I'm proud to announce that another one of my shots is now featured as a double page spread in the April issue of National Geographic.
What most people don't know, is that NG processes all the images. They use your processed image as a reference, but eventually they use the raw file and process it themselves.
The first time they published one of my images, I was surprised to say the least when I heard this. It was the photograph of an elephant at Vic Falls, and I wondered if I did something wrong. Apparently NG has a very specific way of processing, specifically for printing in the magazine - they know how to process it so that it will look the same as your own version. Turned out that this was correct.
With my latest image, things were not that easy though. I took the shot in a very small room with a wide angle lens pointing up - as a result there was quite a bit of distortion of the verticals. Obviously, I corrected this during processing. NG always wants to know what kind of processing was done for each image, so I told them I had corrected the verticals and that I had removed two or three very small twigs in the foreground. I send them the raw files and waited for them to get back to me. When they did, they said that the tiny twigs I removed, had to stay - it was against their regulations. They also said that they would not correct the distortion for the same reasons. I could understand the twigs, but to leave the distortion in made no sense to me. I contacted them again, saying that the distorted perspective was the direct result of the specific lens that I used, and that the door posts did not really look like that. And that if they wanted to show truthful, unmanipulated images, perspective correction would be the way to go.
It took a long time for them to get back to me, but eventually they agreed - the distortion would go.
Is there such a thing as an unmanipulated photograph? And why is removing a twig on location ok, but in post processing it's not?
There are times that I wish a was a painter - no one ever asks a painter the same silly questions. Were there really five sun flowers in that vase, or did you manipulate your painting by not painting the sixth one?
P.S. Note that I did not mind the perspective distortion (same cause) in my Madagascar image - there it was a deliberate decision to actually use the distortion to emphasize the height of the trees. Nothing was done to the image, but I consider it the most manipulated one that was ever featured in NG.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 16, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Congrats Marsel! Interesting background too on how NG works. (And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same image that appeared in the TPN book?)
It doesn't surprise me to hear about their process and their standards, but I am a bit surprised to hear you had such a hard time convincing them that adjusting the distortion was "okay." I think even from a strict editorial perspective your argument makes sense, and I'm curious if they went so far as to note the adjustments in the magazine if they're that worried about it.
Max
Posted by David Taylor on March 17, 2011 at 12:18 AM
Congratulations Marcel. Like the others - very interesting to read about Nat Geo's inner workings. Absolutely beautiful image, once again!
Congratulations on another of your photos being featured in Nat Geo Marsel ... and, though I'm feeling slightly embarrassed, soon as I started reading this post I virtually slapped my forehead and said out loud, "Awww, THAT Marsel van Oosten!!!!!!" - LOL ;^p
You know, ever since I first saw your name in the wildlife forum I've been asking myself why is seemed so familiar to me ... and of course now I know :^) I must say, much as I've appreciated the fact that I now belong to a community that has so many excellent photographers (and I know I've only just scratched the surface as far as discovering how many more there are!), I'm all the more chuffed to know that we have a celebrity photographer here with us too ... don't worry though, I'm not the groupie type and I promise not to stalk you, but I may ask you a few questions every now and then - LOL ;^)
Seriously, very much looking forward to seeing more of your work and rest assured that I'll be out soon as I can to buy me the April edition of National Geographic :^)
All the best to you :^)
Ashley
Posted by Jim Erhardt on March 17, 2011 at 9:21 AM
Congratulations Marsel! I agree, the lens-induced distortion would have underminded the photo - I'm glad to hear they corrected it.
Congratulations Marsel! I very unique look into the thoughts behind NG's processes, the image would not have been the same with the lens distortion, I'm glad they saw it your way. It's a fabulous image, one of my favorites
Posted by Garry Revesz on March 17, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Congratulations on yet another photo achievement Marsel. I think NG is a goal of many up and coming photographers simply for the confirmation that you're doing something right. I've always been a huge fan since I saw your images last year. I have entered local and a national contest and have won, but I have thought of entering a NG contest, so your experience in how they work and process images is fascinating.
I have also been planning an African trip, but I'll contact you through email on that.
Discussion
13 repliesWhat most people don't know, is that NG processes all the images. They use your processed image as a reference, but eventually they use the raw file and process it themselves.
The first time they published one of my images, I was surprised to say the least when I heard this. It was the photograph of an elephant at Vic Falls, and I wondered if I did something wrong. Apparently NG has a very specific way of processing, specifically for printing in the magazine - they know how to process it so that it will look the same as your own version. Turned out that this was correct.
The same thing happened a few months later with one of my shots from Madagascar. Again, I was pleased with the results.
With my latest image, things were not that easy though. I took the shot in a very small room with a wide angle lens pointing up - as a result there was quite a bit of distortion of the verticals. Obviously, I corrected this during processing. NG always wants to know what kind of processing was done for each image, so I told them I had corrected the verticals and that I had removed two or three very small twigs in the foreground. I send them the raw files and waited for them to get back to me. When they did, they said that the tiny twigs I removed, had to stay - it was against their regulations. They also said that they would not correct the distortion for the same reasons. I could understand the twigs, but to leave the distortion in made no sense to me. I contacted them again, saying that the distorted perspective was the direct result of the specific lens that I used, and that the door posts did not really look like that. And that if they wanted to show truthful, unmanipulated images, perspective correction would be the way to go.
It took a long time for them to get back to me, but eventually they agreed - the distortion would go.
Is there such a thing as an unmanipulated photograph? And why is removing a twig on location ok, but in post processing it's not?
There are times that I wish a was a painter - no one ever asks a painter the same silly questions. Were there really five sun flowers in that vase, or did you manipulate your painting by not painting the sixth one?
P.S. Note that I did not mind the perspective distortion (same cause) in my Madagascar image - there it was a deliberate decision to actually use the distortion to emphasize the height of the trees. Nothing was done to the image, but I consider it the most manipulated one that was ever featured in NG.
Max
You know, ever since I first saw your name in the wildlife forum I've been asking myself why is seemed so familiar to me ... and of course now I know :^) I must say, much as I've appreciated the fact that I now belong to a community that has so many excellent photographers (and I know I've only just scratched the surface as far as discovering how many more there are!), I'm all the more chuffed to know that we have a celebrity photographer here with us too ... don't worry though, I'm not the groupie type and I promise not to stalk you, but I may ask you a few questions every now and then - LOL ;^)
Seriously, very much looking forward to seeing more of your work and rest assured that I'll be out soon as I can to buy me the April edition of National Geographic :^)
All the best to you :^)
Ashley
I have also been planning an African trip, but I'll contact you through email on that.
Max - they didn't, and I'm glad for that - it seems they agree that this was the logical thing to do.
Thanks for all your comments and the kind words.