Photos

Discussion in 'HTML' started by eddy long, Jun 25, 2005.

  1. eddy long

    eddy long Guest

    Using:
    Gateway PC
    MS Win 98
    --------------------------

    Hello all,
    I am thinking of submitting some digital images for publication.

    Many publishers say that they "accept images in digital format *for Mac*".

    I usually save my images as .jpg or .gif files.

    What difference does it make as far as viewing the images that I submit for
    a Mac versus a PC since I use a PC?

    Thanking all in advance.
    Eddy
    eddy long, Jun 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. eddy long wrote:
    > Many publishers say that they "accept images in digital format *for Mac*".
    > I usually save my images as .jpg or .gif files.
    > What difference does it make as far as viewing the images that I submit for
    > a Mac versus a PC since I use a PC?


    Submission for what? For publication in a magazine? For a Website?
    Makes a HUGE difference as to what you need to submit. Most magazine
    publishers will not except JPGs and will want TIFs, raw, or some other
    non degrading format.. JPG's degrade every time you same them. TIF
    (and several other formats) don't.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Jun 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. eddy long

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "eddy long" <eddylong@boloney!_NOSPAM_.net>
    -------------------------
    >
    > Hello all,
    > I am thinking of submitting some digital images for publication.
    >
    > Many publishers say that they "accept images in digital format *for Mac*".
    >
    > I usually save my images as .jpg or .gif files.
    >
    > What difference does it make as far as viewing the images that I submit for
    > a Mac versus a PC since I use a PC?
    >

    If you are preparing TIFFs, you might notice when saving them that there are
    options to do with "Macintosh" or "IBM PC". They have different byte orders.
    What I do for printing jobs is submit both because I am not always sure what
    platform the printer use. If I am pressed I choose PC because Macs usually
    can handle more (because they have to) but PCs can't (because they don't
    have to). In your case, you know they want for Mac.

    jpgs and gifs are these two platform independent and you need not worry...

    dorayme
    dorayme, Jun 26, 2005
    #3
  4. (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per Travis Newbury:
    >> Most magazine
    >>publishers will not except JPGs and will want TIFs, raw, or some other
    >>non degrading format.


    > Is that to say that most commercial photographers have their cameras set to save
    > TIFF or RAW?.... or do the save in JPEG and then change to .TIFF in PhotoShop
    > or something?


    I'd say RAW/TIF. No loss. Why bastardize their originals, and later
    convert the bastardized originals to a loss-free format just to
    preserve the original bastardization?

    --
    Blinky
    International Thank Your Developers Week - June 20-27, 2005
    Say thanks to your favorite Open Source team one way or another.
    http://blinkynet.net/comp/tydevs.html Yes, Eight Days A Week. :)
    Blinky the Shark, Jun 26, 2005
    #4
  5. eddy long

    Dennis Guest

    On 25 Jun 2005 Blinky the Shark wrote in alt.html

    > I'd say RAW/TIF. No loss. Why bastardize their originals, and later
    > convert the bastardized originals to a loss-free format just to
    > preserve the original bastardization?


    Wouldn't want to loose a good bastard. :)

    --
    Dennis
    Dennis, Jun 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Dennis wrote:
    > On 25 Jun 2005 Blinky the Shark wrote in alt.html


    >> I'd say RAW/TIF. No loss. Why bastardize their originals, and later
    >> convert the bastardized originals to a loss-free format just to
    >> preserve the original bastardization?


    > Wouldn't want to loose a good bastard. :)


    Oh, I dunno. They're a dime a dozen. :)

    --
    Blinky
    International Thank Your Developers Week - June 20-27, 2005
    Say thanks to your favorite Open Source team one way or another.
    http://blinkynet.net/comp/tydevs.html Yes, Eight Days A Week. :)
    Blinky the Shark, Jun 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Per Travis Newbury:
    > Most magazine
    >publishers will not except JPGs and will want TIFs, raw, or some other
    >non degrading format.


    Is that to say that most commercial photographers have their cameras set to save
    TIFF or RAW?.... or do the save in JPEG and then change to .TIFF in PhotoShop
    or something?
    --
    PeteCresswell
    (PeteCresswell), Jun 26, 2005
    #7
  8. eddy long

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:21:30 -0400, "eddy long"
    <eddylong@boloney!_NOSPAM_.net> wrote:

    >I am thinking of submitting some digital images for publication.


    Send a trivial (but full quality) sample to your publisher and see if
    they can read it and if they're happy with it.

