| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2006 09:04:56 PM · #1 |
i had an assignment today for the Richmond Times-Dispatch that was described to me as an 'oh-good-golly'...
i was to cover the memorial service for a sheriffs deputy who died in the line of duty last week. even though the service was open to the public, being held in a high school auditorium, the family did not want it to be a media circus. they turned everything over to the virginia state police who coordinated everything, including managing the media. the 'oh-good-golly' was that the photo and video media could only cover from the outside, and then from a cordoned-off area.
this really didn't matter to me. i always work within the parameters i'm given, and just do the best i can with what i have to work with. this assignment would be no different. granted, being kept at a distance does tend to detach oneself from any potential emotion, but, all the same, this guy's family deserves whatever they ask for.
while waiting for the service to end, i shot a ton of stuff--motorcycles, policemen, flags, etc. and, when the time came, i got my shots of the flag-draped casket coming out past the color guard and of the widow. as i was getting ready to go, the Va State Police spokesperson suggested that the motorcade and processional might make for some good shots. so i went out to where the drive met the road and waited.
i'm glad i did. i got some pretty good shots there. the following is one of the three that i turned into the paper. when i called in, i was told they were waiting, because they were looking for something to run A1, above the fold. i won't know until tomorrow what they picked and where they ran it.
the thing is, later, after dinner, i revisited the editing. on my submission, i only did basic editing. on my revisit, well, i pushed it. tomorrow, i plan on talking to the director of photography and some of the senior photographers to find out how much of my revisit would have been acceptable.
original submission. . re-edited version
 
i also hope to find out if they have any written policy or guidelines for post-production... |
|
|
|
09/24/2006 09:07:49 PM · #2 |
| The re-edited version is fabulous! Everything about it is perfect..good luck! |
|
|
|
09/24/2006 09:10:19 PM · #3 |
Is the picture gonna be published in color, I mean is that a given? and if it is, will the extra PP really show up in the newspaper print, I dont know what kinda of color range they print at?
Silly Questions probably..
|
|
|
|
09/24/2006 09:12:08 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
09/24/2006 09:14:23 PM · #5 |
not silly
Originally posted by buzzrock:
Is the picture gonna be published in color, I mean is that a given? and if it is, will the extra PP really show up in the newspaper print, I dont know what kinda of color range they print at? |
if it's front page, it's always color. they also run a fair amount of color inside, as well. everything gets submitted in color, and they have some incredible talent that does the pre-press toning. i mean, they do some amazing bw conversions. they can cover a broad spectrum, so chances are, if they got something like the 2nd version and ran it, it would show up pretty much like it does on my screen. the question is, just how much of that pp would they allow ;-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2006 09:22:59 PM · #6 |
| I guess you might keep in mind that newspapers are generally for sale and images must capture enough of the viewer's attention to make them purchase it. I can see the caution felt when applying PP to photos that may exhibit a sensitive message but it is still a photo used to drawn in the reader and as long as the message is not lost and the image is not changed. That being said, I do not think your editing is inappropriate but rather necessary to enhance the impact needed to encourage people to read the article. I guess your image is the like the "front man" to the text. I'd say your edit was a wise choice. |
|
|
|
09/24/2006 10:22:57 PM · #7 |
I agree. The re-edited photo is best. Too bad you couldn't go up on the ladder truck. (Bird's Eye view there)
I hope you make it ''above the fold"! (I used to work at my hometown paper too...)
Good Luck! |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 12:46:38 PM · #8 |
and now i know ;-)
the RTD does have a written set of guidelines for photographers, but it is in the process of being updated. in the meantime, though, the basic understanding is that as long as the final image is true to what people will have remembered seeing, it is acceptable.
so, in reality, my second version was just a bit past 'too much', considering the sky wasn't quite as dark as i made it out to be.
original submission. . re-edited version
not that it really mattered--they chose to run the two other images ;-)
this one ran on page 1, below the fold
they used another with the article |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 01:07:21 PM · #9 |
I think the redited version is superior to the basic editing version with the exception of the sky, which I think is over-dramatised for the purpose of a journalistic shot.
I think it would work for travel journalism or an area of journalism where the image was representing an idea or destination rather than a very specific event.
But not in this situation.
But the processing in the revisited version is much better for the foreground and middle ground in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 01:07:44 PM · #10 |
Oh, just read the post above mine... sorry, hadn't read that before I posted.
Message edited by author 2006-09-25 13:08:05.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 04:44:08 PM EDT.
