Shooting For Publication?

[Ron Kruger]

Below is a copy of an email I sent to the director of the Southeastern Outdoor Press Association concerning digital photography. I'd like to start a thread about the same things here, for anyone interested in getting their images published, and for input from members of this site who understand the technology.
Dear Lisa,
Please allow me to make another suggestion for a regular column in the newsletter:
I've been taking and selling photographs for over 30 years, but I only recently went digital with 14.6 megapixels, and I'm finding out that the technology is much more complicated than during the days of slides. The cameras are much better, and the processing softwares are much more sophisticated, but what seems so mysterious and complicated is the communications between various hardware and software packages, the calibrations of monitors, etc.
Since in this business, it's a fact good pictures can carry a poor story, but sales of even the best writing is hampered by poor illustrations, I would be very interested in a regular column about digital technology:
How important are megapixels, sensor sizes, lens quality, etc? Since today's cameras are actually hand-held computers with their own processing software, are some brands more compatible with the most common design software package publishers use? I understand that JPEG is rather universal, but is it a good idea to shoot for covers in RAW and convert to 16-bit TIFFs, or is that overkill? Is it advisable for all outdoor photographers to have their monitors calibrated? Are some computer software processing program (ie: PhotoShop, Light Room, Image Source, etc.) better than others. I've heard a couple of photo editors say it's best not to do much to an original image, but what software adjustments are taboo? Are there good books out there that speak to an outdoor photographers technical needs?
All I have is questions, and these are just some that come to mind. I'm sure, however, since we have editors, publishers, photo editors and some of the best outdoor photographers in the nation as members, these questions and more can be addressed in a regular column.
Respectfully,
Ron Kruger

[another view]

Whole different world, isn't it?! Unless you keep on top of it all, it seems like as soon as you feel comfortable with something it's outdated too...

First off, I'm an amateur. I have sold some shots and done a little work for hire, but I'm not interested in doing that anymore. I'm more interested in the shooting aspect than the technology aspect. Lots of people will have great advice which sometimes will seem conflicting with other things you've read, but it doesn't mean someone's wrong. Lots of approaches and IMO the final shot is what matters. YMMV. Having said all that, here's my take:

How important are megapixels, sensor sizes, lens quality, etc? Nowhere near as important as the photographer's skill in making a good shot. Quality of light, correct exposure, eliminating camera shake, etc are so far above the gear. A 'mediocre' lens can make a lot better shot than an excellent lens shot carelessly, for example. A soft shot can't be made sharp with post processing. It takes a good, solid shot to begin with to make a great final image.

I understand that JPEG is rather universal, but is it a good idea to shoot for covers in RAW and convert to 16-bit TIFFs, or is that overkill? I shoot everything in RAW, not that it's the right answer for everyone. Shoot in RAW, handle post processing then save as a low-compression jpeg. No reason to save as a TIFF, especially if you save both the original RAW capture and the final jpeg.

Is it advisable for all outdoor photographers to have their monitors calibrated? It's advisable for all photographers to have calibrated monitors. Without it, when you do post-processing you're basically navigating with a compass but no map. Or something like that.

As far as the other stuff, look at the image and decide what it needs before touching the mouse. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, etc. I'm not in the least a post-processing expert but that's the best advice I can give you...

[drg]

Ron,

The technology is different. The individual photographer, if they choose, can do more on average than in the days of film if no other reason than speed. Film work always had a lot more done to it to prepare for publication than most photographers ever knew.

Most of the questions you pose we discuss regularly in various forums here at PR including now in the forum known as Photography Software and Post Processing.

Each publication or outlet today has their own submission specs which can range from low quality JPEG files, to very specific TIFF formats ranging from dimensions to bit density (8 or 16), or even specifying file size to be assured of having enough color info to adapt to their printing or display technology. There are organizations such as AP and independents like updig.org that are trying to establish ongoing standards for submission.

