{"id":3894,"date":"2013-02-28T15:34:58","date_gmt":"2013-02-28T20:34:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/?p=3894"},"modified":"2013-02-28T15:50:07","modified_gmt":"2013-02-28T20:50:07","slug":"national-geographic-would-disqualify-this-photo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/?p=3894","title":{"rendered":"National Geographic Would Disqualify This Photo"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"attachment_3895\" style=\"width: 710px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/000820-Turnagain-Sunstar-CMD28-w7.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-3895\" class=\"size-full wp-image-3895\" title=\"Turnagain Sunstar, Alaska\" src=\"http:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/000820-Turnagain-Sunstar-CMD28-w7.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"700\" height=\"479\" \/><\/a><p id=\"caption-attachment-3895\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Sunstar Over Turnagain Arm, Alaska<\/p><\/div>\n<p>If I had submitted this photo to the 2012 National Geographic photo contest it would have been disqualified. Why? It hasn&#8217;t been digitally altered in any way. And the &#8220;sunstar&#8221; isn&#8217;t the problem.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>This is a digital scan of the original slide, just like it was created in the camera. What you see is exactly what I saw with my own eyes when I took the picture (except for the sunstar &#8211; more about that later). I didn&#8217;t digitally add or remove anything. I didn&#8217;t mess with the color.\u00c2\u00a0 So what photographic sin (in the eyes of Nat Geo) did I commit?\u00c2\u00a0 Here it is:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;<strong>FISH-EYE LENSES: <\/strong>Unless used underwater, they are NOT acceptable.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>I used a 15mm fish-eye lens. It is the one item in the <a href=\"http:\/\/ngm.nationalgeographic.com\/ngm\/photo-contest\/digital-manipulation-notice\/\">NatGeo contest rules<\/a> that makes no sense to me. All the other rules are fine (they are listed below). So what is the logic behind this rule?\u00c2\u00a0 A fish-eye lens does bend straight lines that don&#8217;t run straight through the center of the photo. But so do other lenses, just not so obviously. Any really wide angle lens distorts things a bit, especially if they aren&#8217;t a true rectilinear lens. So why draw the line at a fish-eye lens? What about some zoom lenses with an extreme range that zoom from a more normal focal length to a fish-eye focal length?\u00c2\u00a0 At what focal length is the line drawn? I don&#8217;t get it.<\/p>\n<p>If it weren&#8217;t for another photographer violating one of the other rules, I wouldn&#8217;t even know about the fish-eye rule. And I would never knowingly send in a photo that violated one of the rules (and I haven&#8217;t submitted any photos to a NatGeo contest, at least not yet). But I must admit, this one rule surprised me.\u00c2\u00a0 If you submit photos to a contest, it is important to read all of the rules.<\/p>\n<p>NatGeo does allow fish-eye lenses to be used underwater. Do fishes have special privileges? As a friend of mine on Facebook so cleverly put it, &#8220;Well can the bird&#8217;s eye view lens only be use from the air then?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/nan-fish-eye-birds-eye-crp-blur-j61.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-3898\" title=\"nan-fish-eye-birds-eye-crp-blur-j6\" src=\"http:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/nan-fish-eye-birds-eye-crp-blur-j61.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"580\" height=\"321\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/nan-fish-eye-birds-eye-crp-blur-j61.jpg 580w, https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/nan-fish-eye-birds-eye-crp-blur-j61-300x166.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/nan-fish-eye-birds-eye-crp-blur-j61-500x276.jpg 500w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 580px) 100vw, 580px\" \/><\/a>This isn&#8217;t about photographic art, of course, and I&#8217;m not against photographic manipulation in a non-journalistic context.<\/p>\n<p>NatGeo, newspapers, and news magazines have rules so the reader knows that &#8220;what you see&#8221; in a photograph is true to reality. I&#8217;m all for that. But I don&#8217;t see how a photo with a fish-eye lens violates that principle.<\/p>\n<p>NatGeo hasn&#8217;t always followed its own rules. On the February 1982 cover photo, they <a href=\"http:\/\/www.museumofhoaxes.com\/hoax\/photo_database\/image\/the_case_of_the_moving_pyramids\">moved pyramids closer together<\/a> to better fit the vertical format.<\/p>\n<p><strong>&#8220;Natural&#8221; Sunstars<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If you are wondering about the presence of sunstar in the above photo, it wasn&#8217;t created with a star filter.\u00c2\u00a0 It is a natural result of shooting a bright light source with a small lens aperture, like f\/16 or f\/22.\u00c2\u00a0 It is created when the rays of light bend where the aperture blades meet. You can do it with streetlights at night by stopping the lens down to a small aperture.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/ngm.nationalgeographic.com\/ngm\/photo-contest\/digital-manipulation-notice\/\"><strong>NatGeo 2012 Photo Contest &#8220;Manipulation&#8221; Rules<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/NatGeo-2012-manipulation-rules-j7.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-3896\" title=\"NatGeo-2012-manipulation-rules-j7\" src=\"http:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/NatGeo-2012-manipulation-rules-j7.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"689\" height=\"721\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/NatGeo-2012-manipulation-rules-j7.jpg 689w, https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/NatGeo-2012-manipulation-rules-j7-286x300.jpg 286w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 689px) 100vw, 689px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>If I had submitted this photo to the 2012 National Geographic photo contest it would have been disqualified. Why? It hasn&#8217;t been digitally altered in any way. And the &#8220;sunstar&#8221; isn&#8217;t the problem.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,26,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","category-photographs","category-using-equipment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3894"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3894\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3907,"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3894\/revisions\/3907"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.blog.jimdoty.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}