Digital photos not accepted in publications??? Why??

[Alan Garbers]

Hello,
I am a amature writer that has had over thrity articles published in
national magazines of misc. genres. I take a ton of 35mm photos to go
with my articles with my Canon T90 and AE-1P. I would like to start
going to digital but every digital image I have submited has been
rejected. The articles still run but they use the 35mm images and
leave out the digital images.
I did a search in my on-line copy of Writer's Market and I still don't
see an acceptance of digital images. They all ask for 35mm or slides.
Now I don't want to put out a grand getting started only to have
nobody use the pictures I take. I figure eventually publishers will
come around, but when?

My thinking is why spend a ton of money on a new camera now if nobody
accepts the pictures, when a year or two from now technology will have
advanced to the point where 12 (or higher) megapixal cameras cost what
5 megapixals cost now?

People tell me well, digital doesn't have the resolution of 35mm,
that's why they don't take them. Heck, in most of the articles I have
had published the pictures are 3x5 or 4x6. At that size I don't see
one lick of difference in resolution between 35mm or digital!

I would like to hear from other writers and find out what you do and
have done about this. I'm not talking about National Geographic or
anything like that. Most of my stuff has been in hunting mags,
children's mags, or the variety section of newspapers.

[Al Denelsbeck]

This is only speculation, based on some knowledge of the processes
involved.
I would suspect it's because the publications in question haven't
upgraded their staff, equipment, and capabilities to handle the CMYK
separation process, and produce a film copy of each color needed for the
offset printers they use.

Much printing production is still done the old fashioned way, using high
contrast photos of the printed page to burn a litho plate for use on their
presses. For photos, they either use a halftone-screened version for B&W
photos and print only black, or for color slides, they use a type of
enlarger with filters to produce a photo for each color (i.e., just yellow,
just magenta, etc.). Both of these involve, essentially, taking a picture of
the picture. With a digital file, they have to output the file to something
that can create the necessary film for each color, to produce the plates.

It's the same reason they never wanted negatives either, because the
inverted colors with an orange base were ridiculously hard to produce in
true color - it's a bit subjective, especially if you used color filters to
take the pic in the first place, and labor intensive. With a slide, what you
see is what you get, so no fiddling is needed for the color separation.

Another factor might still be the limited resolution of the files (you
never said what size you're sending). Bear in mind that the halftone-pattern
to allow offset printing reduces resolution and quality, both with a slide
*and* with a digital file. You can allow your home printer to 'match' the
dot-screen to a pixel-per-inch resolution, but that's not as easy to do when
doing color seps. Your pixel might fall between the dots of the screen, and
resolution is reduced by a significant amount. Add in the fact that
'digital' has no set standard of resolution, color mode, compression,
Mac/PC, and so on, so these either have to be specified for everyone that
submits, or they're simply avoided as a hassle. Editors can be a picky lot.

Photographers' Market 2002 listes a lot of publications/companies that
accept digital, but I suspect these are mostly higher end than the companies
that have rejected your digital submissions so far. I think it's happening,
but slowly, since it's expensive to switch and requires new training.
Myself, I split the difference. I shoot everything on slides and have a film
scanner. Cheap way to make everyone happy :-).

[Dan Birchall]

Background: I write a little (published a few times), I am a digital
photographer who leans toward nature subjects, and just for icing...
I worked for some years at a printing company, with Heidelberg 4-color
presses in the next room (they've since gotten a 6-color Mitsubishi
with a coater, *drool*).
If publishers aren't "coming around" they are only holding themselves
back, as far as I can tell. 5+ years ago, the printer I worked for
had a substantial electronic pre-press department. Yeah, they had a
darkroom, light tables, strippers and all that, but they also had a
drum scanner, a large herd of Macs, fileserver, RIP, and goodies like
that. A *lot* of printing firms have no problem making the film
positives for plates from digital sources these days.

(Actually, over _ten_ years ago, I worked in an electronic pre-press
department at another printer, for non-color printing; at that point
we'd print stuff out on big laser printers, send the sheets
downstairs, then they'd make film of them there "the old way" and go
to print.

So... if the publications in question can't do CYMK separations and
output to film, and are printing in house (rather than dealing with
a printing company, which could almost _certainly_ do it), they're
pretty behind-the-curve IMO. (Keep in mind that the major offset
printer manufacturers also have high-speed, high-quality _digital_
presses these days, where the film step is totally eliminated.)

The point Al makes about the halftone process reducing how much
resolution you really have, compared to what you thought you had,
is definitely a valid concern.

Another thing to consider is that most (if not all) digital cameras
are still a little quirky as regards light levels, shadow detail,
white balance, etc. - so just like a film photographer might need to
make some adjustments in the darkroom, so might a digital photographer
need to make some post-processing tweaks in Photoshop or GIMP or
whatever.

The publisher might be unimpressed by the unadjusted shot straight
from the camera, which could account for some rejections if that's
what you're sending. If they get the more impressive version post
processing, that's great, but some of the original image data has
probably been lost in the process, so there might not be that much
room for them to do _further_ tweaking without screwing up the
image. If they're scanning from film or a print or whatever, they
can get some seriously high resolution, and be able to make any
necessary corrections.

[Postman]

| I would suspect it's because the publications in question haven't
| upgraded their staff, equipment, and capabilities to
"upgraded"?
1) They just carry on producing high quality work and have not yet bought
into the speed over substance philosophy ...
2) If it ain't broke don't fix it. The "modern" philosophy (typical of
Micro$oft) is change everything every 2 years regardless.

| With a slide, what you
| see is what you get, so no fiddling is needed for the color separation.

Indeed - and the same problem is true for a digital file by and large.
If you send a slide there is no debate as to what the end product should
look like.
Digital files - well, truth is they look different on every computer.
Shouldn't maybe, but do.

| Myself, I split the difference. I shoot everything on slides and have a
film
| scanner. Cheap way to make everyone happy :-).
It's still probably the best compromise still for anyone other than a sports
/ journalist where the workflow speed of digital really is essential.
The fact is that digital will replace film irrespective of quality / cost -
if you hang off a couple of years you might pick up the equivalent of
today's $10K pro camera for a grand ...

[John S. Douglas]

>1) They just carry on producing high quality work and have not yet bought
>into the speed over substance philosophy ...
>2) If it ain't broke don't fix it. The "modern" philosophy (typical of
>Micro$oft) is change everything every 2 years regardless.
Ahh bleeding edge technology ! And AOL, Windows along with really crappy
drivers and .. and .. ! This is why companies spend billions on tech support
every year. ;>)