photog info - digital

**Saxon Holt s*@saxonholt.com**

As a full-time garden photographer who has to sell hundreds and hundreds of
photos every year, I will tell you why it will be a very long time until I
shoot digitally.  Simply put, it is not convenient for the editors (or for
me) to review and edit photographs.  The digital issue is no longer quality,
but convenience.

As Rich said in response to Brook, a 25meg file can work fine for a magazine
size of 8x10.  And as Rich went on to say, this is assuming the publisher
knows how to handle, convert, and calibrate the digital file to look like
the original.  This is not necessarily hard to do, but is quite uncommon in
my experience.  

Digital is becoming more common, even the norm for many commercial and
studio photographers.  In the studio, the photographer can work directly
with an art director and client to preview and adjust photos, make the color
separation and send it directly (ftp, *never* e-mail) to layout.  At this
level, all parties use calibrated equipment and consistent color profiles so
that what is seen in the photographer's monitor is exactly what goes to
press.  It is a direct file transfer, no in between technical adjustments,
no in between editor - it is quick and easy for the art director.

However, in the world of editorial photographers, we shoot lots of images,
not knowing which particular ones will work for any given publication. It is
MUCH easier to look at and edit film on a light table.  It is not convenient
for editors to review digital files.  If the photo files are big enough to
be used (15 - 40 mb) they are hard to display all at once.  The simple
storage of many digital files becomes a problem.  The easy thing is to
consider the film itself as the storage medium and scanned/digitized only
when clients want to see preview photos and fpo's (for position only).

There are fabulous digital cameras available and it is only a matter of time
before the calibration issues are standardized so that point and shoot
digital can slip right into layout.  I think for a writer the future may be
digital as The Hampton Gardener says.  It may work out that you submit a few
digital photos to accompany an article and the editor selects one or two to
slip right in.  But for photographers, we shoot so many pictures, and submit
so many at a time to publishers, film is still easier, much easier.  Yes,
once the film image is selected it must be scanned and digitized, but until
it is easier to submit digital photos, it doesn't make sense to shoot
digitally.

Even when it somehow becomes easier to submit digital photos (perhaps when
the 2' x 10' light tables become computer monitors), I will still shoot film
and scan before submitting.  I can make (or rather my film service can make)
300 mb files from my film with mindblowing quality, at a level totally
unneeded for any but the most picky photographer making 30 x 50 prints.  But
why I would want to make 300 meg files every time I take a photo, when I can
take a slide?

Saxon Holt

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

If you have photos for GWL, send them to gwlphotos@hort.net and they will
show up at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos