ds¹s and 1ds MkII¹s, both of
which are approved by most if not all stock agencies. Although both are good
cameras, the the MkII¹s are superior and their images need significantly
less corrective work to get through a QC process. My assumption is that
cameras not on the approved list would require more work than the 1ds¹s to
make the images acceptable.
Jonathan Clymer
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Leonide Principe
Thanks for the informations,
My workflow is oriented to Save for web because of smallest file: 50
kb file (500 px) on Save for web go to 150 Kb on Save As. Maybe in
the today broadband this not a problem, I have educated me to small
web files. I live in the forest, and sometime my connection is slow.
I add IPTC to my Saved for web file, because my keywording is very
dynamic, I change it permanently, with new informations or feed-back
from requests. My keywording center is not the Master file but the
caption-keywords database, where I take File Info at each image
output, to client or to the web). Each time I go to the database I
can improve keywords.
The question came with the EXIF Data: I need the Exif data in my web
file?
A Save for Web file cant have EXIF Data, these fields are disabled.
On this way thank for the ImageReady tip, which is more flexible,
despite more complexity in the workflow.
I was trying this less know application and there is a solution.
Resuming, if i need EXIF in small web file, I have to go to ImageReady.
Again, thanks for contributions, Leo
Leonide Principe - Amazon Stock Photography
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Singh, Shangara
On 5 Jan 2007, at 18:20, Leonide Principe wrote:
> A Save for Web file cant have EXIF Data, these fields are disabled.
Leo
In Photoshop CS3, you will be able to preserve metadata in the Save
for Web dialog.
> Resuming, if i need EXIF in small web file, I have to go to
> ImageReady.
Or use the File > Save As command and then select your output file
format. If you select JPEG, you will have the same compression
choices as Save for Web. Think of Save for Web as a mini version of
ImageReady. It has a lot of options but not as many, obviously, as
ImageReady, which a complete, stand alone application.
If replying, please do NOT quote my email address.
Shangara Singh.
Author & Photographer
----------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Hacking Photoshop CS2 http://www.shangarasingh.co.uk
Stock Photography http://www.mpxstockimages.co.uk
Examaids for Adobe-Macromedia http://www.examaids.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
daveinkelso
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <jclymer@...> wrote:
>
At this studio we use Canon cameras, including 1ds¹s and 1ds MkII¹s,
both of
> which are approved by most if not all stock agencies. Although both
are good
> cameras, the the MkII¹s are superior and their images need significantly
> less corrective work to get through a QC process. My assumption is that
> cameras not on the approved list would require more work than the
1ds¹s to
> make the images acceptable.
>
>
Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon,
though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have
anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me. The Sony A100 files
don't need any 'corrective work' at all to create a well detailed,
artefact-free, non-sharpened 50mb stock image as long as I stick to
ISO 100 - studio work or my usual conditions for outdoor stock (I
don't often shoot in the rain). They may get routine adjustments
during raw conversion, but these are rarely 'corrective', just a
matter of personal taste and judgment. I am sure the same would apply
to the Pentax K10D, Canon 400D, Canon 5D, Nikon D80, D200 and the
entire crop of 10-12 megapixel new generation cameras with relatively
weak AA filters. At this level, a top grade lens on one of these
bodies will produce more visible detail than a poor lens on a 1Ds
MkII. If an agency is going to stipulate a certain exact type of
camera, they should also be providing a list of permitted lenses!
There's big colour rendering difference between the 1Ds and the 1Ds
MkII, along with quite a big improvement in resolved fine detail and
freedom from highlight flare. Even C1 Pro's colour profiles do not
give a match between things as common as grass/foliage colour and sky
hues from the 1Ds and the 1Ds MkII - they are as different as two
entirely different brands of camera (or film). Do you custom profile
the cameras to overcome this, or just avoid mixing them on a shoot?
David
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Ed Verkaik
Posted by: "Peter Dean" peter@AGRIPICTURE.COM agripicture
> Save as sRGB rather than "for web"
There are better ways if you want really small jpegs but with metadata. I
run all images through SaveForWeb, strip all metadata, then batch reinsert
selected metadatta into thumbs (minimum contact url, copyright) and into
larger previews (5 fields) It means you won't have the full range of
caption-keywords there but enough basic data for identification at a much
lower file size (most <50k for 500p). In addition, before adding metadata
back to jpegs, I squeeze everything out of them with the utility "jstrip".
