March 19, 2004

1,028,000 Digital Images per Year : The Sports Illustration digital workflow
posted by certainsome1 20 years ago
  • 1,028,000 images and their photographers STILL have no taste when it comes to picking their website design. Sheesh.
  • Farewell, underappreciated post You may fall off the front page But will never tip over the lip of my heart
  • I'm sorry, certainsome1. It was a nice site. *pat pat*
  • Looking at that table full of Thinkpads (LAN party waiting to happen), I wonder: what did these editors do before digible photography? Before the job required wading through 2-to-the-14 different shots of one game? Is SI a better magazine as a result?
  • They used to spend a lot of time at light tables. I am not a working photojournalist, but I used to look after Macs for some when they were making the transition in the late 90s at a newspaper. Believe me, they shot huge amounts of film pre-digital cameras. Huge. As in, enough film that the $10k plus digital bodies easily paid for themselves, in months, in savings on film costs. That's just a New Zealand newspaper with a circulation of around 80k, not a bigger one with more original editorial, or a glossay mag which is all original editorial like SI. As for whether SI is better - I couldn't tell you, not reading it. The difference it made to the paper I worked for was they could get more chances at a good shot, and could prepare them quicker, making the paper more timely. They weren't going through such huge volumes of some of the more toxic industrial chemicals around. And they could get better photos in the field. I'd consider all those things worth it.
  • goetter: did you read the article or just look at the pictures? The whole article spans three pages and offers some insights as to how the magazine has changed on page three.
  • [cont.] A description of what photo editors did before switching to digital is somewhere on page two.
  • The article didn't answer my question, but Rodger did. Thanks.