    > Many publishers say that they "accept images in digital format *for Mac*".


    This is because they're fluffy little bunnies who use Macs. They know
    that PCs and Macs have compatibility issues, but they don't realise that
    image files have different compatibility issues from these.

    "Image files in Mac format" is basically meaningless.

    >What difference does it make as far as viewing the images that I submit for
    >a Mac versus a PC since I use a PC?


    Not much. Unless you do something particularly obscure, then they're
    compatible.

    Use JPEGs, and use them as big and raw as you can get them from the
    camera. We all have bandwidth these days and the post production people
    at the magazine would _much_ rather reduce something big than try to
    blend away pixels.

    JPEGs do _not_ have quality issues unless you put them in yourself.
    Excessive compression on storage, or repeatedly re-encoding them will
    cause trouble, but a simple one-off save from any competent vaguely
    modern piece of kit will work fine.

    Avoids TIFFs. TIFF is a nasty format, full of all sorts of variables and
    optional features. It's about the only graphic format around where you
    can still generate a compatibility problem.
    Andy Dingley, Jun 26, 2005
    #8
  9. (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > Per Travis Newbury:
    >
    >>Most magazine
    >>publishers will not except JPGs and will want TIFs, raw, or some other
    >>non degrading format.

    > Is that to say that most commercial photographers have their cameras set to save
    > TIFF or RAW?.... or do the save in JPEG and then change to .TIFF in PhotoShop
    > or something?


    Everyone that I know of uses camera raw, then imports to PS. All
    professional digital cameras have the ability to save your images in raw
    or jpg. Most have tiff too. (I personally use a Canon EOS 350D which
    does not support tiff)

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Jun 26, 2005
    #9
  10. (PeteCresswell) wrote:
    > I've never used a professional-grade camera, but the excessive time between
    > shots for .TIFF on my Nikon 950 made me think it would be impractical. But now
    > I see that SLRs can to burst mode of 4-5 frames/sec for quite a few seconds ....
    > So I'd guess there's some serious memory buffering going on there...


    The EOS 350D has 3/4 frames/second RAW+Large JPG (it saves 2 images at
    the same time) for up to 14 frames. The resetting after 14 frames is
    directly related to the media speed. I also had to get an 80gig external
    HD just to hold the images. Shooting 4 gig of images in one sitting is
    not unusual. When it costs you nothing to shoot, you shoot a lot.

    Saving both Raw and JPG is great as I can download and view the much
    smaller JPG (3-4meg compared to 12+meg for a RAW image) Images I want to
    keep I download the RAW.


    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Jun 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Per Blinky the Shark:
    >Why bastardize their originals, and later
    >convert the bastardized originals to a loss-free format just to
    >preserve the original bastardization?


    I've never used a professional-grade camera, but the excessive time between
    shots for .TIFF on my Nikon 950 made me think it would be impractical. But now
    I see that SLRs can to burst mode of 4-5 frames/sec for quite a few seconds ....
    So I'd guess there's some serious memory buffering going on there...
    --
    PeteCresswell
    (PeteCresswell), Jun 26, 2005
    #11
  12. eddy long

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Andy Dingley <>

    > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:21:30 -0400, "eddy long"
    > <eddylong@boloney!_NOSPAM_.net> wrote:
    >
    >> I am thinking of submitting some digital images for publication.


    > Avoids TIFFs. TIFF is a nasty format, full of all sorts of variables and
    > optional features. It's about the only graphic format around where you
    > can still generate a compatibility problem.


    Oh, I dunno, it's not a bad format, it is not nasty, many printers like it
    and it even admits compression of a non lossy kind. If you do send in TIFF
    format, see my last post on this...

    dorayme
    dorayme, Jun 27, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Um9zcw==?=

    Server Error in Photos Application

    =?Utf-8?B?Um9zcw==?=, Oct 28, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    338
    =?Utf-8?B?Um9zcw==?=
    Oct 29, 2004
  2. ©®
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    403
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Dec 12, 2003
  3. Luigi Donatello Asero

    Quality of the photos on the website

    Luigi Donatello Asero, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    415
    Alan D-W
    Jan 17, 2004
  4. Kooner

    captions under photos

    Kooner, Jun 1, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,238
    Mark Parnell
    Jun 30, 2004
  5. Gilles Guérin

    to send photos

    Gilles Guérin, Jan 24, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    418
Loading...

Share This Page