|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Question for the magazine pros
Do you always deliver at 300dpi or is 200+ acceptable? What about dot gain-do you save with embedded color profiles? Do you sharpen to the point of slight halos? Disclaimer: I've been published, but I'll be the first to tell you I'm still learning  Feel free to PM/email me if you'd prefer. thanks, -TMH Dec 02 05 08:43 pm Link Timothy M. Hughes wrote: Ok, first the disclaimer. I haven't been published in the States for some time, but I'm published all the time in Europe. Dec 02 05 08:47 pm Link Timothy M. Hughes wrote: Generaly, our freelancers turn-in unprocessed full-size jpegs. Dec 02 05 08:47 pm Link Deliver to the specs they require. I never know either, so I ask. Most have wanted final image size @ 300dpi, but one wanted 360dpi to be printed at 180dpi. Something like that. I think a few times I just scanned and delivered TIFFs at max unextrapolated size, letting them do whatever post prod they wanted as they had to change RBG to CMYK anyway. Over the time I've been shooting, most buyers wanted original (or dupe) chromes. These days it's mostly scans. I'm not a professional either. -Don Dec 02 05 08:48 pm Link Lately it's been uncompressed tiffs 8x12@300dpi, but I've had a couple ask for 11x14@300dpi. Usually minimal to no sharpening. They tend to vary by the whims of their layout/design people. I'm just glad most are taking digital files now instead of having to ship slide sheets all over the place. Eric Foltz Dec 02 05 09:17 pm Link I have been published (in mags) more than I want to think about. I always deliver at 300PPI and most of the time at 10 X. Editors will sometimes request 7 X and now they often want 17 X. NEVER sharpen did I say never.... Adobe 1998 is the standard, there is also another color profile, but nobody is using it now. I NEVER send RAW, did I say never? The IPTC info is also very important and now some clients want META data. Dec 02 05 09:25 pm Link I appreciate everyones responses. One thing that is freakin' the heck out of me is everyones response about sharpening. You send it camera-ready unsharpened? And the photo editors sharpen it to specs or what? I have been sharpening (not over sharpening) images before sending. Sharpened example at 100%:  Dec 02 05 09:34 pm Link They expect the images to be tack sharp just like when we were submitting chromes. They don't want photographers submitting images that they try to salvage by sharpening. I used to have an editor that would toss any image that he couldn't count the individual eyelashes using an 8x loupe. Eric Foltz Dec 02 05 09:42 pm Link My good friend owns a prepress house and does several magazines (most are direct to plate now - no more film). Anyway, the magic number is usuall 333dpi due to how this number actually prints but there are other factors like line screen, etc. Dec 02 05 10:07 pm Link For me its been like 9x12 at 300 dpi. Whatever color space they request, and TIF. I have had a couple done from jpgs, but they ran a lower line screen than the typical 150 magazine. Dec 03 05 12:04 am Link Ask what they want. They would rather tell you than have you guess what they want. Dec 03 05 12:13 am Link just give them what they require, or asked for. Specs very, so make sure you find out what they want. You have to shoot RAW (to allow maximum flexibility) to cover you ass. Dec 03 05 12:16 am Link Eric Foltz wrote: Many DSLR's produce somewhat soft images due to the AA filter. This is why we sharpen, not to "salvage" an OOF image. Dec 03 05 12:26 am Link Gary Davis wrote: True. And to clarify, I shoot RAW with no in-camera sharpening. USM is the final step I do in post before saving the file. Dec 03 05 12:44 am Link Gary Davis wrote: I'm fully familiar with digital imaging. The sharpening can be done in the transition from raw to tiff. If you are shooting jpg large it can be done in camera. Most publishers don't want you running an unsharp mask. Dec 03 05 12:51 am Link |
