Submitting to Local Newspaper

[JimMcClain]

I went to a local event yesterday to listen to music, eat some food and maybe, just maybe I'd find a picture I wanted. I'm not much for street photography, but once in a while I will catch something sweet, like a little girl dancing. And since the event was in a grassy plaza near some historic buildings, I thought that would make a good background.

As I was sitting on the grass shooting, the editor of our local newspaper came up to me. I don't know her particularly well, but we are facebook friends and she likes many of the pictures I post on facebook. She said she'd dropped and broke her camera and asked, if I got any crowd shots, would I be willing to submit them to the paper (it's published only once a week). Of course, I was flattered she would ask and said I would.

Many years ago, when I was involved in film photography, I had some pictures published in lesser-known SF Bay Area newspapers (San Mateo Times was one). It was a thrill to see my byline below a picture. So, I was a little excited and I shot almost 150 pictures yesterday. I pared them down to about 30 that might meet her criteria as crowd shots. The crowd was not very enthusiastic, very little dancing or clapping/waving of hands and arms, so it was a crap shoot - pun intended.

When I spoke with her at the event, it was obvious she didn't know what "RAW format" meant. She was trying to convey that she just wanted the raw pictures without my artistic touch. The only camera I have ever seen her or any other newspaper employee use is the P&S variety. I'm also aware that most every picture I've seen in our paper is flat and washed out and nearly colorless. I can see what the newsprint process does to those P&S pictures. So, I developed in Lightroom - 30 some odd pictures - and sent her an email with just one teaser and asked if she could come by to choose from all those I had to offer.

When I processed, I knew much would be lost in the newsprint process, so this is what I sent her (the following images are reduced in dimensions and dpi from the 6000x4000 300dpi originals):

She replied to my email with...

I absolutely love the photo content and the scene that you captured. But it has a stylized look to it, that makes it look like a cross between a photo and a painting. It's absolutely beautiful, but we couldn't run it like this in the newspaper. The picture of the little girl that you posted on Facebook, would be appropriate style-wise. I would love to run the photo that you submitted to me but more in its raw form. Is that possible?

I had explained when I sent the image that it was over-saturated to compensate for the loss of saturation during newsprint processing. I hoped that she understood that, but I still wanted to have a picture to submit. She said nothing about the 30 other pictures I offered to let her choose from. So, to appease her, I sent the following 2 versions, a desaturated color and a B&W that I thought was an acceptable compromise - after all, it is a newspaper that posts a lot of B&W images.

She replied back...

They still have a painted quality.

It needs to look like a virgin photo that is virtually untouched. Is that possible. Do you still have the photo just as you took it?

The photos are beautiful but too artsy. I don't know if I'm explaining this well.

I don't know what she would have done if I sent her the .NEF file. In exasperation and wanting to honor my commitment, I sent this final image:

I suggested she use her own image editing program to make any changes. She replied back...

This one is perfect !!!

This will likely be the last time I ever submit a photo to my local newspaper. I won't see the result until Wednesday, but I anticipate it will be as flat and washed out as this - even worse in newsprint. She doesn't know the difference.

What I should have done is ask for advice on processing here on TPF first, then submit.

Jim

 

[W.Fovall]

Journalist are not allowed to modify picture in any way.. has to be straight out of camera or they cant publish it. no crop, no color balance, no nothing...
most just shoot in Jpeg on auto..

 

[The_Traveler]

Journalist are not allowed to modify picture in any way.. has to be straight out of camera or they cant publish it. no crop, no color balance, no nothing...
most just shoot in Jpeg on auto..

That's a blanket statement that just isn't correct.

 

[W.Fovall]

That's a blanket statement that just isn't correct.

from CNN
"
If you're going to edit a photo, please remember that you can make adjustments, but you need to keep the photo's original meaning in tact. That means don't crop out people or objects who are important to the meaning of the picture, and don't make so many adjustments that the viewer is misled (i.e., if the photo was shot at night, don't play with the lighting to make it look like it was shot during the day).

Always keep a copy of the original, unedited photo, because we frequently ask for that if the submitted picture is too heavily edited for us to use.

All the same rules apply for photos taken with apps like Instagram and Hipstamatic. We prefer unfiltered images, but if you'd like to add a filter, just make sure you tell us what you did."

it is true most shoot jpeg... they upload images straight from the scene to the office for print, they dont sit on the side of the road in Iraq with lightroom on a computer...

 

[Derrel]

High-level journalistic standards SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT weird HDR effects, substantial changes to the toning or lighting of the situation, and so on. The one, single thing you need to do though is to get the black point set around 15 or so, to prevent massive dot-gain when the darker ink hits the newsprint...and you need to sharpen the daylights out of the files, like 110 percent at 1.2 pixel radius --I mean realllllllllly "crunchy sharpening", because the image will be broken down into coarse halftone "dots". An image that looks like crap on a computer monitor sized to 10 inches on the long axis and 200 ppi (200,not 300) and sharpened very aggressively, will print great on most web presses in use today.

You also need to make sure to apply sort of a "printing curve", so that the images do not go excessively dark in the lowest tones especially. But yeah, substantially altering the lighting of an event is considered a serious breach of journalistic ethics by most newspapers, which have as I said, specific guidelines that tell photogrphers NOT to materially alter the weather, or the lighting, of any news scenes.

For photo illuistrations, sure, a lot can fly, but the HDR-like effect would be a real no-no to most any newspaper editor on "news" images.


