The rant for today..........

[venchka]

My rant for the day:

Texas Highway Magazine, October 2008 issue. Cover: sunset, cows, trees, TOTALLY BLOWN highlights near/around the setting sun. It must be digital. The publisher doesn’t care. The art director doesn’t care. Obviously the photographer doesn’t care. But they got the image FAST!

Thus concludes the rant for today.

[kenw]

what? you can't blow highlights with film?

I did for years......i could teach you how if you are interested.

[venchka]

Hey, I got those skills to this day. But. I don't submit those photographs to magazines. Fast forward...even I can rescue blown skies with LIGHTROOM & TUFUSE from a single exposure made 10+ years ago. The tools exist. They are useless if you don't use them.

I haven't picked up a copy of Arizona Highways in ages. I see they haven't lowered their standards.

Photo Submission Guidelines

In order to achieve the high-quality reproductions in our publications, we prefer large format (4x5) transparencies, especially for the large scenic landscapes for Arizona Highways is famous. We will use medium format and 35mm transparencies that display exceptional quality and content. Digital files must be prepared according to our Digital Photography Guidelines (see our Web site to download a copy) and burned to a disk. Some subjects such as wildlife and people are best suited to smaller formats and digital SLRs, but in order to achieve high-quality reproductions they must be shot on fine-grained color slide film (100 ISO or slower) or digitally captured at low ISOs in RAW.

PREPARING DIGITAL SUBMISSIONS
All images should be submitted to Arizona Highways on a CD or DVD with
these profiles embedded:
• RAW captures saved as TIFF files
• 8 bit
• Adobe RGB (1998)
• Document size:
Minimum of 300 pixels per inch
Horizontal: Minimum of 18 inches wide x 12 inches high
Vertical: Minimum of 12 inches wide x 18 inches high
• No sharpening
• Metadata:
Photographer’s name and copyright
Detailed caption information
• File name or number beginning with D_ and ending with .tif
• Submit small guide print for each digital file submitted

Here's a cover from 1948.........

[toverman]

I think your rant is justified, but should be directed at a poorly exposed photograph and photographer who didn't get it right (and a photo editor who should have said, "Next!" on the cover art). I have produced blurry, overexposed or underexposed, badly composed crap in both film and digital. I've learned more from the mistakes on film because I've still got most of the negs and prints in boxes somewhere.

EDIT: And Texas Highways uses too much amateur content, so you can tell a magazine by its cover in this case.

[brad]

Originally Posted by toverman

EDIT: And Texas Highways uses too much amateur content, so you can tell a magazine by its cover in this case.

They do it because they get it free... I think in this case, it shouldn't be a rant against digital but a rant against magazines using images that are using images from amateurs because they are cheap/free.

Another example of the "good enough" mentality that pervades our society these days.

[johnastovall]

Texas Highway's cover are not free. They pay 400 dollars for cover shots.

I suggest every one take a look at their submission rules and rates.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by venchka

My rant for the day:

Texas Highway Magazine, October 2008 issue. Cover: sunset, cows, trees, TOTALLY BLOWN highlights near/around the setting sun. It must be digital. The publisher doesn’t care. The art director doesn’t care. Obviously the photographer doesn’t care. But they got the image FAST!

Thus concludes the rant for today.

This maybe a printer issue rather than a photographer issue?

[toverman]

I'd suggest taking a panoramic shot so you can get the extra $150 for a cover.

[brad]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Texas Highway's cover are not free. They pay 400 dollars for cover shots.

I suggest every one take a look at their submission rules and rates.

I suggest you look at the comment I was responding to.. I was talking about the content, not particularly covers. They do not pay nearly as much as they should... and the image quality interior to the magazine suffers for it. Yes, I stand corrected.. its not "free" .. but might as well be.