topic Re: Magazine quality image in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Magazine quality image

Johnsonanna02 — Fri, 08 Dec 2017 23:50:49 GMT

I have a canon SL1. I’ve taken some AMAZING photos on it! I’ve been asked to take photos that will be posted in a magazine but want to make sure that the quality of the SL1 is good enough. If so, what suggestions are there for the best quality? It will be in an Agricultural magazine so my subjects will be cattle.

Re: Magazine quality image

cicopo — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 00:26:47 GMT

It's easily up to the job as long as you don't need to crop deeply & shoot in large fine jpg or better yet RAW or both. The editor of a magazine I contribute to prefers that I send him the RAW files but he has used lots of my jpg's too. I've had photos used in a major magazine many years ago shot with a 3.2 Megapixel Olympus C3030 camera. You're task is to get nice exposures in sharp focus. This puts some of the emphasis on whether you have a good lens (or lenses) but the body is more than good enough.

Re: Magazine quality image

ScottyP — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 00:30:28 GMT

It's getting the cattle to sign a model release that will be hard.

Re: Magazine quality image

Waddizzle — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 00:33:35 GMT

@Johnsonanna02 wrote:
I have a canon SL1. I’ve taken some AMAZING photos on it! I’ve been asked to take photos that will be posted in a magazine but want to make sure that the quality of the SL1 is good enough. If so, what suggestions are there for the best quality? It will be in an Agricultural magazine so my subjects will be cattle.

One secret to sharp photos is to grab as much light as you can [wide aperture], as fast as you can [fast shuttter speed], with as little effort as possible [low ISO, preferably ISO 100].

Practice. Use a high quality lens. Practice. Use the fastest shutter speed that is practical. Practice. Using a wide aperture lens allows more light to enter the camera, both during focusing, and when you take the photograph.

Shoot at ISO 100 as much as possible, but do not be too afraid to raise the ISO some. Practice. Find out what the ceiling is for the highest ISO that you consider “acceptable. With an SL-1 i would expect that setting to be around ISO 400 or ISO 800.

Re: Magazine quality image

Johnsonanna02 — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 00:47:26 GMT

Thank you! I will be sure to get a photo release hoofed.

Re: Magazine quality image

Johnsonanna02 — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 00:47:58 GMT

Thank you all so so much!!

Re: Magazine quality image

Waddizzle — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 00:54:54 GMT

@Johnsonanna02 wrote:
Thank you all so so much!!

Our pleasure.

BTW, if you do not use post processing software, like Canon’s Digital Photo Professional that came free with the camera, then i suggest that you begin using it. Shoot photos as RAW, not JPEG, and clean them up in post.

Re: Magazine quality image

kvbarkley — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 02:10:21 GMT

This goes without saying, but if you do shoot JPEG, make sure that the camera is in "Large Fine" mode to get the most pixels and least compression.

Re: Magazine quality image

ebiggs1 — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:52:18 GMT

"The editor of a magazine I contribute to prefers that I send him the RAW files but he has used lots of my jpg's..."

Wow, I never run across that. They have all been jpg in my experience.

Re: Magazine quality image

ebiggs1 — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:57:49 GMT

"I have a canon SL1."

It will be fine. You don't need to shoot Raw format but I would just because it is so simple anymore. You do need to post process and edit your shots anyway. If they are like to ones I have experience with, they will want a specific size. There may be other conditions they want, too. Truth is most magazine photos are not real 'high' quality.

Re: Magazine quality image

RobertTheFat — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:07:05 GMT

cicopo wrote:
It's easily up to the job as long as you don't need to crop deeply & shoot in large fine jpg or better yet RAW or both. The editor of a magazine I contribute to prefers that I send him the RAW files but he has used lots of my jpg's too. I've had photos used in a major magazine many years ago shot with a 3.2 Megapixel Olympus C3030 camera. You're task is to get nice exposures in sharp focus. This puts some of the emphasis on whether you have a good lens (or lenses) but the body is more than good enough.

