> Not sure why the strong negative reactions on this. It should really > come as no surprise to anyone that different "outlets" have different > standards for what they want or will accept for publication. > > Photojournalistic places will want as much realism as possible and > photographers who shoot for AP (for example) have been "axed" for > altering that reality (such as the recent story involving a guy > clumsily cloning out his own shadow from a photo).. National > Geographic is simply stating *their* standards for publication. They > aren't making value judgments on your work, unless you are submitting > (or hoping to submit) to them. Anyone who writes for a particular > publication needs to understand (or request) that publication's Style > Guide and hopefully be familiar with the tone of writing that the > publication selects. To send them something outside of that tells them > that you haven't even *read* their publication enough to become > familiar with what they typically use. > > You have to know that curating/editing this stuff for publication > takes a lot of time... time that somebody is paying a salary for. If > you can prevent such stuff from being submitted before someone has to > spend any time on it, then you'd do it too. > > If most of us are honest with ourselves, we'd have to admit that we'd > be delighted if an image of ours was "discovered" or requested by > National Geographic magazine. You may think it will never happen, but > it is happening right now with some of my son-in-law's work. He didn't > come to them. They came to him. No idea if they discovered him through > Flickr, or Getty, or Alamy or his personal blog > www.bigstormpicture.com, but the point is that anyone could have this > happen to them. > > Being aware of the existence of style guides, such as the one Tim > posted, is valuable if you want to submit work that will get you a 2nd > look. > > None of this means that I can't enjoy Instagram-ing my images or > dialing the contrast & saturation to eleven, or producing garish "HDR" > work, if that is what pleases me. But it means that the version of the > shot that I will submit to an individual place had better be in line > with what they want, if I want it to meet with *their* approval.
Everything you say is true. What I didn't like was the high and mighty chastising verbage: "I encourage you to submit photographs that are real. The world is already full of visual artifice, and we aren't running Your Shot to add to it. We want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop". As if THEY define REAL. We aren't running Your Shot to add to it? That's a pretty direct smack down. "We look at every photo to see if it's authentic, and if we find that yours is in any way deceptive, we'll disqualify it." Now the writer is equating photo manipulation with deceptiveness. That's a moral judgement he's superimposing. And really, could they tell if I PS'd a beer can out of the grass, or an electrical line out of a clear blue sky? What if that IS the view through my eyes - minus the garbage? "And don't oversaturate the color." I guess all the Velvia ever used never qualified for Nat Geo. "No. If you use one of the myriad alteration "filters" available in your digital photo software, please stop." Wow, is that ever WHINY!!! And by the way who do you think you are telling someone to stop? "HAND-TINTED IMAGES: OK, but only if you're experienced in this art." What if I'm not experienced but did a damn good job 'in this art' anyway? This doesn't reflect the same values previously espoused nor does allowing B&W. "CROPPING: OK, if it makes the photo better." Another whine. It's OK - If it makes the photo better. Define better. This was an amateurish way of talking. "FISH-EYE LENSES: OK, but enter at your own risk - editors tend to dislike such optical gimmicks." I cant begin to count the number of fish-eye shots I've seen in Nat Geo. How is it a gimmick any more, than a macro, a wide-angle, a telephoto? It's another kind of lens that bends the light differently? What about tilt and shift? Is that a gimmick? I found the spiel to be distasteful and written condescendingly. It sounds like it came from someone who is a little too full of themselves (unlike me). Tom C. -- 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.