Ed Verkaik
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Leonide Principe
Ed, the question is specifically about EXIF. Save for Web disable all
EXIF fields.
There is no problem for me, because I dont use EXIF in my web images.
On the other side IPTC fields are blank, but editable, and because I
put IPTC only in the final image, before publishing it, the copy/
past from my Keywords database conclude the process. There is no
problem too.
The question came when I have an image request from a client which
ask for EXIF embedded... but the group discussion have solved this
with Save As or ImageReady processing: I get my Master Tiff , resize,
Get Info, Replace xmp sidecar, Save As Jpeg... all metadatas are
present in this version.
The new CS3 is welcome to open the Save for web possibilities too.
On my point of view, based on my workflow, is very clear.
Thanks for helping, Leo
Leonide Principe - Amazon Stock Photography
Contato: info@leonideprincipe.com
http://www.photoshelter.com/usr-show/U0000nKxqGuEZSYI
http://www.leonideprincipe.com/
On 06/01/2007, at 12:25, Ed Verkaik wrote:
> Posted by: "Peter Dean" peter@AGRIPICTURE.COM agripicture
> > Save as sRGB rather than "for web"
>
> There are better ways if you want really small jpegs but with
> metadata. I
> run all images through SaveForWeb, strip all metadata, then batch
> reinsert
> selected metadatta into thumbs (minimum contact url, copyright) and
> into
> larger previews (5 fields) It means you won't have the full range of
> caption-keywords there but enough basic data for identification at
> a much
> lower file size (most <50k for 500p). In addition, before adding
> metadata
> back to jpegs, I squeeze everything out of them with the utility
> "jstrip".
>
> Ed Verkaik
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Len Holsborg
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <jclymer@...>
wrote:
<clipped for brevity>
>
>
>" many photographers, quite frankly, do not have the skills to
properly evaluate images that will go through a rigorous QC procedure
done by a third party, and this lack of skill will inevitably be
magnified in a high-production workflow. The requirement by agencies
to
take submissions from an approved group of cameras is simply a way of
eliminating a category of images that may cause headaches late in the
workflow.It¹s just a way of attempting to control an unneeded
variable.
>My assumption is that cameras not on the approved list would require
more work than the 1ds¹s to make the images acceptable.>"
Hi Jonathan,
Although you make some valid points, I still respectfully, but
vigorously, disagree with the basic
premise that certain makes and models of camera and lenses, whether
film or digital, is that critical a factor when it comes to the
creation of marketable images.
Being an engineer in a previous life, and one who does copious
research
on technical issues, I've yet to see any data that says images shot
with a particular brand of camera or lens 'cause more headaches' in
any
workflows, or, on a microscopic level, are orders of magnitude better
than any other camera or lens. Of course, I am referring to cameras
and
lenses in the same overall classes, i.e. 35mm vs medium/large format
for film, OEM or established after market lenses,and digital cameras
of
the same or close pixel levels.
Speaking from my own experience, I've had many 35mm slide images sold
by agents, and direct, where I was never questioned about
what 'tools'
I used to create the image. If the image is technically proficient
(focus, exposure, etc), and the image is marketable, it will sell in
most cases, the decison to market the image should never be made on
equipment used, alone.
For those photographers who, by choice, choose to not scan and/or
photoshop there own images, there are a wide variety of labs that
these
tasks can be farmed out to (of course, the lab must be on certain
agencie's "approved lists" of suppliers ;-}
I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their
photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I
believe, will hurt sales more than help. To try to put my position in
quantitative terms, I would say that the marketablity of an image is
95% content, 5% miscellaneous factors such as camera/lens/film used.
Factors such as proper focus, exposure, composition, etc. are (or
should be) givens, and can be attained with just about any brand of
established equipment, be it Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus,
Sony/Konica
Minolta, Tamron or Sigma. The governing factor for success is whether
or not that technically proficient image is 'stock proficient', i.e.
illustrates many different concepts for many different
clients/industries.
regards,
Len
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Zave Smith
Len
While I agree with you that content is king. I have heard from Art
Directors about problems caused when they downloaded an image for a comp,
sold the idea to their client, went to purchase said image and discovered
that the technical quality of the image was not up to snuff and/or fell
apart when used an desired size. We photographers sometimes forget how hard
it can be for an art director to get an image approved and the last thing
that they want to do is start over.
This is why the better agencies insist on certain cameras that they know can
produce images that will meet the technical requirements for reproduction.
Zave Smith
Lifestyle Photography for Advertising
http://www.zavesmith.com
blogspot: https://zavesmith.wordpress.com/
Zave Smith New York
Photo Group
88 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10016
212-580-2380
Zave Smith Philadelphia
1041 Buttonwood Street
Philadelphia, PA 19123
215-236-8998
Member: APA & SAA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Jonathan Clymer
On 1/7/07 9:09 PM, "Len Holsborg" <lenswork1@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their
> photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I believe, will
> hurt sales more than help.
>
OK, but what are you going to do about it? You disagree with me, which is no
big deal, but you also disagree with some very important agencies, which is
a very big deal. What is your strategy?
Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Jonathan Clymer
On 1/6/07 9:47 AM, "daveinkelso" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote:
> Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon,
> though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have
> anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me.
>
Different cameras will produce files that look different, not just in color
but in quality. This can be objectively seen, and can be shown to exist when
variables such a lens, or profile, or color rendering are accounted for.
You may not agree that these differences are significant (sometimes I don¹t
think these differences are significant), but they exist, and have lead some
agencies to believe that certain flaws are more prevalent in some cameras
than others.
What is your strategy to deal with this?
Jonathan Clymer
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
lens...@aol.com
Hi Zave,
The important / critical decision the photographer has to make when it comes to technical proficiency in the digital world (scanning and photoshop) is whether or not they have the time, aptitude, patience and skill to deal with producing images that meet the standards of the industry (even though these standards fluctuate on a daily basis).
Personally, I enjoy the challenge of scanning and photoshopping, and think the time spent learning the basic and advanced techniques is time well spent; the control is in your hands, not an outsider's. Of course, I enjoy the process of capturing emotional, compelling images, much more, but I like to expand both sides of my brain, the emotional and the technical.
Others among us do not have the time or patience to deal with the technical side, and that is, of course, an individual decision. My point with all this ' Canon, Nikon ' hype is that most established brands of cameras, lenses, scanners, etc that I have researched are more than capable of producing images of a technical quality that should be acceptable for 99.9% of the intended stock usages.
For those individuals who chose not to do it themselves, there are 'approved suppliers' that can handle these tasks. For those, like me, who chose to 'do it ourselves' and maintain control, we should make sure that we get all the facts about minimum quality standards, and submit only those images that meet those requirements, or else risk losing your credibility.
regards,
Len Holsborg (proud user of non-Canon, Nikon equipment ;-}
lenswork1@aol.com
agents:
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://cgibackgrounds.com
direct to end users
__________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
daveinkelso
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <jclymer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 1/6/07 9:47 AM, "daveinkelso" <iconmags3@...> wrote:
>
> > Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon,
> > though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have
> > anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me.
> >
>
> Different cameras will produce files that look different, not just
in color
> but in quality. This can be objectively seen, and can be shown to
exist when
> variables such a lens, or profile, or color rendering are accounted for.
>
> You may not agree that these differences are significant (sometimes
I don¹t
> think these differences are significant), but they exist, and have
lead some
> agencies to believe that certain flaws are more prevalent in some
cameras
> than others.
>
> What is your strategy to deal with this?
>
I test digital SLRs professionally and have tested cameras for 35
years. There are differences, and they certainly don't all favour the
Canon 1D series or the Nikon D2X. I don't need a strategy and would
not consider working for any library or agency which told me what I
could or could not use - for one thing, I may use a dozen difference
DSLRs each year at the minimum, and each trip may be taken on a
different kit. I certainly don't want any to be told I must duplicate
every shot on a 1Ds MkII.
Back 30 years ago, I wouldn't work with Pictor because Alberto Sciama
said I'd have to reshoot my 35mm work on 5 x 4 and must never use
anything but Ektachrome, which I hated. Tony Stone said yes to the
35mm and if the image was right, accepted our Agfa RS and even the
GAF500 and strange stuff like Anscochrome 64, multiduplicated
Orwochrom and Recording Film 2480. In 1978 I switched to using a bulk
film branded as Barfen. It was a Fuji product related to Fujichrome
100; we tested it and we knew for sure it could wipe the floor with
Ektachrome. Since it had no identification on the film rebates,
countless agencies and publications accepted. Fuji set up shop in the
UK in 1981 and we switched to the real thing and it is amazing how
much resistance was met, but my studio took large accounts off
competitors who stuck with the dull, cold industry standard.
Even as late as 1985, I remember one quite funny meeting with Mark
Kaplan and Hans Wiesenhofer at Time-Life in London. I'd been to
another publisher and had some specimen sheets on me. Hans shot
entirely Kodak and Time-Life specified Ektachrome or Kodachrome. But
you should have seen Mark's face when my sheet of Fujichromes went on
the lightbox. I was not pitching for work (certainly not in the
company of a friend who was there for work!) and I listened to both of
them justify never using Fujichrome, because all these colours were
too bright, they could never be reproduced and really they did not
have the character of Ektachrome and Kodachrome.
There has not been a single DSLR made since the Nikon D100 and Canon
D60 (except maybe the Fuji S1) which can't deliver a file good enough
for A3 DPS at top quality - or for a billboard. The giant Nike shoe
which covered a building 100 ft long and five storeys high in Glasgow
was shot on a Nikon D100 when it was the first affordable 6-megapixel.
I think the reason that some agencies force certain camera types to be
used has less to do with quality than trying to avoid photographers
who don't follow the herd. If you work with naturally compliant,
controllable people you can do pretty much what you want with them.
Personally, if I was an agency, I would rather work with photographers
who are desperate to try every single different
medium/brand/format/lens or whatever is out there.
Alamy's approach of judging what passes QC is better. If the
photographer makes choices which don't pass QC, they remain free to
adjust their gear or methods. They might well end up using the same
gear as found on the permitted lists of others. Or not.
David
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
lens...@aol.com
Hi Jonathan,
I deal with this issue the only way I know how (short of going bankrupt and purchasing top end Canon/Nikon gear) :
I concentrate on dealing directly with most clients, and letting the image stand on it's own merits, without any mention of the tools used to create it. Same goes for my current or future agents - if the image is technically acceptable, but more importantly, MARKETABLE, it will be accepted by most clients and agencies, with open arms. Tools used to create it are a non-issue.
Should I be forced into manipulating EXIF data, or purchasing overkill equipment? Not in my opinion, and reality. I'll put my chances of success on my vision, not my equipment.
Will I succeed, or starve to death ? Time will tell, but I'm still alive (and 10 lbs overweight ) :-}.
"Important agencies" is a very subjective term, there are a plethora of agencies and options available to photographers that may not have the status of 'King or Queen', but they know a marketable image when they see one.
regards,
Len Holsborg
lenswork1@aol.com
agents:
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://cgibackgrounds.com
direct to end users
-----Original Message-----
From: jclymer@pelaezproductions.com
To: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)
On 1/7/07 9:09 PM, "Len Holsborg" <lenswork1@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their
> photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I believe, will
> hurt sales more than help.
>
OK, but what are you going to do about it? You disagree with me, which is no
big deal, but you also disagree with some very important agencies, which is
a very big deal. What is your strategy?
Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Bob Croxford
The simple answer to the camera question is this. What agency or
client in their right mind would pay a photographer to use second
best of anything? What photographer wants to use second best?
I don't see it as an agency stipulation but a personal decision with
only one obvious choice.
In the days before digital professionals used a small number of
cameras for a very special reason. Professional reputations depends
on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a
Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment which
was less than other professionals, and myself, had decided was the
best? The difference with digital is that improvements have come so
thick and fast that the life of a body is not what it was. This is
causing some very distorted thinking. When I sold by Haselblad after
over twenty years of use I got back more than I had paid for it. My
1ds mk1 is unlikely to fetch much but that does not alter the fact
that the 1ds mk 1 and mk2 that I bought are a negligible part of my
business costs.
Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the
business of professional photography is in the wrong business.
Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple
reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with
professional level specs.
I'm with Jonathan on this.
Bob Croxford
www.atmosphere.co.uk
On 6 Jan 2007, at 14:09, STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> On 1/3/07 4:45 PM, "lenswork1@aol.com" <lenswork1@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Are there really agents (distributors) that arrogant and close
> minded that
> > they wouldn't review submissions based on the type of camera
> used ???
> >
> > Would agents (distributors) really want to forgo marketable
> imagery based
> > solely on the tools used to create it? A scary, illogical, short
> sighted
> > policy indeed !
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
lens...@aol.com
Bob, I offer the following responses/opinions to the points you raise in your post:
(caps, where used, are for emphasis, not shouting ;-} )
<Bob: "What photographer wants to use second best?"
