A question for all you knowledgable people and in particular John Mason, Top photographer bloke, I hiring a model and I want to get some pictures published in I guess Escort, Razzle, that type of magazine, what I want to know is will they take photos in a digital format or is the silver halide still fashionable?, do you think I have a chance of getting anything published?
Thanks for any help anyone can offer.
Jeff
PHOTOS
-
David Spenser
Re: PHOTOS
Ha. You'll be lucky, mate.
If you're going to shoot digital, you'll need a Nikon D1X at the very least. You'll need to set the RGB profile to Adobe 98, rather than Standard, because that's the only way that the repro house will be able to manipulate the images and colour correct them in Photoshop.
Magazine editors are notoriously idle people. They would much rather hold a sheet of transparencies up to the window or slap them on a lightbox than go through the rigmarole of loading a CD or peering at tiny printed thumbnails (which you'll have to supply with the disc), and as a result you might find your material rejected out of hand.
Most publishers aren't interested in digital, because the money saved at repro is outweighed by the man hours spent twatting about with the images. Also, even the images from the D1X will only blow up over an A4 bleed, you still can't get a good A3 centrespread out of them with artificing and break up.
You'll also need to alter the way you light sets *entirely*. Because of the differing sensitivities of digital versus the old silver, you'll find that a standard 'glamour' light set up will give your model red knees, elbows and hands. Anywhere where the blood flow is close to the skin, it shows through when the image is printed. It's bizarre but true. You'll need to pump up the back light to increase the contrast through the image.
Frankly, it's still not worth the effort. I don't know of any US publishers running digital, and none of the big guns of UK glamour have moved over to it yet as a result. John Mason's shooting digital because it gives him immediate content for his web site, plus he had a good deal at Galaxy who pretty much pioneered digital in UK glamour and spent a lot of time and energy trying to resolve it. And he loves new technology like that.
How do I know all this? Because I was heavily involved in the whole process when I worked on Ravers, J18 etc. and it was a royal pain in the arse.
Now that I'm at MensWorld, I'd rather not see digital at all, because I'm an idle bastard (see paragraph two) and none of the big guns use it.
You might think you're saving on film and processing, but if the set gets bounced, you'll still be out of pocket.
If you're going to shoot digital, you'll need a Nikon D1X at the very least. You'll need to set the RGB profile to Adobe 98, rather than Standard, because that's the only way that the repro house will be able to manipulate the images and colour correct them in Photoshop.
Magazine editors are notoriously idle people. They would much rather hold a sheet of transparencies up to the window or slap them on a lightbox than go through the rigmarole of loading a CD or peering at tiny printed thumbnails (which you'll have to supply with the disc), and as a result you might find your material rejected out of hand.
Most publishers aren't interested in digital, because the money saved at repro is outweighed by the man hours spent twatting about with the images. Also, even the images from the D1X will only blow up over an A4 bleed, you still can't get a good A3 centrespread out of them with artificing and break up.
You'll also need to alter the way you light sets *entirely*. Because of the differing sensitivities of digital versus the old silver, you'll find that a standard 'glamour' light set up will give your model red knees, elbows and hands. Anywhere where the blood flow is close to the skin, it shows through when the image is printed. It's bizarre but true. You'll need to pump up the back light to increase the contrast through the image.
Frankly, it's still not worth the effort. I don't know of any US publishers running digital, and none of the big guns of UK glamour have moved over to it yet as a result. John Mason's shooting digital because it gives him immediate content for his web site, plus he had a good deal at Galaxy who pretty much pioneered digital in UK glamour and spent a lot of time and energy trying to resolve it. And he loves new technology like that.
How do I know all this? Because I was heavily involved in the whole process when I worked on Ravers, J18 etc. and it was a royal pain in the arse.
Now that I'm at MensWorld, I'd rather not see digital at all, because I'm an idle bastard (see paragraph two) and none of the big guns use it.
You might think you're saving on film and processing, but if the set gets bounced, you'll still be out of pocket.
-
Dibble
Re: PHOTOS
Wow! At last, an interesting, informative and useful post. What a refershing change from the usual tireseome, bandwith wasting, banter from folks who just don't seem to have anything much to say.
I take a slightly different view in that although digital may not be quite there yet, it is now very close and the comming 6.1 megapixel camera's may do the trick. If not, it's only a matter of time before digital cameras equal the performance of film and indeed supasses it.
Dibble.
I take a slightly different view in that although digital may not be quite there yet, it is now very close and the comming 6.1 megapixel camera's may do the trick. If not, it's only a matter of time before digital cameras equal the performance of film and indeed supasses it.
Dibble.
-
woodgnome
Re: PHOTOS
Dibble wrote:
>
> Wow! At last, an interesting, informative and useful post.
