Published in the Wall Street Journal...colors all wrong?!

[hurd300403]

Hey all,
So, I've finally been published in the WSJ. The photo is of a pretty straight forward press conference, and I'm definitely happy with what was chosen from a composition stand point. So I go online to take a look and BAM the photo is over exposed and white balanced improperly. It has CLEARLY been changed from what was submitted from me. So, I go buy a print copy and BAM the black and white version is still a bit over exposed. Now, I know that the version i submitted had proper exposure and white balncing so it's something they must have changed...probably to fit their web colors/ink setup, but it still looks not so good.

My question to other photographers who have had print published work...do you do anything to compensate for certain industry standards? Many other photos in the WSJ look perfectly fine.

Thanks! Sorry if it's a dumb question...it's my first big time publication.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

The only dumb question is the one not asked.

That said, I've more often than not been disappointed by the quality of my photos as they appeared in magazines so, newspapers, let's not get started on those. I also wrote articles that I sold with my photos and those were re-worked to please their readership, sometimes to the point of becoming total BS.

It's hard not to care but, honestly, the point of this kind of work was to make a sale. I did, you did, forget the rest.

Can't talk about the internet as I have not yet run into one of my photos there but I can't imagine it is any different.

Cheers and congrats.

 

[JerryPH]

You cannot do more than offer properly exposed and in focus work for photo-journalistic exploits. What they do with it... well, that is no longer your concern as they've paid for the photo and becomes their property.

There is nothing you can do.

 

[In2daBlue]

It happens. They had to tone the photo for their printers. Unfortunately, the production department doesn't re-tone them for the Web because the system they are using transfers all text and photos from the Quark page into the Web system. Thus, the photo toned for the printer ends up on the Web site.

In addition, newspapers prefer their photos to be over-exposed rather than too dark for obvious reasons. Because they can't know how each photo is going to turn out, production folks tend to brighten each and every photo. Staff shooters often get around this by keeping their images a little underexposed when they turn them in with the knowledge that production staff is going to "brighten them up" as one production guy told me one time.

But, the other two posters are correct. It's not your image once you're hired by the newspaper to shoot something. It's theirs and they can do with it what they want. If you're concerned about using it for a portfolio image (which I wouldn't suggest with a press conference shot) than you can create your own Web portfolio (if you haven't already) and use your correctly exposed image there with the credit to the WSJ. But, as I said before, if you're trying to show your work to major publications you are better off leaving press conference shots out of your portfolio. Instead, show them your best photojournalism shots and on your resume tell them you have shot for the WSJ in the past.

 

[Derrel]

I've had stuff appear underexposed, overexposed, muddy,chalky,and had color that has appeared out of register...the pre-press people at newspapers are often in a hurry because they are on deadline, or they are tired and kind of punchy sometimes. The one thing I always do when submitting images for publication is to manually set the black point in all three color channels,and to make sure there are no large areas of overexposed highlights,set the PPI to 200, 10 inches on the long axis,sharpen quite emphatically, make sure the caption information is correct, and transmit.

What shows up in the paper is usually good, but there are those days when....something goes wrong. The funniest thing I EVER saw happened in the 1990's and thankfully, it didn't happen to me--a prominent front-page photo was placed without a halftone being made,and the entire photo printed absolutely, totally BLACK. Just a two-column, BLACK rectangle with a cutline below it. Doah!

 

[Garbz]

Industry standards no. There's just really the paper's standards. Your photos are in control of the people who put the paper together. I would expect this would be far more variable in the wall street journal then something like national geographic.

 

[hurd300403]

cool! thanks everyone for the info!

 

[Imaginis]

do you do anything to compensate for certain industry standards?

It's generally a good idea to ask the client about their image submissions guidelines, as they can very widely. From what I know, most newspapers are fine with sRGB at 300 dpi and will make any other adjustments on site (NY Times, Washington Post).

When you ask, they will generally send you a specific set of requirements or tell you that they will do all adjustments themselves.

 

[GeneralBenson]

Most photo contracts I've signed for editorial stuff all have something in them about 'reserving the right to alter, crop, color correct and so on'.... So that's pretty standard. But it's pretty annoying when a sunset picture with beautiful warm tones, gets color corrected to 5600k.

 

[craig]

Indablue hit the nail on the head. Also keep in mind that your images are being converted to CMYK for print use. Although generally not a problem; CMYK has been known to kill an image with no turning back.

Interesting side note: Wall Street Journal did not run photos until recently. Editorial art was all illustrations. One of the first photojournalists to have work printed met the publisher on an airplane. The photographer went on to describe how he was on a plane sitting next to a scrapily dressed man who kept looking at his monitor. The photographer was editing photos and eventually had the man look at his website. The man was very impressed. He turned out to be one of the publishers for the Wall Street Journal. You just never know...

Love & Bass