And just what constitutes best? If I can achieve images that meet the same technical requirements for reproduction that your 'best' does, does that mean that '2nd best' , or 3rd or 4th or 5th..........is unacceptable ?? I challenge you to show me that at sizes up to full page in a magazine, pictures from 'the best' look any noticeable amount better from one 10 megapixel SLR camera to another - perhaps at a miscroscopic level, but not at a level necessary for 99.9% of repro houses.
Does a race car team with a rich client sponsor always use 'the best' equipment ? No, they get the maximum performance out of the equipment they have, which in most cases is comparable to other race equipment, and 9 times out of 10, the team with the less expensive equipment wins ! It's the skill of the team (driver/mechanic,etc.) that wins the race, not the equipment (just one of many analogies that back up my opinion, I could list hundreds of others).
<Bob: "Professional reputations depends
on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a
Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment "
Success in stock photography depends on producing MARKETABLE images that meet minimum established standards of 'professionalism' - i.e. they are in focus, are properly exposed, and (if digital) have a minimum resolution level or film size if working directly from film. REPUTATIONS are made on CONTENT, not on equipment. If it were at all possible, it would be interesting to see in $$$ what percentage of total worldwide stock sales are made with 'the best' vs 2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' - my guess - 2nd, 3rd, 4th ....best would outnumber 'the best' 10 to 1.
<Bob: "Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the
business of professional photography is in the wrong business."
So, any successful photographer making a nice income shooting with '2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' is in the wrong business ?? Some of us choose to use equipment that can produce images that in many cases probably far outsells images shot with 'the best' - why ? because the added cost of 'the best' is not justified if '2nd, 3rd, 4th....best camera images meet appropriate technical standards, and their CONTENT is more marketable. Again, the best equipment in the world is useless if it produces unmarketable imagery.
>Bob: "Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple
reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with
professional level specs."
'Serious' and 'best' are very subjective terms - Professional level specs, or professional level name ?? I am 'serious' about my photography in that I strive to shoot images that are interesting, compelling, emotional, and MARKETABLE - either to an agent, an end user, a gallery visitor or an art show customer. I've managed to do pretty good over the years with 'non-best' equipment, by using my 'best' instincts when it comes to what makes a good image. Would I be doing better if I used the 'best' equipment available - I hardly think so.
But, of course, we're all entitled to our opinions - one man's 'best' is another man's folly - regardless of what other 'professional and serious' photographers think. Is a picture any less effective because the equipment used to create it wasn't 'the best' ? are the only truly great images the ones shot with 'the best' equipment ?? Does shooting with 'the best' give you an edge ???
My answer to these questions is a resounding no !
respectfully,
Len Holsborg
lenswork1@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: bobcroxford@tesco.net
To: STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:47 PM
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Barr
>
><Bob: "Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the
>business of professional photography is in the wrong business."
>
>Len : So, any successful photographer making a nice income shooting
>with '2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' is in the wrong business ?? Some
>of us choose to use equipment that can produce images that in many
>cases probably far outsells images shot with 'the best' - why ?
>because the added cost of 'the best' is not justified if '2nd, 3rd,
>4th....best camera images meet appropriate technical standards, and
>their CONTENT is more marketable. Again, the best equipment in the
>world is useless if it produces unmarketable imagery.
>
>>Bob: "Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple
>reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with
>professional level specs."
>
>Len : 'Serious' and 'best' are very subjective terms - Professional
>level specs, or professional level name ?? I am 'serious' about my
>photography in that I strive to shoot images that are interesting,
>compelling, emotional, and MARKETABLE -
>
>My answer to these questions is a resounding no !
>
>respectfully,
>
>Len Holsborg
>lenswork1@aol.com
>
Len I would agree that it is all about the image but I have read
many posts on this and other groups about which camera files are
acceptable to agencies. I have also read postings about resizing of
files to make them large enough and removing IPTC data so the client
won't know which camera was used?
I would agree with Bob regarding the importance of being properly
equipped to do the job. A better camera will not make you a better
photographer but have the right tools is essential and this
will mean using a camera that will give a file that is acceptable to
your clients. Now if your shooting on assignment and all that is
required is 300 dpi at 4 inches then any number of cameras will
suffice but if you are shooting stock and don't know the intended use
of your pictures then the cameras that Bob suggested or other higher
end cameras should be used. If you are providing files that are
smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it
might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a
larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a
trade show display?