> What a refershing change from the usual tireseome, bandwith
> wasting, banter from folks who just don't seem to have
> anything much to say.
>
> Dibble.
stop posting then!
>
> Wow! At last, an interesting, informative and useful post.
> What a refershing change from the usual tireseome, bandwith
> wasting, banter from folks who just don't seem to have
> anything much to say.
>
> Dibble.
stop posting then!
-
buttsie
Re: o/t PHOTOS
So nothing appeals to him we'll I say
"POST YOUR OWN DISCUSSIONS"
cheers
B...OZ
"POST YOUR OWN DISCUSSIONS"
cheers
B...OZ
-
Dibble
Re: o/t PHOTOS
Oh dear, another one sentence post from Buttsie the master of the meaningless one liner. You wouldn't you care to expand on that for a change would you? I'm quiet sure you must have something inteligent or interesting to say about something or other.
Woodgnome. Yes, I'd love to stop posting and get on with some work - producing/suppling yet more visual erotica for your goodselves - however, I seem to have developed a compulsion to stick my oar in of an evening. Hey, common now. You know you love it. Just think of the horrible alternative - A bland poster!
Dibble.
Woodgnome. Yes, I'd love to stop posting and get on with some work - producing/suppling yet more visual erotica for your goodselves - however, I seem to have developed a compulsion to stick my oar in of an evening. Hey, common now. You know you love it. Just think of the horrible alternative - A bland poster!
Dibble.
-
buttsie
Re: o/t PHOTOS
So you don't like meaningful/less one liners
"Tough Titties" if they were really that bad the powers that be would have deleted all 900 of them on the spot.
Waiting with baited breath for a new informative discussion from Dibble!!
cheers
B...OZ
"Tough Titties" if they were really that bad the powers that be would have deleted all 900 of them on the spot.
Waiting with baited breath for a new informative discussion from Dibble!!
cheers
B...OZ
-
woodgnome
Re: o/t PHOTOS
yes but posts/posters that only create a negative atmosphere, are ultimately no better than the bland ones you don't care for.
i.e. neither variation, in itself, makes for a sustainable community. too many carping posts undermine a forum's civic values and set the scene for a degeneration of matters into a free-for-all, troll fest; but an excess of the nothing-much-to-say variety will simply cause a forum to shrivel up and die, because there's not enough value being added by anyone to engage peoples interest sufficiently, to sustain it.
of course posts that encourage stimulating and constructive threads are to be encouraged. so, why don't you make more posts of substance yourself? the majority of your input seems to consist of bemoaning the passing of the good old days, even though you're still making material in the here and now - something that is definitely of interest to people who use this forum.
and it can't be very flattering for the girls you're lucky enough to work with (having watched the chanta, kelle-marie, sadie dvd the other day) to constantly read how rubbish they are by comparison with their predecessors!
i.e. neither variation, in itself, makes for a sustainable community. too many carping posts undermine a forum's civic values and set the scene for a degeneration of matters into a free-for-all, troll fest; but an excess of the nothing-much-to-say variety will simply cause a forum to shrivel up and die, because there's not enough value being added by anyone to engage peoples interest sufficiently, to sustain it.
of course posts that encourage stimulating and constructive threads are to be encouraged. so, why don't you make more posts of substance yourself? the majority of your input seems to consist of bemoaning the passing of the good old days, even though you're still making material in the here and now - something that is definitely of interest to people who use this forum.
and it can't be very flattering for the girls you're lucky enough to work with (having watched the chanta, kelle-marie, sadie dvd the other day) to constantly read how rubbish they are by comparison with their predecessors!
-
jj
Re: o/t PHOTOS
I heroically refrained from flaming Dibble on the grounds that this stuff is more suited to Practical Photographer than this forum.
Very few of us, I imagine, share his interest, but we have better manners than to slag him off for it. Some of us will even, while understanding little or none of the thread, appreciate the posters' willingness to share such esoteric information for the variety it brings to the forum......there's that word again, variety.
I trust he will now reciprocate the next time I post a slightly troll-ish discussion on, say, the virtues of dyed pubic hair, or whether I can get free porn on the NHS, topics of potentially far wider appeal here than the laziness of magazine editors. And I trust we will continue to tolerate Dibble's occasional hankering for the Good Old Days.
Very few of us, I imagine, share his interest, but we have better manners than to slag him off for it. Some of us will even, while understanding little or none of the thread, appreciate the posters' willingness to share such esoteric information for the variety it brings to the forum......there's that word again, variety.
I trust he will now reciprocate the next time I post a slightly troll-ish discussion on, say, the virtues of dyed pubic hair, or whether I can get free porn on the NHS, topics of potentially far wider appeal here than the laziness of magazine editors. And I trust we will continue to tolerate Dibble's occasional hankering for the Good Old Days.