National Geographic on photo manipulation

[davidedric]

I've just received the latest NG, and this month's editorial is titled "images and ethics", and outlines NG's approach.

No great surprises, they do insist on RAW files from their photographers alongside the submitted images, and then the editors discuss what is acceptable manipulation.

For their "Your Shot" section they also ask for a RAW file, but will accept a processed if they can be convinced that it doesn't deviate too much.

Dave

[Shadowman]

Makes sense, you wouldn't want to present an image of nature that couldn't possibly be seen by the naked eye, however, I'm sure there are quite a few natural visions that only a few lucky photographers have seen.

[Shanghai Steve]

It makes sense. Nat Geo has a reputation, although the last time I checked it out I was surprised at how slapdash some of the shots actually were- needing straightened, bleeding edges etc. Still, as a publication of record, you can't have misleading photographs. I vividly remember the final scenes of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, when the action goes to that incredible temple cut into the side of a mountain on the edge of an infinite grassland. I turned to my friend in the cinema and said, "I'm going to go there someday." A few years later I was in the country and asked a Chinese National where it was. I was devastated to find out that, while the temple exists, the grassland was a CGI fiction!