Don't take this as gospel, because I'm not a lawyer. But I suspect that it's a lot easier to prove copyright infringement if you're the only one who has the RAW file.

Re: Magazine quality image

ebiggs1 — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:17:00 GMT

Most magazines are printed with Offset Lithography. It is the most cost-effective process. This is the technique used for printing most magazines. WHat it is composed of is up to six colored plates that deposit droplets of ink on the paper. This has a limit as to how much detail you can get out of a photo.
A more advanced way (more expensive) is Flexo. It is more versatile because its use of photo-etched plates which bring the ink right onto the page . Knowing which process your publisher uses will determine what they require.

Re: Magazine quality image

ebiggs1 — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:34:26 GMT

"...if you're the only one who has the RAW file."

In my somewhat extending experience with publishing photos, it is the author or photographer in this case that certifies they own the copyright. Not the magazine company. I never run across any publisher that asked for the Raw file.

When you work for a large publishing/printing company like I did, they own the copyright. You sign your rights away to them when they hire you. You own nothing.

Re: Magazine quality image

RobertTheFat — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:08:52 GMT

ebiggs1 wrote:
"...if you're the only one who has the RAW file."

In my somewhat extending experience with publishing photos, it is the author or photographer in this case that certifies they own the copyright. Not the magazine company. I never run across any publisher that asked for the Raw file.

When you work for a large publishing/printing company like I did, they own the copyright. You sign your rights away to them when they hire you. You own nothing.

Didn't you also moonlight as a wedding photographer? I would hope you didn't have to surrender the rights to those pictures.

I used to switch copyright notices, depending on whether I was shooting for work or for personal use. Of course it's a little different when you work for a public agency anyway, since whatever you do for them is effectively in the public domain.

Re: Magazine quality image

ebiggs1 — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:36:05 GMT

Robert, I wouldn't call it, "Didn't you also moonlight as a wedding photographer?", moonlighting ! At least it, seemed like a full time job besides working for Hallmark full time. If I was on company time anything I did belonged to them. I believe this to be commonly the norm for this type business.

In my private business, once the client bought the photos they also bought the copyright to them with certain restrictions. Their payment got them a printed copyright release that specified those restrictions. Basically they couldn't sell them but was pretty much free to do whatever else they wanted.

My web site is still up but hasn't been upgraded for a long, long time.

Re: Magazine quality image

RobertTheFat — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:33:19 GMT

ebiggs1 wrote:
Robert, I wouldn't call it, "Didn't you also moonlight as a wedding photographer?", moonlighting ! At least it, seemed like a full time job besides working for Hallmark full time. If I was on company time anything I did belonged to them. I believe this to be commonly the norm for this type business.

In my private business, once the client bought the photos they also bought the copyright to them with certain restrictions. Their payment got them a printed copyright release that specified those restrictions. Basically they couldn't sell them but was pretty much free to do whatever else they wanted.

My web site is still up but hasn't been upgraded for a long, long time.

I may not have been entirely clear. I meant that I hoped that Hallmark wouldn't have had any claim to the pictures you took in your wedding photography business. Companies sometimes make unreasonable demands on the intellectual property of their employees, particularly in regard to patents. The presumption seems to be that even if you came up with an idea on your own time, it must have been because of the intellectually stimulating environment you enjoy at work. That's an argument that would (or at least should) be harder to defend in photography, where what matters is the fact that you took the photograph, not when you thought it up.

Re: Magazine quality image

ebiggs1 — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:10:03 GMT

I am sure if I was shooting a red rose at work and than at home I shot a red rose and tried to sell it, I might have received some attention. A lot of the wedding business came from co-workers. My main focus was events as the other photographers didn't care too much for that. But I actually preferred it. A lot more work but that's OK with me.

I think I only did five or six weddings last year. I have one scheduled for 2018 so far. Peak years could hit 50 which is about what iot takes to make it as a photographer. Its a grind for sure.