RoadBike article is a go!

Woo, the Alaska Highway article passed through the editorial and photography department gauntlets, and is going to officially go on their schedule! Huzzah! Jessica estimates it’ll be in the magazine next spring sometime; I’ll definitely let y’all know as soon as I find out.

I’ve fallen in love with RoadBike’s photo department, who passed some tips along to me through Jessica. As I’m a writer first and photographer second, I really appreciate their taking the time to help edjimikate me. Also, I’m happy to report that they were “technical” problems (the slides were a little grainy, which could have been my film or the developing lab…?) and not issues with composition.

Do any of you folks out there in WebLand use digital cameras for magazine submissions? I use a 5-megapixel camera and have been shooting in the “super large” resolution mode — should I be using “RAW” mode instead?

This entry was posted in Writing about Riding. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to RoadBike article is a go!

  1. Kipio says:

    I am by no means a photographer, but I like to take photos and I have a Digital SLR camera. From what I have seen with my camera, there are three important points to think about with it comes to RAW:
    1. Filesize is bigger because there is no lossy compression.
    2. Unlike JPEGs, RAW files aren’t corrected for stuff like white balance, sharpness, etc. in my camera. This is both good and bad. I have to do the correction on the PC, which is more of a pain and can be harder to do manually, but gives more control. My camera does embed a fairly high res JPEG in my RAW files which IS corrected by the camera, and these are probably of sufficient resolution to post on the web.
    3. When you have a JPEG file and you edit it in something like Photoshop and then save it, you are reapplying the JPEG algorithm to it. Therefore, the JPEG degrades further and further each time you save it. So if you do a lot of post processing on your images or if your magazine does, I imagine this could be a problem.
    Again, I’m no photographer, I’ve never had anything in a magazine, and I’m sure other people could be of more help, but these are the points I can think of. I’ll post more if they come to me.

  2. carolyn says:

    Strange. I’m saving the photos directly from my camera to the computer hard drive. I copied the pics directly onto CD and sent ’em off. No Photoshop or other manipulation at all.
    I’m being a little paranoid, since my Rider article was rejected last year for the photos being too low-res (reasonable, since they were compressed 2.2-megapixel pictures).
    I do keep hearing, though, that my photos are on the low end of acceptable resolution, so I want to improve/change anything at all that I can do.

  3. ed says:

    Congrats on getting the article published Carolyn.
    I’m no photographer either but have been doing a lot of research lately for getting a digital, so FWIW: You were shooting slide film with the Stylus Epic? Should give you good, sharp, results (an excellent camera, perfect for travels; mine is one of my fav pieces of gear). However I’ve never shot slide film with it, and I know slide film has less tolerance for not getting the exposure quite right, so perhaps that could be a problem? Elsewise pick up a couple various rolls and see how they all compare.
    For digital, if you’re saving at “super-large”, “extra fine” compression, and ISO 50, I’d have said the images should be good enough. I wouldn’t say RAW is gonna be of advantage: I’ve read a few articles recently discussing the merits of raw vs jpg and they all conclude that for most uses, even getting into the pro arena, jpg is perfectly acceptable. (Now if you’re wanting to print a 42″x36″ poster perhaps …) It seems to be one of those things were if you have to ask, you prob don’t need it (especially if you’re not post processing). And 5mp should be more than enough resolution (regardless of raw/jpg) – in reviews of cameras even at 3mp the sample images are good given the size they’re printed. Having used a S45, I’d expect the bigger issue (if your pics came from the S50) to be noise from having to bump the ISO sensitivity in order to get decent shutter speeds. I actually returned that camera cuz in anything other than full bright sunlight (rainy days hmmm?) it was a pain to use and the results were poor. At ISO settings other than the lowest, noise become noticable to highly objectionable. This hugely affects the image quality, though has nothing to do with the overall resolution itself, also irrespective raw/jpg.
    You might wanna ask them to clarify, or it could be they’re not used working with digital pics. Or they’re used to pics done w/ a tripod n’ flash n’ all that, which are just gonna look diff regardless. Not much you can do about either, other than do more photoshop work yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *