HOME RUN!
Well said Tris!
peace
David
>
> 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"
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through : http://webmail.coqui.net
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"
|