Unless you are shooting time critical journalism stories always at least shoot RAW and JPEG mode in the camera and then you can do whatever you want easily later.

There are certainly standard software products in the field ranging from Camera Bits (not as much now) to the industry wide ADOBE products. For RAW conversion several options exist from the camera manufacturer to high end specialized products like those from Phase and now DxO. If you are an Apple user the prime candidates are Aperture, ADOBE Photoshop and Lightroom.

Outdoor Photography (the publication) regularly runs technical articles but they are much the same as for any commercial photographic venture.

Digital Photography is a bit different in how technically you make a photograph because you have tools that weren't available with film. Two prime examples are the Histogram and White Balance. Of course being able to tweak the ISO for every shot is another item.

You may even want to consider attending something like a Nikon school for Digital Photography or a Canon Seminar or taking a class or two at a local College/University to get a better overall idea.

You've got to calibrate if you are going to any type of pre-press work.

The Nature and Wildlife forum will give you direct access to several people who do this regularly.

There is a definite effort to get more people to share what they are learning in this still evolving area and I know I if not many others will be interested in your progress and what you find as you continue. I've seen photography go through a vast series of changes and I'm seeing more, perhaps even greater, still coming!

One step at a time and take notes as you enter the digital realm!!

Best Wishes and let me know if I can try and answer questions!

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks. You both make a lot of sense, and have convinced me that, since I do the vast majority of my business via email and have to at least crop and set the dpi to create a emailable file size, I must get my screen calibrated.
I have also decided, despite the added storage space required, to shoot everything in RAW/JPEG, sort of to have all my options covered. Besides, occasionally I got out with the idea of shooting something of cover quality, but I never know for sure when such a scene will pop up unexpectedly.
Worth repeating, I believe:
"How important are megapixels, sensor sizes, lens quality, etc? Nowhere near as important as the photographer's skill in making a good shot. Quality of light, correct exposure, eliminating camera shake, etc are so far above the gear. A 'mediocre' lens can make a lot better shot than an excellent lens shot carelessly, for example. A soft shot can't be made sharp with post processing. It takes a good, solid shot to begin with to make a great final image."
From what I've been able to get (very little) out of photo editors, the bottom line of any shot is focus. Most everything else can be corrected. I would add that composition can't be changed much either, beyond cropping. I came into digital with the same attitude of trying to focus my efforts toward getting as good a shot as possible when the shutter is pressed and to rely as little as possible on PP corrections, and the more I learn about this medium the more I'm convinced that is the best approach. I've particularly had bad experiences with "sharpening" shots, which I found out the hard way can really ruin a shot somewhere between the great results I see on my software and the terrible results of the publisher's software's interpretation. I believe the less I do in PP the better.
I'll tell you what, the more I learn about the technology of digital, the more I realize how little I know, and the more I realize that this site has been a blessing to me.

[AgingEyes]

Not sure if it's relevant to this thread but the following article could be of interest to many of us since it touches on making adjustments to photographs shot:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/articles/345

[Ron Kruger]

DRG, you can say that again:
"The technology is different. The individual photographer, if they choose, can do more on average than in the days of film if no other reason than speed. Film work always had a lot more done to it to prepare for publication than most photographers ever knew."
During the late 1980, I served as the editor of a 4-color slick magazine that used heavier paper than National Geo and won a national award for design. Since I also functioned as the photo editor, from selection through press run proofing, I was aware of all the steps, color correcting of chromolons and so forth that went into it. (The toughest part was making sure you got out of the presses what you put into all the previous steps.)
That's also when I came to the conclusion that for publication, it was best to chose images not only with great focus, but also a little extra contrast and color saturation, because each step robbed images just slightly of these properties.
That's also why I bumped the saturation and contrast one notch in my camera's internal settings, but I'm wondering now if that isn't an outdated trick?
I presume the steps from image to paper have been decreased. Does anyone know if some color and contrast is still lost during the process?

