Selling photos…?

Cav

Cav

Messages
21
Edit My Images
Yes
Apologies for the misleading (slightly) thread title. I’m in throes of agony over which camera I buy for my first DSLR. At the moment, I have my eye fixed at the 20D/D200 level with a bias towards the D200, however I’m anticipating being able to afford the 20D a lot sooner (still at £950 body only in New Zealand; as for the D200, what D200?).

I’m well aware that millions of fantastic photos have been taken on much lesser specified cameras, but what I’d like to know is, if at some point in the future I want to submit photos for publication, do I need a 10.2 mega pixel camera (D200) to start with? I’ve read that 8.2 is borderline without interpolation, for say, a glossy A4 print in a magazine. Do Canon owners of 350D/20D’s get published without interpolation?

LOL, I’m not claiming total confidence at getting published by the way, just trying to future-proof the gear against possible future intentions. I want to get this right because I won’t be buying a multi $‘000 camera again. Truth be told, if my wife gets her way, I won’t be buying this bugger.

So, in summary, for publication, a D200?
Or will a 20D/350D suffice?
D70s/D50?
Do any of you guys use interpolation software prior to submitting?

If you’re still awake, thanks for your time!
 
converting your raw files to tiff gives much bigger file sizes, which come close too most of the stock site's requirements, with my 350d, although not done it im hoping for very good A3 size images, i know i got them of my s7000 which was only 6mp (im sure )
 
No, no, no. Don't panic.
A 6Mpi camera will easily do for print work as long as you process it correctly beforehand. Interpolate to about 12 -16" (according to the target audience)along the long side of the image at 300dpi and you'll be fine. Save as an uncompressed TIFF, never a JPEG unless you're transmitting it.
Although image libraries specify file sizes of 50Meg-ish for submissions, most publishers will go a lot lower if the image is one they want.
For magazine work, the biggest file size is preferable, but for newspapers and sunday supplements you can get away with murder.
Almost all of the images I've had published were sent as JPEGs (12" along the long side and only 175dpi, JPEG'd to about 9-10) over satellite comms.

Any of the cameras you've mentioned will do the job for you. And don't tell the wife, what she doesn't know wont kill her.
 
Thanks very much, this really helps. I think I'll drop short of my original target and get a good lens instead. Thanks guys.
 
So what are you using now?
The D200 will definately do the job as will the equivalent Canon.
In my experience, whenever I've bought a lower-quality camera (and this is subjective to the percieved needs of the photographer), I've always regretted it.
I realise that most of us have to balance our passions with the realities of real life, but at some point you must decide to bite the bullet.

However...If the Mrs divorces you over this, you don't know me, right?
 
Arkady said:
So what are you using now?
The D200 will definately do the job as will the equivalent Canon.
In my experience, whenever I've bought a lower-quality camera (and this is subjective to the percieved needs of the photographer), I've always regretted it.
I realise that most of us have to balance our passions with the realities of real life, but at some point you must decide to bite the bullet.

However...If the Mrs divorces you over this, you don't know me, right?
Click to expand...

Ditto the experience bit here ... bought a D200 just before New Year and now have a spare D70s only purchased in November ... an extremely capable piece of kit anyway and probably more than enough for me if I was being honest !?! :nut: Hey ho - and my wife, Jill puts up with it all !:ponders:

Whatever you go for, I am sure you will be impressed and enjoy it - they are all great bits of kit now - I don't believe anyonwe is selling rubbish when it comes to dSLRs anyway ! Just that some Nikons are better (perceived ?) than others ... :stir: :laugh1:
 
This is a bit of a strange area as the camera you choose can have a large affect on whether an image of your will get published.

As Arkady has said, if a magazine likes your picture then you'll have no problems at all with anything of reasonable file size. However if you go via an image library or agency you may well come across some model predjudice. I know for a fact that my wifes 10d is more than capable of the quality for an a4 mag image and if it's spot on may even go to a3. Most libraries wouldn't even look at anything that's not shot a "pro" camera though. :(
 
NOt so long ago, the 11MP eos 1ds was being rejected by some publishers and agencies. Yet an article in Professional Photographer, put it against a Pentax 6x7 and published a double page spread from each. Guess wht, the 11MP digital image was sharper.

That'snot to say you need 11MP for a DPS, i've had one with 6.3MP and A4s in mags too. As Arkady says, interpolate your images UP and save to tif for stock photo libraries, and use a sharp lens.

For newspaper and magazine work, the D200 or 20D will be fine. Remember that many press photographers are still using the likes of Canon 1D/Nikon D1H, both at 4MP i think, and not so long ago, the DCS520 and ikon equivalent was in widespread use at 2/3MP.
 
There are still guys out there using D1 bodies - how scary is that? Soldier Magazine only re-equipped last summer with new cameras (Canons) - they were still using that hideous old Kodak thing based on an F5 body.
 
Sorry about the huge time lapse guys, been a tad busy of late. As an update, her indoors is putting up some lethal cross-arc repressive fire on the camera issue. I can't even look sideways let alone up. All your points are taken on board and I'm grateful, thank-you.

Arkady, how long have you been at SM? We used to have a guy who used to come out to Germany with us (early-mid nineties). He worked for SM but also did some TA work. For the life of me I can't recall his first name but his nik was "The General". Really nice bloke, pants at volleyball though!
 
Cav said:
Sorry about the huge time lapse guys, been a tad busy of late. As an update, her indoors is putting up some lethal cross-arc repressive fire on the camera issue. I can't even look sideways let alone up. All your points are taken on board and I'm grateful, thank-you.
Click to expand...

weve all been there, you need a diversionary tactic....make a trade, offer a new washing machine....:thumb:
 
Matty said:
offer a new washing machine....:thumb:
Click to expand...

Hehehe

Harry Enfield & Chums "Women - know your limits" sketch springs to mind :laugh1:
 
Obviously I do not condone this :whistle2:

WomenNO1.jpg
 
I don't work at SM, but at Def Media Ops in Uxbridge - we do chuck stuff at Graham Main and Mike Weston (Pic Ed and senior Phot) from time to time though and as they're in Aldershot (where I live) it'd be rude not to pop in from time to time and tell them how cr*p their covers are!
 
I have been using a canon d60 since they first came out and only recently purchased a 1d mk2. I have had pics accepted by libraries and published in every newspaper in the uk from the d60, (more than paid for itself). This question kinda links into the age old argument of fine jpg or raw, that isn't even an argument, the question is what is the photo going to be used for?
If your a press photographer or editorial then you go fine jpg as the loss of detail will not be noticed in the final reproduction and you will go out of business if you shoot raw and spend an age converting. If you have the time then sure, converting from raw will allow for bigger better quality reproduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top