Why do magazines need medium format?

Scootatheschool1990 · 12-12-2013, 12:27 PM

Curious why magazines can't use a d800 for example or a k3 for their cover shot. Why must it be a 40+ mp back? A magazine cover is only an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. Not a billboard. I understand billboards not magazines... Thanks for your answer in advance

Parallax · 12-12-2013, 12:42 PM

Because you can't take high quality photos with FF. You need medium format for that. No, wait, that's not right. You can't take high quality photos with APS-c, you need FF for that (see any FF thread for details). Okay, I'm stumped. Why do magazines want MF photos?

normhead · 12-12-2013, 12:53 PM

I can't remember who, buy our resident Pentax, now Nikon cover shooter, had plenty of covers taken with his K20D, and and for a long time some magazines would accept only FF images, even if the APS-c were more megpixels. Those magazine have other reasons besides IQ for doing the things they do, and a lot of it, depending on the magazine, is designed to weed out submissions and photographers. Pure speculation of course, but they used to be happy with submissions from a 12Mp 5D, as far as I can tell, these things have nothing to do with IQ. They have to do with weeding out the talented amateurs. People who buy often could care about what you've done. They care if you are dependable. Buyiing work from a one shot wonder does nothing for their business model. To the point where there are stock sites that won't even pay you until they've sold 4 or 5 of your images. If you get stuck at three, they just steal them. Once they know you can produce on a regular basis and bring them business, then they start paying you.

**Miguel** · 12-12-2013, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Scootatheschool1990

Curious why magazines can't use a d800 for example or a k3 for their cover shot. Why must it be a 40+ mp back?

They can. And do all the time. Why would you believe otherwise?

M

normhead · 12-12-2013, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Miguel

They can. And do all the time. Why would you believe otherwise?

M

Good point..

Silent Street · 12-12-2013, 01:36 PM

Medium format is closer to the long-established standard of fit that magazines are accustomed and geared to, and also have several times greater resolution than a FF camera. The problem with digital is that it pretends to be all things to all people — which is where people come unstuck submitting to magazines and journals. If you want to be taken seriously, invest in Hasselblad, not Nikon.

Adam · 12-12-2013, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Scootatheschool1990

Curious why magazines can't use a d800 for example or a k3 for their cover shot. Why must it be a 40+ mp back? A magazine cover is only an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. Not a billboard. I understand billboards not magazines... Thanks for your answer in advance

Don't they use iphones nowadays?

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

**Miguel** · 12-12-2013, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Adam

Don't they use iphones nowadays?

They do, granted the NY Times is a newspaper, rather than a 'zine.

M

normhead · 12-12-2013, 01:56 PM

The older covers on this site were shot with a K20D, the newer ones with a D800.

Click here.

So, you're clearly not referring to these magazines.

stevebrot · 12-12-2013, 02:41 PM

Easier to retouch in PhotoShop?

Steve

(...never touch the stuff, myself...)

lister6520 · 12-12-2013, 02:43 PM

This is all quite silly as the actual print resolution of a magazine cover is way below that of a true photo print of the same dimensions.

Shoot a photo of any magazine cover with a decent lens and then pixel peep it - you will be able to clearly see the 'pixels' of the print, which of course means they must have much lower resolution than the camera. Here of course I mean a photo of the whole cover, not a macro of a tiny portion of it.

If the magazine cover were a real 8x11 photo print I could understand it but for a magazine cover coming off a printing press it makes no sense whatsoever.

drugal · 12-12-2013, 03:09 PM

I looked through my recent Outdoor and Popular photography magazines and all but 1 of the cover shots that I could determine the equipment that was used were taken with a FF or APS-C camera.

normhead · 12-12-2013, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by drugal

I looked through my recent Outdoor and Popular photography magazines and all but 1 of the cover shots that I could determine the equipment that was used were taken with a FF or APS-C camera.

My goodness, are we starting to develop a "you have to have MF" taking over from the "you have to have FF" cult, with equally debatable assumptions? Scary.

Scootatheschool1990 · 12-12-2013, 06:18 PM

Well, I guess have a MF camera is to distinguish you. Also I guess it's to get an EVEN MORE accurate representation of the facial tones etc. Looks like I'm going to get a MF Digital Camera. Hopefully there's a new 645D II coming soon that will lower the cost of the 645D.

I kinda wish Pentax went with a lens+body+digital back option.

stevebrot · 12-12-2013, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by normhead

My goodness, are we starting to develop a "you have to have MF" taking over from the "you have to have FF" cult, with equally debatable assumptions? Scary.

Well, this is the Medium Format section of the forum. What else would you expect, fanboys for MFT?