[Ron Kruger]

Interesting link, Eyes. Where does one draw the line between what is documentation, what is an illustration and what is Hollywood?
Most of the pix I sell are illustrations to accompany articles, and a whitetail deer is a whitetail deer. For example, I may take a picture of a deer one year, and a year or two later decide it would make the perfect illustration for a story I'm doing about another county, or even another state (as long as the flora agrees). To further explain that, what I have in mind specifically is a picture of a buck that I photographed working a scrape one time in Missouri's Ozarks. This is a very difficult shot to get, and it has legs, so to speak, which is why I quit selling all right to anything years ago.
Anyway, a couple of years later, I did a story about hunting in western Kentucky (also geographically part of the Ozark Range) during the rut. This Missouri shot made the perfect "illustration" for that piece, and the fact it was shot at least a hundred miles away, didn't matter to me, nor the editor. This type of thing is done all the time. An editor realizes that to demand that every illustration be taken at the exact location and at the exact time of the story line is impossible. If they did, about all they would end up with is boring scenic shots. Bucks of that size, and much larger, are found on that area. They look exactly the same and so do the hardwoods--and they all make scrapes during the rut. The story was not about that deer, but deer in general.
For most magazines, one has to submit stories and pictures as a package, but the most respected magazines in my field, such a Field & Stream, often go to the extra expense of buying photographs from guys who specialize in outdoor photography (but don’t write) and match them with an article by someone else, so they can have the most dramatic illustrations possible. Truth is, most of those gigantic bucks one sees on the covers of magazines and on most calendars, posing in full sunlight, are pen-raised deer. Real bucks rarely, if ever, venture out in the noon day sun and stand there to have their picture taken. The vast majority of fishing shots one see on covers are also staged. Some of the most amazing shots you see on the covers of magazines are absolutely impossible to get in real time.
It's not like covering a hard-news story, and I don't think there is an editor in my field that would be as strict about it as the editor on this link. I've been an editor myself, and I've dealt with editors all my life. A lot of them can sure be stuck on themselves.
I do agree, however, that if an image is merged or cloned or otherwise altered in software to create a more dramatic shot, it should be noted. I’ve also done this a couple of times with film, and the editors didn’t seem to mind in the least. In fact, they were happy to get such a image.

[AgingEyes]

Truth is, most of those gigantic bucks one sees on the covers of magazines and on most calendars, posing in full sunlight, are pen-raised deer. Real bucks rarely, if ever, venture out in the noon day sun and stand there to have their picture taken. The vast majority of fishing shots one see on covers are also staged. Some of the most amazing shots you see on the covers of magazines are absolutely impossible to get in real time...

Not surprised, just like many of those just-plain-beautiful photographs of small birds with a clean background are shot in one's backyard, a somewhat controlled environment. Some even with artificial background. If not, Photoshop to the rescue

Oh, one of the photos of Queen Elizabeth II of UK taken by Annie Leibovitz is also a composite.

[Ron Kruger]

I think most readers realize this too, and accept it for the general esthetic it adds. Editors also realize that if they don't have an impressive shot to draw a reader in, they won't sell the magazine and people won't be enticed to read the article. None of it is meant to mislead or deceive, but to illustrate in a way that is dramatic.
Because one can do so much more with digital, however, editors will have to be much more cautious about deceptive practices, but I’m sure they can tell by the file size. Layering, especially, drastically increases the MB.

[opus]

Steve, I disagree with not saving an intermediate TIFF. I am by no means an expert, but I did work in a high-end digital print shop for awhile, and learned some good habits there. I can't imagine that technology has made my habits completely irrelevant.

First of all, the RAW original is not to be touched. After correcting exposure, etc, the first time I touch the file, I save as a TIFF, so that I retain as much data as possible while working on the file with no danger of accidentally overwriting the original. A TIFF saves layers, history, etc. so that at any time I can go back and tweak before deeming the file "done." You could work in RAW format, I suppose, but at some point I just find a TIFF easier to work with.

