image format for magazine

[rex]

any of you working in pre-press or service bureau? most people says Raw file gives flexibility because of its richness in color information. and then converting it to tiff format. between jpg and raw does it really shows the difference when being separated in 4 colors (CMYK) and printed on the actual paper finish.

[surenj]

I am not a professional but I would very much doubt that you'd submit the RAW file. It would be either a colour adjusted TIFF or a JPG. You need to find out their color profile and match that in photoshop. As for the details of how to do this, I have no idea.

You will also need to find out what resolution, colour depth etc they want...

[gstark]

I am not a professional but I would very much doubt that you'd submit the RAW file. It would be either a colour adjusted TIFF or a JPG. You need to find out their color profile and match that in photoshop. As for the details of how to do this, I have no idea.

You will also need to find out what resolution, colour depth etc they want...

That pretty well sums it up. The publisher specifies what they want, and how they want it. You work to achieve the specified outcomes.

[rex]

whats conflicting is that there are magazine firm that uses tiff, some eps and some even use jpg (a glossy fashion/lifetyle mag)! there is no international standard. does it mean format doesnt matter as it produces the same output?

[gstark]

whats conflicting is that there are magazine firm that uses tiff, some eps and some even use jpg

Exactly.

does it mean format doesnt matter as it produces the same output?

Who produces the output? Answer that question to fully comprehend what is important here.

[Mr Darcy]

whats conflicting is that there are magazine firm that uses tiff, some eps and some even use jpg (a glossy fashion/lifetyle mag)! there is no international standard. does it mean format doesnt matter as it produces the same output?

That's right. There is no standard. You need to talk to the staff at the magazine you where you hope to publish & find out what they want. If they really want your photo, they will take anything. I have even given RAW to one publisher that really wanted the photos. They weren't happy with jpg, and at the time it was all I could supply. If they retouch/rework a lot, they will probably want TIFF. If they are just after a quick "drop it in" photo, they will be happier with a CMYK JPG or EPS (basically a printer file) as you have done all the work for them

[Raskill]

I've never submitted anything but JPG's. Lets be real, the colour pofiles that printers use for magazines arent exactly the most accurate or specific. The editor will change contrast and sat levels if they find it necessary. IMHO if they want something other than JPG they will ask for it.

[Hudo]

We have always provided and currently supply JPEGS. Highest Res and Fullest Size and the publisher does the rest.

Hudo

[rex]

oops sorry guys. been busy.

does it mean format doesnt matter as it produces the same output?

Who produces the output? Answer that question to fully comprehend what is important here.

actually its this colleague 'designer' of mine who introduced me the use of hi resolution images in JPG format for the magazine. tiff or eps or jpg produces same output (?) Looking through naked eye i barely notice any flaws from jpg on the final/finished print. and its a fashion/lifestyle magazine with a jpg images!

i cant understand why this designer ask for raw and then later he converts it to jpeg. i mean raw alledgely, is suppose to have full color information, so all these will be gone when converted cmyk then to jpg. and then the color adjustment will further deteriorates the pixel population. he must have a reason for this. im not complaining actually. one reason jpg does save space. i myself is not a RAW user. some clients (in magazines case the publishers) and photographers are too persistent about using raw but what they dont know is they can save more by using jpg.

imagine the days when transparencies (film age) are being scanned in drum scanner. colors are 'artificially' digitised and even before it gets to the designer it was adjusted in several degree by the scanner service then adjusted again by the prepress people yet no one complain and still contented by it.

please pardon my english.

[Dipstix Pix]

I work at one of the larger publishing companies (nextmedia) and also sell a lot of my personal photography to a wide range of Australian and oveseas magazines. In all cases I supply jpegs. I always shoot raws and generally save them in three sizes - tiffs (for personal prints), higher res jpegs for publication and low res for web use. I have never been asked to supply my photos in Raw format. I have also published three books and have only used JPegs in each case.
A few years ago I had to supply some photos to the Herald Sun as their own photogs were on strike. They wanted Jpegs at a size of only 1mb. I thought that was too small but they used the main pic at a size of half the height of the page.
When I used film I started with roll film cameras - from a Mamiya 220 to a Pentax 6x7 and then a Bronica 645 before shooting thousands of rolls of Velvia 35mm - all to get the quality I wanted. These days it is amazing the quality that can be obtained from even small sized files. If your image is what they want then they'll use it from a jpeg

[sirhc55]

In the old days I would supply tif or eps for 150/175 litho work. Today I supply in one of two ways. If I’m producing the artwork for film then I will supply either cymk tif or eps and sometimes psd. If, however, I’m supplying pics to the client then I supply 12 level jpg’s in RGB format. The reason for this is simple. When I’m supplied jpg’s from a client at around the 1Mb level they are opened by myself converted to tif/eps/cymk and then inserted in the artwork as such. Of course the 1Mb jpg becomes much larger in Mb size when opened.

There is a very good reason not to supply RAW images. A professional never ever supplied their negs or trannies to a client. What was supplied was a copy trannie or a print from a negative. This was originally done for copyright reasons and to protect the intellectual ownership of the photographer. It was also done to prove original ownership (prior to payment from the client) in case of non-payment or a legal matter. Think of it as the copyright that is often plastered across images on this and every other site that shows original pics.