Alright, now *that's* interesting. I admit not going over that list closely to the very bottom, so I missed "HDR: ok". I too am surprised at that, but I guess it's a nod to current fashion. Or perhaps they are using the steak test: HDR is okay as long as it's rare or medium rare. If it's medium to overcooked, forget it; it's out. I'd expect to see "quality HDR" in NatGeo myself. They do a pretty good editing job there and they know what sort of shots sell magazines.
But they also say stuff like "fisheye: OK, but enter at your own risk - editors tend to dislike such optical gimmicks", when I've seen plenty of ultra-wide shots in NatGeo over the years. On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > Well... Interesting to know what the pros consider “realistic to be”. > > In particular, I was fairly shocked that they were OK with HDR. -T > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Walker <[email protected]> wrote: >> To what end? If I were submitting shots to NatGeo then maybe, but I'm >> not so I see nothing worth reading there. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Worth reading: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/your-shot/manipulation >> -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