When I'm done with the TIFF, then I save out a copy as a jpeg. The original RAW gets backed up, and the TIFF file, if it has had any significant amount of post processing done to it, gets backed up too. The TIFF is the file I go back to for any new copies and re-saves. The final jpeg is the one I consider the most disposable, unless it is resized for the web or something convenient like that.

I know jpegs are visually just fine, but I still hate lossy compression when it comes to high-end work. You never know when you'll have to go back and save out the highest-quality file possible. Why lose your hard work when the shot is important enough to have commercial value? Disk space is relatively cheap, compared to lost work or lost profits.

[another view]

If it's "intermediate" in the sense that you may want to make changes to what was the final image, then it may make sense. But with Photoshop you may want to save as a .PSD so you can keep the layers (although there may be some archival issues due to different versions of PS), and I use Nikon Capture NX2 which automatically saves the file along these lines (all changes can be turned off to get a straight-from-the-camera file). With a TIFF the only thing you'd gain over jpeg is not losing that higher bit depth (which is a big deal although probably more like 12 bit). I really don't think the compression is much of a problem if the files are properly handled (again IMO, IME) but you may have seen differently.

From what I've been able to get (very little) out of photo editors, the bottom line of any shot is focus. Most everything else can be corrected. Editors aren't photographers. One thing they're probably talking about with focus is depth of field although they don't always get the difference between the two. Just to play devil's advocate, sharpness can be a function of (lack of) camera shake or too slow a shutter speed that doesn't stop action (trying to think like an editor, dangerous). But yes, a lot of other issues can be corrected in PP.

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks for the imput, Opus. The PSE 7.0 program I'm testing has the ability to save an original JPEG file as a TIFF file. I can't figure out how many bits, but I tried it with a 3.6 MB JPEG file and it created a 16 MB file. I had one of the design artist/photo editor tell me some time ago that he converts all JPEGs to TIFF, so maybe PSE 7 has the same capabilities that before only came in full version of PS.
Are you familiar with what's going on here, and how good the TIFF file is in comparison to one created from a RAW?

[Ron Kruger]

View said: "Editors aren't photographers. One thing they're probably talking about with focus is depth of field although they don't always get the difference between the two."
In my field, most of them are photographers of some level, and they appreciate a bokah effect as well as the next photographer. Where I don't think they make a lot of distinction is between a little bokah and a lot of bokah. It a very subjective business, and trying to please different editors can keep you hopping and sometimes pulling your hair out.
Where I think you are right is on the highest levels, where corporate ding-dongs hire english professors, but then they have a separate person who functions as a "photo editor" under the editor, and he usually know a lot about photography.

[opus]

Ron, I don't know numbers or anything like that, but IMO it makes sense to convert a JPEG to a TIFF if only so that you don't continue to lose data each time you save the jpeg in the future. Basically saving a jpeg to a tiff is "capturing" as much data from the jpeg as is possible, and then not losing any more. The file gets bigger because you're sort of "unpacking" the compression code and laying it out flat, if I can use a bit of a visual metaphor. You're never gaining any new data; that's impossible. But for every save of a jpeg file, you recompress and put it through the whole lossy compression scheme, which is destructive to the file.

A RAW file has the most information embedded inside. A TIFF file compresses size without losing data, although I *believe* you can no longer twiddle with the data that gives a RAW file its advantage. I've explained the jpeg issue with its lossy compression scheme, but I honestly don't have any idea whether there's a difference in quality between a jpeg saved from a RAW file or one saved from a TIFF. I would guess there's no quality difference. (Back when I worked in the shop, I don't believe RAW had been invented yet. TIFF was the "standard" high-end file format. So I've never been involved in any of the quality tests.)

Another View has a good point about saving a file as a PSD instead of a TIFF, so basically, yeah, I'll choose to save as PSD as my native file format as long as my intention is to work on it in photoshop. You can't effectively use a PSD in any other major graphic or layout program that I know of; meaning if you send a PSD to a magazine for publication, they can't use it in their page layout software until they save it out as something else: tiff or jpeg, usually. Which they'd really rather not do. If you're going to hold a finished file on backup disk to be accessed quickly on demand, I think TIFF is the safest and most time-effective format for both quality, size, and potential use. BUT, having been out of the field for nearly eight years, I suspect TIFFs are growing irrelevant as time goes on. Does that make sense? (Which is why it's a perfect question to ask in a magazine column, and to continue to address every few years.)

I have never used PSE because I've always gotten frustrated with its lack of features. I have had PS on my computer continuously since PS version 4.0 (circa 1995), but haven't upgraded since CS. It's time to do a major upgrade and get with the modern world, lol.

[Ron Kruger]

That makes perfect sense, Opus. But while I'm pretty sure most magazines and other printers use PS, if I saved to PSD, I would be taking a chance that one of them I sent my file to couldn't read it. I once worked as a copy editor (worst job of my life) for a daily newspaper, and they used some strange program I've never heard of before or since. It may have been a sophisticated program that could convert anything, but maybe not.
And to compare: the 16-bit TIFF I make from a RAW image are at least 80 MB (I even had one go as high as 156 MB), while that JPEG converted to TIFF was only 16 MB. To me that's a whole lot less information.
I've figured out that "thumbs" attached to JPEGs contain that additional information for converting JPEGs to TIFFs. Right?

[Ron Kruger]

Here’s another way to look at the “documentation” argument that editor makes on Eye’s link, which makes me think he (that editor) either doesn’t know as much as he suggests about photography or hasn’t thought it through.
On another thread, I’ve posted a couple of moon shots under the heading of “Utility Moon.” What I plan to do this spring or summer is shoot low-light and flash shots of people fishing, or night fishing scenes that contain a moon, then overlay this bigger, brighter clearer moon for “special” effects.
This is the same kind of thing Hollywood does on their silly romance movies, or most anytime they have a scene with a moon, except I think they overdo it with a gigantic moon that looks like it's about to crash into the earth.
The problem is, with a lens small enough (short focal length) to photograph people and regular scenes, the moon comes out only slightly bigger than a star. It's bright, but it is so small, it doesn't look right, and during low light conditions, it's impossible to have both people and the moon in focus. If one is “documenting” a scene, that means they are recording something as, or as close to possible, to what the human eye sees. A standard lense, with a moon in the background, gives you something that is altered from normal perspective.
By shooting the moon with a 200mm and then layering that over a scene shot with a 50mm, I get a moon slightly larger than what we see with our eyes and a whole lot clearer. Sure, it is PS magic, but it more closely “documents” what I see when I’m fishing at night.
And it makes a dramatic scene I'm confident I can sell somewhere for a cover.

[opus]

That makes perfect sense, Opus. But while I'm pretty sure most magazines and other printers use PS, if I saved to PSD, I would be taking a chance that one of them I sent my file to couldn't read it.

That's exactly what I was saying. I will save as PSD for my own personal use, so that I can go back into the file and twiddle, but if I deem the file "finished" then I will save a copy as a TIFF so that it can be grabbed more easily in the future. For me, with my naming scheme, I can tell exactly what process I went through from original to finished, so if I go back three years from now, I can identify my finished shot immediately, even if I have intermediate versions saved. I NEVER consider a PSD to be "finished," which is why I will save a TIFF when I'm done. If I see a TIFF, then I know I've done what I wanted and finished the job.

When I worked at the print shop, it was EXTREMELY important to be able to identify the most current version of a file on backup, so naming was critical. We were constantly going back and "picking up" images from backup for reuse in new brochures, advertising campaigns, etc. God forbid we get the wrong image and print it!