to crop or not to crop ?
May 1, 2010 4:04 PM Subscribe
Do newspapers/magazines specify 12x10 inch photo submissions ?
We have a project in college here thats about shooting a picture as though it was for the sunday times/new york times etc - it specifies that the pictures must be submitted as 12x10 inch photos.
I was wondering why this was, there doesnt seem to be a format that fits that size, is it perhaps, to get used to the heartbreak of seeing your work cropped ? Is it something to do with layout ? I would ask my teacher but fear being tagged as an incorrigible rebel.
Thats about my only guess so far - I wondered if there was anybody who had any inside knowledge of why this was the case - like bonaldi or amberglow may have a good idea about this.
thanks in advance.
We have a project in college here thats about shooting a picture as though it was for the sunday times/new york times etc - it specifies that the pictures must be submitted as 12x10 inch photos.
I was wondering why this was, there doesnt seem to be a format that fits that size, is it perhaps, to get used to the heartbreak of seeing your work cropped ? Is it something to do with layout ? I would ask my teacher but fear being tagged as an incorrigible rebel.
Thats about my only guess so far - I wondered if there was anybody who had any inside knowledge of why this was the case - like bonaldi or amberglow may have a good idea about this.
thanks in advance.
No.
Depending upon the news value of the photo, newspapers will run a low res cell phone photo if the image is important enough.
Magazines are a different animal and may justifiably ask for images of a specific minimal size and pixel dimension.
Also, when you make you living as a photographer, you get used to seeing you photos cropped, poorly reproduced, and other wise abused.
For all but a few who breath the rarefied air it goes withe the territory.
posted by imjustsaying at 4:24 PM on May 1, 2010
Depending upon the news value of the photo, newspapers will run a low res cell phone photo if the image is important enough.
Magazines are a different animal and may justifiably ask for images of a specific minimal size and pixel dimension.
Also, when you make you living as a photographer, you get used to seeing you photos cropped, poorly reproduced, and other wise abused.
For all but a few who breath the rarefied air it goes withe the territory.
posted by imjustsaying at 4:24 PM on May 1, 2010
Just as a data point, the magazine I work for (standard 8 1/2 x 11 dimensions) asks for photos at very least at 4 x 6 inches, either horizontally or vertically oriented, at 300 dpi (yes, ppi, technically, but whatever, but we always just say dpi), or 600 dpi if you have the capability. I wouldn't think you'd go wrong providing larger than that, 'cept it'd take longer to transfer 'em and/or for a large number of photos you might end up needing to submit 'em on a DVD, rather than a CD. [[shrugs]]
posted by limeonaire at 4:28 PM on May 1, 2010
posted by limeonaire at 4:28 PM on May 1, 2010
Yeah, sorry, can't help with this one -- I've no idea why they've set that requirement. If a paper wants a picture enough they'll design the layout around it -- look at the Facebook photos they print, which are barely 600px on the long side.
Also: prints? Bleh. Virtually every picture desk is as digital as possible now. Sending in an actual print is for the birds, and the picture libraries.
Of related interest: the Getty Images picture requirements, which are far more stringent than many photogs assume. If you're shooting digital it'd better be a Nikon d200/Canon 30D or better.
posted by bonaldi at 4:33 PM on May 1, 2010
Also: prints? Bleh. Virtually every picture desk is as digital as possible now. Sending in an actual print is for the birds, and the picture libraries.
Of related interest: the Getty Images picture requirements, which are far more stringent than many photogs assume. If you're shooting digital it'd better be a Nikon d200/Canon 30D or better.
posted by bonaldi at 4:33 PM on May 1, 2010
Response by poster: hmmmm - so no exact reason as yet, I guess all of the posters here are/have worked on newspapers magazines - so i'm starting to lean towards the 'cropping for the sake of it' theory.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:03 PM on May 1, 2010
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:03 PM on May 1, 2010
It almost sounds like you are working with film and ordering prints ("submitted as photos"). I trust that's not the case. But if you are shooting digital, how are you getting your "prints?" Most publications want a digital file (RAW preferred) as large as you can give them. They will do the rezzing, cropping and color-correction. File size these days is pretty immaterial (i.e. 5-10 meg RAW file). And why scan in a "photo" you printed out at say, Costco, instead of just working with the original file?
posted by psyche7 at 5:43 PM on May 1, 2010
posted by psyche7 at 5:43 PM on May 1, 2010
I'm a photo editor at a large metro daily.
We ask our photographers not to resize photos. Crop, curves, caption and transmit. This has been true since they were shooting on 4 megapixel D2h's, and is true now that some of them are shooting with 5D mk II's. The moment you resize, you destroy data.
Yes, shooting in JPEG isn't 'best' data - RAW is, and newsprint is crap for reproduction, but it's still true that if you start with your best data, you'll get a better result.
Also, stating the size of a picture in terms of inches doesn't tell you anything unless we know dpi. 12x10 inches at 10 dpi is unprintable. 1000 dpi would probably crash our system. Around the newsroom, we'll talk about pixel dimensions. I know 3000px by 2000px is pretty good for size. Cameras usually spit out 300dpi, but every once in a while, someone puts a funny setting in their crop tool, and something odd happens.
It is very true that often, it's the content that matters. Multiple iphone photos in the paper every week.
In the early 90's we had a horribly expensive digital camera that produced images at 640px by 480px. It was responsible for at least one A1.
posted by thenormshow at 5:47 PM on May 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
We ask our photographers not to resize photos. Crop, curves, caption and transmit. This has been true since they were shooting on 4 megapixel D2h's, and is true now that some of them are shooting with 5D mk II's. The moment you resize, you destroy data.
Yes, shooting in JPEG isn't 'best' data - RAW is, and newsprint is crap for reproduction, but it's still true that if you start with your best data, you'll get a better result.
Also, stating the size of a picture in terms of inches doesn't tell you anything unless we know dpi. 12x10 inches at 10 dpi is unprintable. 1000 dpi would probably crash our system. Around the newsroom, we'll talk about pixel dimensions. I know 3000px by 2000px is pretty good for size. Cameras usually spit out 300dpi, but every once in a while, someone puts a funny setting in their crop tool, and something odd happens.
It is very true that often, it's the content that matters. Multiple iphone photos in the paper every week.
In the early 90's we had a horribly expensive digital camera that produced images at 640px by 480px. It was responsible for at least one A1.
posted by thenormshow at 5:47 PM on May 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
This might be a silly answer, but could it be possibly because your professor wants to see a large version of your photo? Most newspaper photos definitely do not run at 10x12 (unless you are a photographer at the newspaper I work for haha) so maybe instead of giving the professor a 3x5 photo, he/she wants to be able to see it bigger to really judge your work?
Otherwise, all of the answers above are good ones. I know when I ask photographers for photos, I ask them to give me something as large as humanly possible so I can either blow it up or shrink it down with no loss of quality.
posted by kerning at 5:57 PM on May 1, 2010
Otherwise, all of the answers above are good ones. I know when I ask photographers for photos, I ask them to give me something as large as humanly possible so I can either blow it up or shrink it down with no loss of quality.
posted by kerning at 5:57 PM on May 1, 2010
We have a project in college here thats about shooting a picture as though it was for the sunday times/new york times etc - it specifies that the pictures must be submitted as 12x10 inch photos.
Wha'ts the full scope of the project? That may give point to the reason for that particular size. I'm guessing that it's a random size chosen by the professor.
I work at weekly newspaper and always ask for the largest size possible of the art, I never ask for a specific size unless it's for our specifically sized cover (don't want it overlapping the logo usually). The original size rarely matters, assuming it's of sufficient size, it's probably getting shrunk down and cropped. 12x10? Whatever, that puppy is going down.
I would ask my teacher but fear being tagged as an incorrigible rebel.
You're paying the money, you can ask any damn question you want in college.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:28 PM on May 1, 2010
Wha'ts the full scope of the project? That may give point to the reason for that particular size. I'm guessing that it's a random size chosen by the professor.
I work at weekly newspaper and always ask for the largest size possible of the art, I never ask for a specific size unless it's for our specifically sized cover (don't want it overlapping the logo usually). The original size rarely matters, assuming it's of sufficient size, it's probably getting shrunk down and cropped. 12x10? Whatever, that puppy is going down.
I would ask my teacher but fear being tagged as an incorrigible rebel.
You're paying the money, you can ask any damn question you want in college.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:28 PM on May 1, 2010
You should ask your teacher - students being afraid to ask questions is probably a teacher's worst nightmare. Engage!
The national magazines we work with do have submission guidelines but none of them have anything to do with measurements, and cropping is usually a bad idea. You shoot a photo in RAW, process it as a hi-res tiff (usually large enough to put on a billboard), make sure it adheres the company naming conventions, but that's pretty much it.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 8:13 PM on May 1, 2010
The national magazines we work with do have submission guidelines but none of them have anything to do with measurements, and cropping is usually a bad idea. You shoot a photo in RAW, process it as a hi-res tiff (usually large enough to put on a billboard), make sure it adheres the company naming conventions, but that's pretty much it.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 8:13 PM on May 1, 2010
I've worked for various news publications and I've got an aversion to cropping, but that's just my own philosophy. If I can't get it right in the camera, the picture's not worth saving. Full frame or go home.
When I've worked for the New York Times, I've just uploaded the files straight from the digital camera after some basic levels adjustments and captioning. I've used a 4 megapixel, 7 megapixel, and 13 megapixel with them, and never had a problem. A few publications and clients (and my agencies) have specified minimum dimensions for files delivered, but it's usually just something like 4000pixels on the long side at 200dpi. Those numbers might not be accurate, but they sound right. Each job is different.
Oh and I've never submitted RAW files except to National Geographic. Everywhere else is fine with tiffs or jpgs.
Seconding that you should just ask your teacher. That's how learning gets done.
posted by msbrauer at 1:18 AM on May 2, 2010
When I've worked for the New York Times, I've just uploaded the files straight from the digital camera after some basic levels adjustments and captioning. I've used a 4 megapixel, 7 megapixel, and 13 megapixel with them, and never had a problem. A few publications and clients (and my agencies) have specified minimum dimensions for files delivered, but it's usually just something like 4000pixels on the long side at 200dpi. Those numbers might not be accurate, but they sound right. Each job is different.
Oh and I've never submitted RAW files except to National Geographic. Everywhere else is fine with tiffs or jpgs.
Seconding that you should just ask your teacher. That's how learning gets done.
posted by msbrauer at 1:18 AM on May 2, 2010
We have a project in college here thats about shooting a picture as though it was for the sunday times/new york times etc - it specifies that the pictures must be submitted as 12x10 inch photos.
One part of a project at the place I teach is to make a poster. The size of the poster is exactly specified... to match the size of the department's display boards.
Perhaps they want the pictures that size to match a display they have planned?
posted by Mike1024 at 3:56 AM on May 2, 2010
One part of a project at the place I teach is to make a poster. The size of the poster is exactly specified... to match the size of the department's display boards.
Perhaps they want the pictures that size to match a display they have planned?
posted by Mike1024 at 3:56 AM on May 2, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
As far as cropping, every editor and photo editor and art director has their own idea of what they want--again you have a better chance of them using your photo if you let them choose how to use it rather than making the decision for them. Most photos are cropped since we need to fit the photos in with the articles.
posted by beckish at 4:23 PM on May 1, 2010