David Barr
--
__________________________________________
David Barr 519 846 8827
Simplify your search at http://www.photobar.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
John Fowler
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, David Barr <photobar@...> wrote:
>
A better camera will not make you a better
> photographer but have the right tools is essential and this
> will mean using a camera that will give a file that is acceptable to
> your clients.
Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the
bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very
good camera!" :-)
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Jacques Jangoux
John,
What about "what a good picture - it´so sharp!" :-)
Jacques Jangoux
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "John Fowler" <john@...> wrote:
>
> Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the
> bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very
> good camera!" :-)
>
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Jonathan Clymer
I¹m perplexed as to why there have been several messages that are so adamant
about using cameras that some agencies don¹t approve. Forgive me for this
observation, but the tone of these messages suggests defensiveness and
confrontation. Not a problem here, we are speaking freely on this forum. But
if you feel this strongly about this, how do you express this to the
agencies?
I need to pick my battles with agency editors. I need to cajole them to turn
images around faster. I talk them into accepting images that they may have
not seen value in. I need cooperation when royalty reports are ambiguous or
seem to be incomplete. I need their suggestions and creative input for the
shoots we will schedule. These are important matters and I don¹t want to
dilute my influence with editors by taking up their precious time trying to
convince them I prefer to shoot using a different camera (believe me,
corporate managers are putting editors under tremendous pressure and they
are under crushing time constraints these days). I need to be on the BEST
possible terms with them. The issue of which cameras they want me to use is
trivial. As part of the total cost of producing stock images, the cost of
the cameras is trivial (as Bob Croxford has pointed out). The cost/benefit
ratio on this issue is, at least to me, a loser.
Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Barr
>John,
>
>What about "what a good picture - it´so sharp!" :-)
>
>Jacques Jangoux
>
>--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "John Fowler" <john@...> wrote:
>>
>> Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the
>> bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very
> > good camera!" :-)
>>
>
My favourite is "what a great picture! my brother
has a good camera and takes pictures just like
that"
David
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
daveinkelso
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, David Barr <photobar@...> wrote:
>
>
If you are providing files that are
> smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it
> might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a
> larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a
> trade show display?
>
Most photographers have never seen a decent 6 megapixel image. I bet
Bob has not had his 1Ds MkII set up by Fixation. He probably lives
with the inaccuracy of setup, programmed by Canon to compensate for
errors, but only effective under specific conditions. All the
newspapers and major agencies won't use a Canon - 1D series or any
other - out of the box without getting it fixed.
Get a 6 megapixel DSLR correctly adjusted and reprogrammed for zero AF
offsets, and you will beat a box-delivered 16 megapixel. Speak to
Fixation in London if you want to know more, don't question me on
this. I know how AF systems are programmed and how DSLRs are set up.
I've got slightly drunk with the owner of Fixation, and I know what
their business is!
Formula One cars are a good comparison. DSLRs can be blueprinted, like
racing cars. Do this with a good 6, 8, 10 or 12 megapixel and it will
equal an off the shelf model with double the pixel resolution.
Most digital images are just not sharp, at all, before you even start
processing them. Agency demands based on camera are made in ignorance
and propagate prejudice. They should, instead, insist that all cameras
used be individually checked and set up for zero software correction
offsets. If you don't know what those are, obtain a service manual for
your DSLR.
David
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
lens...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/12/2007 12:58:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
photobar@PHOTOBAR.COM writes:
If you are providing files that are
smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it
might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a
larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a
trade show display?
David Barr
Hi David,
When I make my initial low res jpg submissions to an agent for review, or
when I get a direct request for a certain 'concept' or subject, I make it
clear up front in the submission cover letter which images, by file #, are film
originals, which are hi res scans from film, and which are digital originals,
so there is no confusion as to what my maximum resolutions available are.
I could count on 1 hand those situations where my maximum resolutions, or
film originals, did not satisfy a client's needs, but I will admit that I have
never licensed an image for 'trade show display' usage. However, I will say
that I personally have had hi res files commercially printed for my gallery and
art show displays up to 30 inches by 40 inches with fantastic clarity and
sharpness. I would venture to guess I could go higher if need be, but I find
that my best selling work is 16 x 20 and 11 x 14 inch framed and matted prints,
which I do myself on my Epson 2400.
