Breaking the rules

fokker

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
2,829
Reaction score
295
Location
New Zealand
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Just saw this photo which is obviously an awesome shot, and has the national geographic stamp of approval.

So what I want to know is, why does it have a crooked horizon? This is a 10 second fix in photoshop, so why have they left it crooked? And while we're on the subject of rules, they have the subject centered and half a yacht poking out of the whale. Interested to hear opinions and discussions around this really.
 
My non professional answer is is does not matter to the normal viewer..

They are looking at the cool whale and none of the rest even matters..

Thats a tough shot to get... I would be happy to get it...let alone worry about horizon or composition..

Now if whales would pose on command .. that would be another thing..

Proven by the fact many shots these days shot by pure amatuars are showing up on magazine covers - rules do not always apply..

Personally I hate them and rarely follow any of them..
 
National Geographic got into trouble (famously) before with a slightly manipulated photo. As a "serious" magazine, I think the editors at National geographic are opposed to manipulation of photos, and prefer to present the actual, real scene, as shot, rather than adjusting the photo. yes, there's a sailboat underway in the background--it was actually there. There's another boat that was also there. The boat the photographer was in was riding on the same swells as the other boat, and consequently, when the shot was tripped off, the horizon was a bit un-level; it happens all the time when shooting from a small boat on the open ocean. The photo is presented as a "real" moment, and has not been altered. That is the sensibility of National Geographic.
 
My non professional answer is is does not matter to the normal viewer..

They are looking at the cool whale and none of the rest even matters..

Thats a tough shot to get... I would be happy to get it...let alone worry about horizon or composition..

Now if whales would pose on command .. that would be another thing..

Proven by the fact many shots these days shot by pure amatuars are showing up on magazine covers - rules do not always apply..

Personally I hate them and rarely follow any of them..

Obviously, he is not talking about the guy setting up a tripod on the rocky boat and only shooting when his horizon is straight. The OP was wondering why they published it without a quick PS fix. It would literally take 1 minute.


Buuuuuuuuut, since I don't care, and I have no idea. I digress, and leave this thread as useless as I found it. Don't take it the wrong way OP.
 
National Geographic got into trouble (famously) before with a slightly manipulated photo. As a "serious" magazine, I think the editors at National geographic are opposed to manipulation of photos, and prefer to present the actual, real scene, as shot, rather than adjusting the photo. yes, there's a sailboat underway in the background--it was actually there. There's another boat that was also there. The boat the photographer was in was riding on the same swells as the other boat, and consequently, when the shot was tripped off, the horizon was a bit un-level; it happens all the time when shooting from a small boat on the open ocean. The photo is presented as a "real" moment, and has not been altered. That is the sensibility of National Geographic.

You seriously......give the best answers. Every single ****ing time. What is it with you? You're not human? I want to hire you for my shoots.
 
National Geographic got into trouble (famously) before with a slightly manipulated photo. As a "serious" magazine, I think the editors at National geographic are opposed to manipulation of photos, and prefer to present the actual, real scene, as shot, rather than adjusting the photo. yes, there's a sailboat underway in the background--it was actually there. There's another boat that was also there. The boat the photographer was in was riding on the same swells as the other boat, and consequently, when the shot was tripped off, the horizon was a bit un-level; it happens all the time when shooting from a small boat on the open ocean. The photo is presented as a "real" moment, and has not been altered. That is the sensibility of National Geographic.

I thought after posting that this may be the reasoning behind it. Obviously I wouldn't expect a magazine such as NG to make alterations such as cloning out the half sailboat, but I thought a horizon tilt would be acceptable. But still, good on them I guess.
 
Horizon tilt could have been done with ease and would not really count as major example of editing in the given shot. It could be a company policy to limit the amount of editing with specific editing tools being restricted (I say this as I'm reasonally sure many Nat Geo shooters will be shooting RAW so some editing will be present).

However another thing to consider is the journalistic aspect - what we have in the link is the image alone, but it lacks the story that goes with a journalistic approach. Could be that the tilt was something that the photographer wanted to convey - a factor in shooting from a boat at a very uncontrolable subject. The boat in the background could too be a part of this display or it could be that that shot was the only one which came out any good with a jumping whale.

With a lack of context to a shot we fall back to the defaults of "good composition" and "pleasing elements" which of course means that there will be shots for which this fails
; consider insect IDs (since I have a book of that on my table) almost every shot is very central in composition. Sure the exposures are very good, the focus is spot on and the depth of field (As well as angle of shooting) are well controled - its a good technical photo. But they would not be winning prizes in photography club competitions save on the technical front.
 
I thought after posting that this may be the reasoning behind it. Obviously I wouldn't expect a magazine such as NG to make alterations such as cloning out the half sailboat, but I thought a horizon tilt would be acceptable. But still, good on them I guess.

did you contact ng to find out?

As a "serious" magazine, I think the editors at National geographic are opposed to manipulation of photos,

think of all the time saved with a zero pp tolerance.
 
I don't think he shoots for NG i think it is someone who was on a whale watching trip and got a good shot that they sent into NG and got it published
 
I don't think he shoots for NG i think it is someone who was on a whale watching trip and got a good shot that they sent into NG and got it published

Yep, agree with both and the shooter didn't straighten the horizon before it went to National Geographic, which as Darrel pointed out, as most editorial outlets, has a general policy of not altering images it accepts for publication.

Bonus points question................................................

Who was the second president of National Geographic?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top