Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]There's another reason. It's just a simple, easy way to eliminate the great unwashed hoardes. Sort of like employers who tell their HR departments to discard all resumes that aren't laser printed, or even actually typeset. The fact that it has nothing to do with the quality or suitability of the item in question is irrelevant. It just narrows down the stack of stuff the judge has to wade through. They rationalize it by saying it weeds out those who "aren't serious." --Peter > Nathan wrote: > The primary markets for stock agency photos are advertising, corporate > communications etc. Most of what we consider good photos are not > relevant for that market. I doubt that any of HCB's work would have > sold on iStock (Ansel Adams might if he shot in colour). What may seem > "empty of content or importance" to us may be just right for what some > PR guy somewhere is looking for. > > And contrary to what Marc says, they don't care whether the camera is > full-frame or not. They just care about the number of pixels. You can > create fake pixels in Photoshop or more specialized tools to bump up > the file size to the 50 MB usually required. > > Nathan > > Nathan Wajsman > Alicante, Spain > http://www.frozenlight.eu > http://www.greatpix.eu > http://www.nathanfoto.com > > Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 > PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog > > > > On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:20 AM, Steve Barbour wrote: > > >> > >> > On Oct 19, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Doug Herr wrote: >> > >> >>> >> Steve Barbour wrote: >>> >> >>> >>>> >>> On Oct 19, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Tina Manley wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> 48 MB files are the minimum for most. More and more are using >>>>> >>>> lists >>>>> >>>> of acceptable and unacceptable cameras. Leica M8s and M9s are on >>>>> >>>> everybody's acceptable list. Point and shoots are not. Any >>>>> >>>> cameras >>>>> >>>> below 10MP are not. They look at the photo's EXIF and if the >>>>> >>>> camera >>>>> >>>> is not acceptable, they don't even review the photo. If you are >>>>> >>>> very careful about how you interpolate, photos from a 10MP camera >>>>> >>>> like the M8 are acceptable, but you can't do much cropping or high >>>>> >>>> ISO work at all to be accepted. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> so this takes the place of..."whether it's a good photo?" & >>>> >>> "whether it has anything to say?" >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> >> Nope. In addition to "whether it's a good photo?" & "whether it >>> >> has anything to say?". There are bazillions of photos saying >>> >> something, given a choice between a poorly-executed photo and >>> >> another of equivalent content, but well-executed, poor technique >>> >> doesn't win. >>> >> > >> > >> > oh, and not to be forgotten, there are bazillions of high megabyte, >> > technically perfect photos, empty of content or importance... >> > >> > how do stock agencies deal with these ? >> > >> > Steve >> >>> >> >>> >> Doug Herr >>> >> Birdman of Sacramento >>> >> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>