Sorry, didn't know how to title this thread. I am wondering why some agencies, magazines etc. insist on scanned images having been scanned by creo's and the like, as opposed to epsons...but these same agencies will accept digital images from digital slrs, i.e. d2x, 1ds. I am clearly able to get much higher resolution files... better files ...from scanning LF film on an epson. What is the logic here? Hope this makes sense... too much coffee.
I guessing here because I have not run into this issue, but I don't think it is about resolution. Almost anyone can produce a usable file (for magazine quality for instance) digitally that will work without allot of expertise, where as scanning requires a fair amount of skill. In teaching scanning for instance, I have found that few people actually go through the trouble to find best film height and flatness to maximize sharpness but rely instead on just sharpening the crap out of things instead. Good magazines too are leary of "home scanners" and would prefer professional scans.
If you can scan well, you could just wipe out the metadata that shows what source the scan comes from?
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Do these magazines specifically mention files from scanned large format film or are they talking about scanned film in general? If they're talking about film in general my guess is that they're thinking of 35mm, which in my limited experience produces very poor quality when scanned on a "prosumer" flat bed scanner. But that's just a guess, someone who knows more than I do about submission guidelines and magazine requirements likely can give a more definitive answer.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I think Brian is bang on there about 35mm both about perceived and real scanning issues.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I can't remember who it was... I am pretty sure it was a stock agency...but their guidelines were published on their website. They specified cameras, i.e. make and model, as well as the make and model of acceptable scanners. Perhaps you are correct; the specification may have been for 35mm with respect to scanning. I just thought it strange that they deemed scans of 6x6 generated by a Nikon 9000, for instance, unacceptable, whereas they would accept files produced by a D2x or 1ds for example. Thanks for your input.
Sounds like Getty Images, though perhaps Corbis has similar guidelines. This main issue is that they get too many submissions. One way to minimize the volume is to restrict the submissions. Gear requirements are not an assurance of quality, though the thought is that they avoid some potential technical issues. Unfortunately, short of altering or stripping meta data, you cannot get around that.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Actually, it was Getty! Thank you for jogging mty memory.Originally Posted by Gordon Moat
They will accept files from a Nikon D200, but apparently files from a Hasseblad scanned on a Coolscan 9000 are not acceptable, the scanner being absent from the list!
OK, so what?
One is a camera and the files it produces are straight photographs taken by a photographer using that camera. That would be a contemporary equivalent of a slide.
Scanner, on the other hand, is a different instrument that requires a very different set of skills, which an average photographer is not likely to have. At least not on the same level as his/her photographic skill.
By requiring a drum scan, they are effectively ensuring that the scan will be made by a professional with an appropriate skill and not by some half-baked hack. Makes perfect sense.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks