 |
On page 5 it states that 48 mb+ is the standard, but no mention is made if this is in reference to digital files scanned from film, or those from digital cameras. If the latter, this is problematic, as this would imply that no 35mm style digital camera is suitable, as even the Canon 1DS mark II is just shy of that 48 mb 8-bit uncompressed RGB Tiff standard. Further on (page 11) there is a section on interpolation, but this information should either be incorporated; OR, at minimum, referenced, from page 5 to avoid confusing the reader. Those photographers shooting with digital cameras know that they have to interpolate in order to meet the minimum/optimal file size required by Alamy and Getty, and this issue isn't really addressed. On page 6, there is a line in the "Embedded colour profile" section that reads: "Adobe (1998) has become the de facto standard within the industry for colour profiles and is most commonly selected as the colour space when shooting digitally". I'd hope that most photographers that are shooting digital cameras for stock are doing so using the RAW file format. And choosing RAW as the intended file output (at least in camera initially) means that it really makes no difference whether you have chosen sRGB or Adobe RGB in the camera. Personally I find it a lot easier to set the camera to sRGB when I shoot RAW + Jpeg, because I can post the Jpegs as a web gallery without having to convert to sRGB. That's the only way that I know of to ensure that the majority of my audience will see the images fairly close to the way I intended without having to take the time to tweak each file. Maybe what it should say is that selecting Adobe RGB should be done when the RAW file is converted, but the way it's phrased above it could be easy for readers to assume they should set Adobe RGB in camera even if shooting jpegs. On page 8 there is a paragraph that pertains to Vector files that is tucked into the section of TIFF files. Unless a majority of libraries in the BAPLA system are supplying logos and illustrations that would be stored as vector files, I'd be inclined to drop that whole paragraph. If it must be addressed, it would be better to include EPS as a listed format, and then discouraging it's use except in the instance of Vector files. On page 9 the viewing of all files at 100 percent screen magnification is mentioned. While I do concur, it's likely to be confusing to someone that hasn't used Photoshop, or other imaging program as to what this really means. It may also be useful to include some mention of the artifacting/aliasing that occurs when viewing an image at 33.3 or 66.7 percent. Just below that, there is mention of specific settings for highlight and shadow details. While I don't disagree with the numbers entirely (I think that the shadow value is a tad low, but you do state that it shouldn't go below this, thus 8 or 9 would be acceptable as well), I do think that this paragraph only makes sense to those that already understand what it's saying. A bit more explanation might be advisable. In the "Dirt and Scratches" section, no mention is made regarding sensor dust or smudge issues. Many times this may be overlooked or not noticed by photographers, but it can be just as big of a problem as dirt and scratches are with images originating from film. The section on customer information is well done and very thorough, however there are a few inaccuracies. Specifically on page 13 where you list the "minimum" IPTC fields that are suggested, they appear to be using the Photoshop CS/CS2 field names for "Document Title" "Creator" and "Credit" but then lapse into using the old-style "Caption" rather than the current "Description" field as indicated in IPTC Core and Photoshop CS/CS2. I'm not sure which field at all they are referring to when they mention the "Licensing Contact" and describe this as the "URL for Licensor of image." Is this referring to the "Copyright Info URL" (which technically is NOT an IPTC field, and exists solely as part of the Photoshop Namespace), or the "Creator's Contact Info:WebURL(s). The later is part of the IPTC Core, but is reserved for the "Creator" of the image, which is not necessarily the same as the Licensor which is usually the agency/distributor. The lack of a location for detailed "Licensor" information is an issue that I hope to address when the IPTC4XMP working group reconvenes, however at the moment, it would best if the group could be more specific as to which field they are referring to as for now it's very confusing. Good point about the limits to the IPTC field lengths, though I think it would be prudent to mention that this limitation is with applications subscribing to the "older" IPTC schema (usually referred to as that subscribing to the IIMv4 [Information Interchange Module version 4], or IRB [short for Image Resource Block]). IPTC Core does not have this limitation. On the same page there is mention of the Bapla/pic4press Metadata Schema. I'm not familiar with this, but assume it's a custom metadata template that has additional custom fields? If so the line stating, "This template gives a fuller sub-set of XMP/ITPC fields." could be misleading. Custom fields created within a Custom template may be XMP data, but they are not necessarily sub-sets of the IPTC schema. The bigger problem is that custom fields will only be accessible to those that are using Photoshop and have those custom panels installed. The information on Captions, Keywords and Releases is spot on and should be required reading for all photographers as well as agencies/ distributors. |