I have always heard that when it comes to publishing, the bigger the format the better. I am wondering if there are limits to this. If I tried to sell a photogr aph, would publishers be impressed by the 8x10 format, or would they be put off? Does the publishing process make any format larger than 4x5 impractical or does "the bigger, the better" hold true?
"The bigger, the better" applies when making 20x24 enlargements for a gallery exhibit, but may not apply to publishing. Photos for magazine publication are scanned to print at 300 to 400 dpi (equivalent to a 150 to 200 line screen). To take an extreme case, suppose you want to publish a 4x5 chrome in a double-page spread, i.e., 17 inches wide. That's less than a 4X enlargement, so the chrome need only be scanned at 1600 pixels per inch or less, which is less than a quality scanner is capable of. Thus, there would be no advantage to start with an 8x10, other than perhaps being able to impress the editor.
MF is accepted everywhere, 35mm almost everywhere, 5x4 LF is seen as a bit excessive these days, except in established quality publications that do everything in-house, or to commission, anyway.10 x 8? I bet there are young art directors and picture editors who've never even seen it. They might take it for the novelty, assuming they're even equipped to handle it, but probably just the once. When they see that there's no perceptible difference in published quality, they'll be less inclined to use it again.As for library submission, expect a fair bit of dust to gather on the protective sleeve.The one advantage I can see is that you can dupe it down to almost any other size with minimal quality loss.
Publishers and Art Directors might be impressed.....at first, but when they get the bill for film and scanning costs, they'll more than likely be LESS impressed. Scanners are just too good these days to require such a large chrome.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks