Film or Digital for magazines/ annual reports

[engineermunn]

Dear all,

Is it true that most magazine/ book printing companies prefer photos taken from film cameras rather than from DSLR?

I heard from a friend that digital photography cannot be used to produce a school magazine and a company annual report. BUt traditional film photgraphy MUST be used.

Can someone please verify? :dunno:

Thanks.

 

[chaotic]

erm. the film is usually scanned digitally so the end product is still a digital file.
therefore, i think both mediums are suitable, in fact I think many mags have gone digital for the convenience.

 

[Azure]

I heard from a friend that digital photography cannot be used to produce a school magazine and a company annual report. BUt traditional film photgraphy MUST be used.

Nonsense. All my clients I work with have been using digital images since they started with me. Its up to the company/school to dictate. Though some printing presses insist on scanned negs for whatever reason of theirs.

 

[Larry]

Nonsense. All my clients I work with have been using digital images since they started with me. Its up to the company/school to dictate. Though some printing presses insist on scanned negs for whatever reason of theirs.

i agree with Azure. where on earth did your friend get that piece of info from? i'm in the publishing industry and i've never heard that. if you wanna talk about workflow, digital is easier and faster (and depending on how you do it, cheaper) than film, cos you do away with the need and time for expensive drum scans for large pixs.

 

[AReality]

wat engineermunn said is not totally untrue...

If traditional film must be used, the reason most probably is not because of the process of creating the magazine, but more on security.

By giving the negative, the company can be somehow assured that the photographer did not keep any photographs for his pleasure... (more in the case of nude photography ). It's another layer of security.

Films can be destroyed physically. Not so in the case of digital photos.(Recycle bins are pretty useful... )

 

[Larry]

wat engineermunn said is not totally untrue...

If traditional film must be used, the reason most probably is not because of the process of creating the magazine, but more on security.

By giving the negative, the company can be somehow assured that the photographer did not keep any photographs for his pleasure... (more in the case of nude photography ). It's another layer of security.

Films can be destroyed physically. Not so in the case of digital photos.(Recycle bins are pretty useful... )

erm. you can duplicate slides and negs.

 

[AReality]

erm. you can duplicate slides and negs.

Not as fast as digitals with an X-drive...

 

[Larry]

Not as fast as digitals with an X-drive...

ah ok i see what you mean, that's true certainly.

but i'm addressing more the statement that "digital photography cannot be used" and "traditional film photgraphy MUST be used". That's simply not true anymore in the publishing circles.

in fact, for all of my company's publications that we're handling for our clients, i use digital images extensively, cos it's simply faster and easier. same goes for all the commercial magazines that i know.

 

[AReality]

Basically, it all depends on the big boss lar...

If he's the paranoid type, then film will be his choice...

Heh... let's hope this doesn't turn to a Film or Digital better thread..

 

[engineermunn]

THanks guys...

No this is not meant to be a digital vs film battle... just that I was very skeptical about my friend's comments with regards to the absolute necessity to use film and film alone in the publishing circle.

My argument was also that publishing houses would stand to lose so much if they didn't go into digital! I mean, even National Geographic have gone digital AND wireless! Just doesn't make economic sense huh?

Anyway, your comments all helped me in rebutting him!! hahah!!! I bet he's reading this now! PAUL! I told you!!! nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh nyeh

:blah: