Hi! Sorry, I'm a bit late to this discussion... And I'm not in any way professional photographer or even "experienced in art", but that list of requirements surprised me a lot. I fully agree with Tom's comments, echoes my thoughts... especially couple of things: - Hand-tinting requirement to be an experienced in art - if some one makes an excellent work at it, would they ask for art diploma before considering it? - Cropping makes photo better? Well, then I'll submit the center pixel of my latest snapshot - got to be the best pixel out there, cropped to the max!
D. On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Tom C. <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. -- //DG LOC(NJ) //* -- 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.
