Why the Arizona Highways Mag won´t accept your Canon EOS-1D Mark II files

[© Arizona Highways Magazine]

Arizona Highways features a special section called "Photography Talk". Peter Ensenberger, Arizona Highways Director of Photography, explains in "Film vs. Digital" why the mag has its difficulties with digital image files:

But is the image quality of digital-capture high enough for large reproductions in a magazine like Arizona Highways that is known for the quality of its photography? [...]
One of the most-asked questions Arizona Highways readers pose to the magazine’s photography editors is, "Why, with all these advancements in digital cameras, does the magazine’s photography submission policy exclude digital-capture photographs?" [...]
The best of the current generation of digital cameras records image files a little more than 11 megapixels...but an 11-megapixel capture is not nearly large enough for the sharp, high-resolution full-page reproductions we strive for on the printed pages of Arizona Highways magazine at 300 dots per inch. [...]
An 11-megapixel capture made with a top-of-the-line digital camera is roughly equivalent to a 31-megabyte digital file. When Arizona Highways prepares a 4x5 transparency for reproduction in the magazine at 300 dpi, the film is scanned on a drum scanner, and a digital file is created at about 75 megabytes for a 12x18-inch reproduction, about the size of a two-page spread in Arizona Highways. [...] (Link)

And more interestingly:

One last thought on the film vs. digital debate: If you’re planning to switch to a digital camera soon, don’t give up on film just yet. Remember always to back up your digital photographs on film. Even if you have already made the move to digital, consider that today’s best cameras record digital files at a little more than 11 megapixels. But what if, in the near future, the standard moves up to 20 megapixels or higher? If you have backup on film, you can scan your images at a higher resolution. But will your old 11-megapixel files be convertible? We don’t know for sure. (Link)

OK, all that is the opinion of Ensenberger at the time of the August 2003 issue. In the March 2004 he wrote a re-review "Film vs. Digital Revisited". And, any changes regarding his opinion?

The thing I find most curious about some digital photographers is their proselytizing for the digital cause. Why is it so important to them that the rest of us jump on the digital bandwagon? My own theory is that they believe the magazine cover lines. They bought into the notion that digital has arrived, and prematurely dumped their film cameras, going all-digital before the industry is ready to support it. So now they must convince the rest of us to switch to digital so their photographs have some value. Savvy photographers, however, are continuing to shoot film while they learn the digital technology, waiting for digital image quality to improve and their clients’ workflows to switch from film to digital.

Two great stories on four pages, read them!

Comments

[Scott Thomas]

Pardon me but: BULLSHIT!

Magazines, and others, who "proselytize" this kind of crap while clutching white-knuckled at old ideas for fear of change are doing all of us (and themselves) a grave disservice. I've seen Arizona Highways and it's image quality is good but nothing special - which serves as evidence (to me at least) only of their arrogance and elitism (misplaced though it is). I know, as do many other photographers because we have personally seen it) that a quality 4-6 megapixel digital capture can hold its own against 4x5 film - certainly by the time both are committed via ink and offset press to the printed page of any magazine. For the most part, photographers are often more critical of their own work than just about anyone else - and we wouldn't be shooting digital if we didn't KNOW it made the grade. Sure, there is a learning curve and lots of photographers are submitting crappy digital captures - but there were always lots of photographers (who never bothered to learn film photography either) submitting crappy transparencies as well.

[Phototalk]

Scott:
No pardon for the BULLSHIT. I just said that the point of view of Arizona Highway Mag is interesting and consequent (for the moment). Personally I don´t want to get into the film vs. digital debate again. We all know that this is only a question of time.
So what about a letter with your concerns to the Editor/AHM (the "learning curve")?

[scott thomas]

My comments (including Bullshit) weren't directed at the article itself, or it's writer (sorry if it was taken that way). It is a sad truth that both genuinely expess the views of all too many magazines, editors, art directors, etc., which many of us should certainly be aware of. My comments were directed at, and in rebuttal to, those idiotic and regressive views.

I don't want to get into the film vs. digital debate either but that is exactly what these people are doing by snubbing digital for such moronic reasons. I use film AND digital - both are excellent mediums capable of producing oputstanding quality results. Film should continue to be accepted, maybe even preferred (for those who may like) but anyone who is refusing digital simply because it is digital is missing out on a lot of great work by a lot of excellent photographers - and they will miss out on even more as time goes on.