Steve

12-12-2013, 12:27 PM	#1
Scootatheschool1990 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Boise Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 466	Why do magazines need medium format? Curious why magazines can't use a d800 for example or a k3 for their cover shot. Why must it be a 40+ mp back? A magazine cover is only an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. Not a billboard. I understand billboards not magazines... Thanks for your answer in advance

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax ff and why do I need that.	soled	Welcomes and Introductions	6	02-20-2015 03:50 AM
Scanning medium format slides	velvia	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	8	01-30-2012 06:32 PM
why shoot medium format?	wehavenowaves!	Pentax Medium Format	17	09-14-2011 06:21 AM
If i was going to get into Medium format - tell me why Pentax (or other)?	JayR	Pentax Medium Format	32	09-04-2010 05:59 PM

12-12-2013, 12:42 PM	#2
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Because you can't take high quality photos with FF. You need medium format for that. No, wait, that's not right. You can't take high quality photos with APS-c, you need FF for that (see any FF thread for details). Okay, I'm stumped. Why do magazines want MF photos?

12-12-2013, 12:53 PM	#3
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I can't remember who, buy our resident Pentax, now Nikon cover shooter, had plenty of covers taken with his K20D, and and for a long time some magazines would accept only FF images, even if the APS-c were more megpixels. Those magazine have other reasons besides IQ for doing the things they do, and a lot of it, depending on the magazine, is designed to weed out submissions and photographers. Pure speculation of course, but they used to be happy with submissions from a 12Mp 5D, as far as I can tell, these things have nothing to do with IQ. They have to do with weeding out the talented amateurs. People who buy often could care about what you've done. They care if you are dependable. Buyiing work from a one shot wonder does nothing for their business model. To the point where there are stock sites that won't even pay you until they've sold 4 or 5 of your images. If you get stuck at three, they just steal them. Once they know you can produce on a regular basis and bring them business, then they start paying you.

12-12-2013, 12:55 PM	#4
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	Originally posted by Scootatheschool1990 Curious why magazines can't use a d800 for example or a k3 for their cover shot. Why must it be a 40+ mp back? They can. And do all the time. Why would you believe otherwise? M

12-12-2013, 01:31 PM	#5
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Miguel They can. And do all the time. Why would you believe otherwise? M Good point..

12-12-2013, 01:36 PM	#6
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	Medium format is closer to the long-established standard of fit that magazines are accustomed and geared to, and also have several times greater resolution than a FF camera. The problem with digital is that it pretends to be all things to all people — which is where people come unstuck submitting to magazines and journals. If you want to be taken seriously, invest in Hasselblad, not Nikon.

12-12-2013, 01:49 PM	#7
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	Originally posted by Scootatheschool1990 Curious why magazines can't use a d800 for example or a k3 for their cover shot. Why must it be a 40+ mp back? A magazine cover is only an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. Not a billboard. I understand billboards not magazines... Thanks for your answer in advance Don't they use iphones nowadays? Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

12-12-2013, 01:56 PM	#8
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	Originally posted by Adam Don't they use iphones nowadays? They do, granted the NY Times is a newspaper, rather than a 'zine. M

12-12-2013, 02:41 PM	#10
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Easier to retouch in PhotoShop? Steve (...never touch the stuff, myself...)

12-12-2013, 02:43 PM	#11
lister6520 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 733	This is all quite silly as the actual print resolution of a magazine cover is way below that of a true photo print of the same dimensions. Shoot a photo of any magazine cover with a decent lens and then pixel peep it - you will be able to clearly see the 'pixels' of the print, which of course means they must have much lower resolution than the camera. Here of course I mean a photo of the whole cover, not a macro of a tiny portion of it. If the magazine cover were a real 8x11 photo print I could understand it but for a magazine cover coming off a printing press it makes no sense whatsoever.

12-12-2013, 03:09 PM	#12
drugal Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Detroit suburbs Photos: Gallery Posts: 259	I looked through my recent Outdoor and Popular photography magazines and all but 1 of the cover shots that I could determine the equipment that was used were taken with a FF or APS-C camera.

12-12-2013, 03:30 PM	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by drugal I looked through my recent Outdoor and Popular photography magazines and all but 1 of the cover shots that I could determine the equipment that was used were taken with a FF or APS-C camera. My goodness, are we starting to develop a "you have to have MF" taking over from the "you have to have FF" cult, with equally debatable assumptions? Scary.

12-12-2013, 06:18 PM	#14
Scootatheschool1990 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Boise Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 466 Original Poster	Well, I guess have a MF camera is to distinguish you. Also I guess it's to get an EVEN MORE accurate representation of the facial tones etc. Looks like I'm going to get a MF Digital Camera. Hopefully there's a new 645D II coming soon that will lower the cost of the 645D. I kinda wish Pentax went with a lens+body+digital back option.

12-12-2013, 06:51 PM	#15
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by normhead My goodness, are we starting to develop a "you have to have MF" taking over from the "you have to have FF" cult, with equally debatable assumptions? Scary. Well, this is the Medium Format section of the forum. What else would you expect, fanboys for MFT? Steve