I will reiterate, that if the image content meets the client's needs, a film
original, or an un-interpolated 60 mb, 16 bit Tiff, or 30mb 8 bit Tiff, (or
a 10mb RAW) will meet 99.9 % of most clients needs, whether it's a small
brochure, a magazine cover, or a trade show advert.
If and when a discussion about file size is raised, I politely, and
professionally, try to explain why this should not be an issue, and in 99.9 % of
cases it isn't. Yes, I have had a few potential clients turn down submissions
because of file size, but that is the 0.01 %. I stand by my assessment that the
if the content is right, the image will sell in the formats and resolutions
that I have.
As far as agencies go, a certain 'unnamed' agency has my film originals from
a previous agent they bought out, and I no longer submit new images to them
for other reasons I won't go into here. My other agent gladly accepts my 35 mm
slide film originals for the jpegs they accept, and does the scans
themselves (small scan fee deducted at time of sale ), or accepts my 60 / 30 mb scans
I do myself on a ' non- best ' film scanner.
I will reiterate once again, IMHO and experience, sale / licensing of an
image is 99.9 % content and .01 % miscellaneous like camera / file size.
regards,
Len Holsborg
lenswork1@aol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
David Barr
Len Holsborg wrote:
>
>If and when a discussion about file size is raised, I politely, and
>professionally, try to explain why this should not be an issue, and
>in 99.9 % of
>cases it isn't. Yes, I have had a few potential clients turn down submissions
>because of file size, but that is the 0.01 %. I stand by my
>assessment that the
>if the content is right, the image will sell in the formats and resolutions
>that I have.
>
>I will reiterate once again, IMHO and experience, sale / licensing of an
>image is 99.9 % content and .01 % miscellaneous like camera / file size.
Len you can't argue with success and if the pictures from smaller
file sizes are selling then is there really any point in going to the
expense of upgrading equipment? However even if it is seldom needed
I would prefer to have as large a file as possible.
I am using a 1Ds and justifying the purchase was easy. $8K to $12K
on film and processing every year and over a three year period it
easily covered the cost of the new Canon gear.
Now I look at the newer 1Ds MarkII and while that is my first
choice it is harder to justify the expense when my first camera is
still working fine. If my Canon packed it in tomorrow should I
replace it with the MarkII or go with the 5D?
David Barr
--
__________________________________________
David Barr 519 846 8827
Simplify your search at http://www.photobar.com
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
daveinkelso
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <jclymer@...> wrote:
The issue of which cameras they want me to use is
> trivial. As part of the total cost of producing stock images, the
cost of
> the cameras is trivial (as Bob Croxford has pointed out). The
cost/benefit
> ratio on this issue is, at least to me, a loser.
>
This issue is not 'which cameras they want me to use' - the issue is
that they want to control your possible choices of camera. An agency
which says a Nikon D200 image is acceptable and a Nikon D80, Sony A100
Samsung GX10 or Pentax K10D image is not acceptable could, I think, be
taken to court for defamation (implying that something is unsuitable
for its purpose). A test report writer - like me - can say that the
Sony A100 is hopeless at high ISOs or the Pentax K10D has a very soft
in-camera JPEG process, or the Nikon D80 tends to be too generous when
auto matrix exposing in high contrast situations. I have to prove it,
and I have to qualify my opinion by making it clear my findings relate
only to one sample and the conditions under which I tested the equipment
The cameras mentioned all use the same physical 10.2 megapixel CCD
with difference in low-pass filtration, channel feed, gain amplifiers
and A to D processing. Correctly processed raw image files from any
one of these cameras are all excellent and of professionally
acceptable quality. The later introductions slightly improve on the
overall IQ of the first to appear - the D200 - yet guess which is the
only one generally approved by agencies/libraries?
I do not wish to see the choice in the overall photographic market
reduced to just two well-known names. I value the innovation and
diversity as well as the favourable pricing which has come from
healthy competition at all levels, including professional. Set lists
of equipment you are allowed to use, often stipulated in ignorance,
annoy me in the same way that pointless EU regulations do.
David
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Jacques Jangoux
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, "daveinkelso" <iconmags3@...> wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone know the equivalent of Fixation in the US? In the good old
days (20 years ago or more) you had your camera fixed or adjusted by
Marty Forscher´s (Professional Camera Repair) on 47th Street in New
York. Marty even modified a Hasselblad for NASA (was it for the moon
trip?). Have they gone digital? Or has another repair shop replaced them?
