Film versus digital for magazines

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
squidfish

squidfish

Feeder Fish
Nov 17, 2004
1,236
0
0
58
New Brighton UK
wildlifephotographic.blogspot.com
Hi

While wondering round Wisley gardens with my camera the other day, I bumped into another photographer who from the way he was talking appeared to be quite renowned in the area of flower and plant photography. Anyway stopped and chatted for a while and noticed he was using a film camera (Nikon F100). He pointed out that he used film as most magazines and publications did not readily accept pictures from digitial cameras. I found this a little surprising given the ease with which digitial images can be incorporated into desktop publishing packages. He definately had a bit of an attitude towards digitial as if it was a lower art form and I am wondering if I had happened on to a 'film snob'. One the reasons he cited was trueness of colour on film as opposed to digital. I always thought the colour of film shots was partly dependent on the type of film used. Also given the flexibility of the RAW format surely digital images can easily be tweaked in the colour department. I know the colours coming out from my 20D shots at Wisley were identical to what I was seeing.

So I was wondering if anyone who have had their pictures prouduced in magazines encountered a similar aversion to digital images by the publishers?

Any thoughts?


Rich
 
Another reason for the reluctance to accept digital images is the dificulty to verify the integrity of the photograph.

As for colors, it's all hog wash. Even on film, color can be enhanced/emphasised through filters and different type of films.

However, I will say that film photographers are usually more careful with their pictures as every shot counts (costs). Digital photographers are more trigger happy as it cost next to nothing (especially when you have a portable hard drive with you).

Cheers,
 
ahh, no, not a film snob. Still following guidelines for magazines.

I used to work in a place that did magazine production, and especially for covers, they required the finest amount of detail possible, so slides were always recommended. Color saturation is higher. I still find that color is a little more intense in some films than digital (i'm yet to see a camera come out with colors that rival velvia for example without the aid for manipulation)

But yes, generally they stick with film because it is far more flexible. I'm looking at submitting some photos of the ferret shots I took to a magazine, and they want slides for submission. Tis a pity, since I shoot mostly digital (except when I do landscapes), and I would rather not go through the hassle of getting slides done.

But as benny said - film photographers are very careful in selection and shooting.

I'd call for a project - involving a roll of film and only shooting one frame per day ;) but I just got that idea from Jim Brandenburg.
 
From what I've seen from velvia, the colors are really intense (more than what's natural) and due to that I don't like it.

BTW, as for cranking up the saturation, couldn't it be done with a custom curve?
 
I guess it's partly tradition; printers are happy to use transparencies because they have used them for decades.
But even with a home scanner I can get 7200 x 4800 pixel 16 bit scans from my 35mm slides - professional gear can do better: it is easy for the printer because they can compare the scan with the original and they know the characteristics of the film so that they can compensate for any deficiencies (which is why they prefer slides to negatives which can't be used in this way). It's also a guarantee against manipulation - you can't clone out faults on a slide (I'd have taken a lot more good ones if you could ;-) )

Alan
 
depends on your application of velvia. Landscapes it works well, but I'd never touch it for portraits.

I use a print equivalent when shooting film, either fuji reala or kodak ultra color
 
In any case, Fujifilm's Velvia 50 is suppose to be discontinued soon. So I think stocks will be scare as photographers will be hogging them. A new Velvia 100 is suppose to replace it.

Cheers,
 
There's been a Velvia 100 available now for a few years - fuji i doubt will discontinue the 50.
 
Well...let's hope I'm wrong. I read it from Popular Photography. The issue with the Canon Rebel XT on the cover.

Cheers,
 
Interesting stuff...maybe he wasn't a 'film snob' after all. Still not convinced he had much time for digital cameras though.

Surely though the future of magazine publishing will be moving away from film to digital? Is it just that the printers haven't caught up with technology?

I struggle to see the problem with a manipulated image, surely virtually every photo in a fashion / beauty magazine has been touched up / airbrushed to some extent.

Cheers

Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom