>I am presuming that the stock agency is referring to the image size
>when converted to TIFF from RAW? There is a difference in the actual
>RAW (which is a lossless compression algorithm) file size and when,
>for example, the file is opened in Photoshop. A RAW shot from my 6
>megapixel D60 is 8.86 megabytes; converted to TIFF and opened in
>Photoshop it becomes 18.0 megabytes. Just squeaks by. This is what
>the stock agency is referring to, I gather? It seems their
>requirements mandate a 6 megapixel or larger camera.
>
>So, while the E-1 is still a very nice camera, IMHO, it basically is
>two years too late to market.
>
>-Stephen.
Olympus has been "late to market" for some time, not just with their E-1,
though none of that argues against a breakthrough by Olympus down the road,
providing the money and genius remains available for further R&D.
I'm somewhat confused as to what the real and implied messages are re this
stock agency. Is there a real-world "more is necessarily better" or "this
is the pixel threshold below which no 'pro DSLR system' dare come in below"
mentality at work? Is the advertising tail still desperate to wag the
editorial/technical dog?
If I understand what I've read thus far then part of this agency's message
seems to be "don't even bother showing us a "good" image which does not
meet our nominal requirements with re to file size. If I did hear that
right, what are the implications, are any of these implications pertinent
to anyone not in need of cash for MB and does any of this speak to an even
rudimentary understanding of what goes into making useable ("quality") images?
Do all stock images now need to be capable of being blown up to twenty-some
or thirty-some inches along one dimension? I don't think so. Do "many"
images, expressed as a significant percentage of all images in all
stock-photo agency inventories, ever see that kind of production? As far as
I know (expressed again as some percentage) only few do. (Unless the agency
in question only sells its inventory to, say, Gannett Outdoors for display
on billboards. And does such a stock agency exist? I doubt it.)
It would make as much sense for a film production company to tell film
makers "We will only accept work based on scripts which run to a minimum of
5,000 words of dialogue," this based on an authoritative study by someone
somewhere sometime which dictated "Nobody enjoys films with fewer than
5,000 words of dialogue" and just going with that as your film-business
gospel. None of this is meant to say that such a film company could not
enjoy startling success in the market; it wants to demonstrate rather the
folly at base of so potentially self-hamstringing such an operation over
one's proverbial transom.
Someone mentioned yesterday or the day before, in relation to Johan's new
site, that some images do best with more modest presentation, and this is
correct, of course. I don't know, just for example, how Johan's image of
Anna on the quay at Visby would look were it presented at double or four
times the size. Perhaps it would not look as good or fail to lure the eye
to the page so quickly, and so not be as useful for whatever purpose the
pagemaker might have had in mind. Hard to say. The image does seem to work
on that page as it stands, without a lot of clutter around it, and while I
think it really does need to be "expanded" for larger presentation, I can
readily imagine it used for any number of very good reasons in any number
of very good ways in all sorts of very good publications both print and
electronic. But maybe that's just my crazy imagination at work. Or lack of
an "eye" not to mention professional judgment . . . though keep in mind
always I do not labor under some 17MB "theory of quality," either.
What I mostly get out of this requirement for so many MB of file size is
that someone who lacks sure understanding of what "good" and "useable"
imagery means has arbitrarily decided (or allowed someone to decide for
him) that this demand guarantees an image with maximum usability potential,
or at the very least that any file under this minimum requirement implies
something of less intrinsic useable-image potential, and/or that this
minimum file-size demand equates into more real-world application and so
brings with it more inherent shelf life and by extension (implied) sales
potential. It might even be that this agency would reject out of hand any
submission falling below this MB threshold no matter the subjective quality
of said image in other respects. A kind of "we've done the math so we're
just not buying anything with a smaller file size of so many MB" declaration.
Maybe I have that muddled. What I don't think I have muddled is that
messages of this kind usually (if not always) speak to a stone's ignorance
and all too often suggest not a lot of healthy intelligence at work as
well. Which is fine for this stock agency, I suppose, and for that matter
for the stock-image business as a whole--I doubt anyone involved cares a
whit either way for my unsolicited opinion re same.
I think if I worked there, though, that I'd escape permanently by noon. Can
you imagine how stifling the air must be inside? Would you love to rub
elbows up and down and throughout this company's labyrinth of
florescent-lit hallways with 17MB suits? For the rest of your sorry life?
Tris
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|