National Geographic

[poker]

Let's all submit a couple of our stuff here:

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/n...ot/submit.html

It would be great if one of us got printed on National Geographic.

We all know that some of these gimmicks are created to get our email addresses and mailing addresses but what the hell....it should be interesting if one of us got in.

[another view]

It would be interesting to get into the holy grail of magazines, at least as far as photography is concerned, but it sounds like they're looking for a freebie:

and you grant to National Geographic Society and its subsidiaries and licensees (the "NGS") a royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to display, distribute and reproduce the Photograph, in whole or in part, in any medium now existing or subsequently developed for editorial purposes without further review or participation from you.

[Mr Yuck]

yeah, how cheap. But I dont make any money off my hobby anyway. Be good to put in a resume though. Too bad they just want the image right off the camera. I have some that I had to level the horizon but are otherwise great shots.

[Chunk]

They say "Show us your best" and then limit it to small pictures straight from the camera!

[brianc]

how does one excatly provided a:

"original, unmodified digital camera image" that is 1. a JPG. 2. 1,600 pixel max dimension. and 3. no greater than 2 MB???

even my P&S can't do that.

[lidarman]

I don't see why you can't get files that small brian. Sure you have to use more than minimal compression. my d70 yielded 1.5 MB files at 3000x2000 with normal compression. When you print them in a mag, that is plenty and prolly offsets the jpg noise. I don't think N.G. prints them very large in the mag...they are not full page pix.

I think it's interesting that they want the original unmodified file with no cropping, etc. When I took a photog class, we had to do a lot of that (it was film of course). It's fun and teaches you to frame your pix well and not be sloppy.

I suppose N.G. doesn't want people modifying because where would the limit be? People would be doing uber contrast boosts, and saturations. Surely N.G. would never be able to tell (as long as your editor isn't embedding info in the EXIF about the mods) that you tweaked it a little.

[brianc]

I'm sure your right Rich. but if the camera does the compressing why is that different than shooting RAW and doing that post?

I guess you hit the right topic they want limits on what the scurge of the world does with digital photo's. But do they have the same limits on the chemical development process?

it doesn't really matter either way to me, I'm not going to submit. but it irks me a little just like the Red bull contest a while back that said you HAD to have a 8 mega pixel camera to enter.

[almo]

I don't care if it is NatGeo, I don't give that much control over my images to anyone. Especially not for freaking free. They can send me a check, or kiss off.

I get the feeling that what they are looking for is not the kind of stuff we are capable of producing. They are looking for backyard snapshots from Johnny Point&Shoot with his 2 megapixle plastic toy from Walgreens.

[Mr Yuck]

yeah, I took a look at this month's NG in target and their potm was an OOF fish that accidentally got into a shot of a waterscape.

[freygr]

how does one excatly provided a:

"original, unmodified digital camera image" that is 1. a JPG. 2. 1,600 pixel max dimension. and 3. no greater than 2 MB???

even my P&S can't do that.

quite form the rules: "at least 1,600 pixels wide if a horizontal image or 1,600 pixels tall"

That is the smallest they will take 1600 pixels on the long side.

[freygr]

I don't care if it is NatGeo, I don't give that much control over my images to anyone. Especially not for freaking free. They can send me a check, or kiss off.

clip...

For some it's a way to become known.......
I'm sure they don't expect submitions from pro photographers.