I have shot for multiple newspapers, and one of my best friends was one of the chief photo prep techs for The Oregonian newspaper for over 20 years; on news shots, you just can not go around altering reality to HDR type standards. Hundreds of people will see the photos, and many of them were there, and altering the lighting like that is just unacceptable. Photographers have been fired for trying to make the weather look different, or to make a bleak days look "brighter". She is right: your original two photos have a very heavily edited "digital", "interpretive" look to the scene, and most editors would not accept that in news photos. In photo illustrations, maybe, but for straight news, no way.

 

[JimMcClain]

Journalist are not allowed to modify picture in any way.. has to be straight out of camera or they cant publish it. no crop, no color balance, no nothing...
most just shoot in Jpeg on auto..

Unless you are a journalist with a newspaper publication that has that rule, I believe you are wrong. Your subsequent reply contradicts your first.

When I spoke with the editor at the plaza, I told her I would develop my pictures using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. She agreed to that, with the caveat that I would not add to or subtract objects from to the scene. I asked about white balance, etc. and she didn't seem to understand what I was talking about, but reiterated: no "air brushing" or adding people that weren't there or removing signs or wires, etc. It was only after I submitted my first photo that she objected to my "artsy" interpretation. I agreed with her assessment and resubmitted the picture in natural tone and color. But again, she said the same after my second.

My first submission did add saturation and vibrancy. My second, however, was far more natural than the last submission, which was an absence of tone and color from the actual scene. If she had shot the scene herself with her P&S camera, it would have turned out more like my #2 than my final submission, so I believe her objection was because I told her I used software to get the results she usually lets her camera do.

Jim

 

[JimMcClain]

She is right: your original two photos have a very heavily edited "digital", "interpretive" look to the scene, and most editors would not accept that in news photos. In photo illustrations, maybe, but for straight news, no way.

I'm not sure this is considered straight news. It is a picture to illustrate Plumas Arts Association event in support of the local theater and art shows.

Jim

 

[W.Fovall]

Unless you are a journalist with a newspaper publication that has that rule, I believe you are wrong. Your subsequent reply contradicts your first.

When I spoke with the editor at the plaza, I told her I would develop my pictures using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. She agreed to that, with the caveat that I would not add to or subtract objects from to the scene. I asked about white balance, etc. and she didn't seem to understand what I was talking about, but reiterated: no "air brushing" or adding people that weren't there or removing signs or wires, etc. It was only after I submitted my first photo that she objected to my "artsy" interpretation. I agreed with her assessment and resubmitted the picture in natural tone and color. But again, she said the same after my second.

My first submission did add saturation and vibrancy. My second, however, was far more natural than the last submission, which was an absence of tone and color from the actual scene. If she had shot the scene herself with her P&S camera, it would have turned out more like my #2 than my final submission, so I believe her objection was because I told her I used software to get the results she usually lets her camera do.

Jim

so you disagree that they dont want a edited image even though she said not to edit image...

 

[W.Fovall]

Ethics in Photo Editing

 

[JimMcClain]

so you disagree that they dont want a edited image even though she said not to edit image...

Did you really just put words in my/her mouth that weren't actually uttered? If you don't want to read my posts, that's fine. Then don't participate in the discussion.

 

[W.Fovall]

Did you really just put words in my/her mouth that weren't actually uttered? If you don't want to read my posts, that's fine. Then don't participate in the discussion.

the email reply you posted stated she wanted it to be in the raw form... that means unedited... duh..
so the newspaper lady replies with that she wants the raw form and you take that as she wants it edited?

 

[imagemaker46]

You can crop, colour correct, add or remove contrast, lighten, darken. What you can't do, is add or remove things. Basically anything that could be done in a darkroom, is ok. Photographers send photos from anywhere they can, as long as they have a cell phone and a signal. Most photographers I know do all the captions and work on the images before they are ever transmitted.

 

[JimMcClain]

She apparently doesn't know what "raw" means in photographic terms. When I discussed with her, in the plaza, what she wanted and what she allowed, I thought I had a clear idea of what she would accept. I admit to pushing the limits with my first submission. But my second was probably no different than what she would have gotten herself with her P&S camera. She reinforced that opinion by referring to a picture of a child at this same event I posted on my facebook page.

Her acceptance of the image she finally accepted and her proclamation that it was "perfect" (along with all the other pictures I have seen in the paper since she has been the editor) solidifies my opinion that she doesn't actually have a good understanding of photography, even as it relates only to newspapers. And I don't think there is anyone at the newspaper that will use an image editing program to make my final submission better.

Jim

 

[W.Fovall]

they just had a hour long show about a journalist that was killed in iraq on hbo last week, they talked about the process of deciding what to shoot and that how if he edits a image it changes from journalism to art. they spoke about how even if the image is just cropped a little or changed in any way they would have to mention that along with the image and post the unedited version along with it.

 

[CameraClicker]

A little weekly probably doesn't have the resources of a major daily paper, and with minimal understanding of photography they tend to err on the safe side, as they understand it. Her version of "raw" is unedited, rather than "raw file" sensor data as we talk about it.
Editing happens when you point the camera and twist the zoom ring, or zoom with your feet. It happens again if you crop after the shutter is released. Some photographers have been in hot water because the original photo was shot too tight. Others have had their photos severely cropped by editors. The real object is to provide a true representation of the facts. Usually white balance, brightness, contrast and cropping are permitted. The more editing you do, the less acceptable it becomes.
The first two look too saturated, the last one might benefit from mid-tone contrast and sharpening, which would probably be acceptable. If she is friendly, over time you could probably fit in some education for her.