Jacques Jangoux
> --- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, David Barr <photobar@> wrote:
>
> Most photographers have never seen a decent 6 megapixel image. I bet
> Bob has not had his 1Ds MkII set up by Fixation. He probably lives
> with the inaccuracy of setup, programmed by Canon to compensate for
> errors, but only effective under specific conditions. All the
> newspapers and major agencies won't use a Canon - 1D series or any
> other - out of the box without getting it fixed.
>
> Get a 6 megapixel DSLR correctly adjusted and reprogrammed for zero AF
> offsets, and you will beat a box-delivered 16 megapixel. Speak to
> Fixation in London if you want to know more, don't question me on
> this. I know how AF systems are programmed and how DSLRs are set up.
> I've got slightly drunk with the owner of Fixation, and I know what
> their business is!
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
lens...@aol.com
Hi David,
>>> "Len you can't argue with success and if the pictures from smaller
file sizes are selling then is there really any point in going to the
expense of upgrading equipment? "
Well, I consider 'success' one of those 'subjective' terms ;-} I am
hoping to do better, of course, but I remain at a comfort level that I find
reasonable for my individual lifestyle and circumstances. I'm retired after full
time work in the Aerospace industry for over 25 years, and have developed other
sources of income in that time to keep me going when my photo income
'declines' periodically . I don't go through the expense that alot of people here do
for things like hiring models, shooting at exotic locations around the
globe, nor do I succumb to the whims of agencies and art directors with misguided
notions of file sizes and Canon / Nikon fixations :-}.
Having said that, and not knowing what mp the 1ds is, but seeing that the
1Ds Mk11 is 16. 7 mp vs 12.8 mp for the 5D, in my opinion the 5D is more than
enough power and resolution for my proverbial " 99.9 % " of stock uses.
I want to make it clear that my intent is not to be 'confrontational' or
'derisive' here - we each have our own standards and ways of thinking when it
comes to acceptable levels of quality and marketability - we each make our own
decisions based on our experiences and by listening to the experience and
opinions of our colleagues in places like stockphoto.net and others.
What works for me 'should' work for others in most cases, but as they say '
to each his own'.
Regardless of what cameras you are using, or what film you are scanning, or
what file sizes you obtain, good luck and success.............
regards,
Len Holsborg
lenswork1@aol.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Rubens Abboud
--- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com, Bob Croxford <bobcroxford@...>
wrote:
> In the days before digital professionals used a small number of
> cameras for a very special reason. Professional reputations
depends
> on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a
> Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment
which
> was less than other professionals, and myself, had decided was
the
> best? The difference with digital is that improvements have come
so
> thick and fast that the life of a body is not what it was. This
is
> causing some very distorted thinking. When I sold by Haselblad
after
> over twenty years of use I got back more than I had paid for it.
My
> 1ds mk1 is unlikely to fetch much but that does not alter the
fact
> that the 1ds mk 1 and mk2 that I bought are a negligible part of
my
> business costs.
>
> Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the
> business of professional photography is in the wrong business.
If one follows the logic you describe above, one would conclude you
were walking around with a 39MP Hasselblad, not a puny Mk II.
Any 39MP Hasselblad-carrying photographer who reads the above will
wonder if you are, yourself, in the wrong business, no?
Unless you are implying that 39MP Hasselblad owners are walking
around with equipment that is "less than... the best" and
are "risking their client's money" by not using the equipment you,
and all other "professionals" have decided is "the best": the Canon
1ds Mk II?
Hmmm, me thinks there is some distorted thinking going on...
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___
Bob Croxford
Dear Rubens
You missed a bit of my post.
"Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple
reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with
professional level specs."
If I still shot in the studio I would still be using Hasselblad which
is OK on a tripod but one of the worst cameras in the world for hand
held images.
Bob Croxford
www.atmosphere.co.uk
On 14 Jan 2007, at 13:41, STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> If one follows the logic you describe above, one would conclude you
> were walking around with a 39MP Hasselblad, not a puny Mk II.
>
> Any 39MP Hasselblad-carrying photographer who reads the above will
> wonder if you are, yourself, in the wrong business, no?
>
> Unless you are implying that 39MP Hasselblad owners are walking
> around with equipment that is "less than... the best" and
> are "risking their client's money" by not using the equipment you,
> and all other "professionals" have decided is "the best": the Canon
> 1ds Mk II?
>
> Hmmm, me thinks there is some distorted thinking going on...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rubens.
> http://www.TheImageNation.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
__,_._,___