When I first started looking at the Picture of the Day several months ago, the pictures tended to be delightfully off beat and full of human interest, even if perhaps subject to criticism on grounds of photographic composition and other technicalities of the art (and the comments were ripe with such criticism). Moreover, the editor explained exactly why he or she was attracted to the picture --what made it "great." As one young in photography, albeit slightly advanced in age, I found this enormously instructive of what I should be striving for in my photographs. The pictures of the last several weeks, and the editor's comments about them, are something entirely different. The photographs are undoubtedly technically perfect and display the photographer's ingenuity in the art, but they tend to be dull as rice. And the editor's comments generally consist of a dreary description of what this picture is about, but also written with a tinge of ideological coloration that I find offensive. Let the picture speak, ideologically, for itself -- with each reader drawing whatever conclusions he or she deems appropriate. Conclusion: change back to the prior editor.
@Thomas Haggard cannot help but wonder if you think that an editor who selects an image that "tend to be as dull as rice" is a bit harsh for photographers who have experienced a huge professional accomplishment in having an image selected as Photo of The Day here at National Geographic Magazine! Please be aware that reading such harsh words and judgments of the photographers and the people working at National Geographic is pretty sad for some of us to read. "Whatever you are by nature, keep to it; never desert your own line of talent. Be what nature intended you for, and you will succeed; be anything else and you will be ten thousand times worse than nothing." Sydney Smith I, personally as a photographer, was thrilled to read the editor's comment on my image "Moonrise, Colorado" on 6 February 2012 I do find your comments interesting, Thomas, and love our freedoms to express our opinions here!! Cheers!!
even if i am not the editor (or editors) that you are addressing, i am taking the libery to chime in... what does photo of the day represent or supposed to represent? i think for everyone that is individual, and i personally think that the scope is varied and not just one aim. i have noticed in the past similar comments or comments which tend to express similar judgements and often (ALMOST ALWAYS) it is with photos of the day which are drawn from photos from articles that have been published in nat geo magazine * Meaning photos that are very tightly connected to a story and context and not being the story in itself.
For me these photos by nat geo photographers have often allowed me to delve in "the whole picture of things" (forgive the pun), by following the link to the article or other photos that belong to the same series... and often enlightening me to the context, background or other information which i almost always found educational and usually fascinating and which i personally would never have gathered from just looking at the photo briefly . Other photos of the day, represent just beautiful and powerful images on their own and don't need a context and personally i beleive that it's nice to have such contrasts .
*n.b meaning also taken by a nat geo professional photographer
On the positive side: What a fantastic image our human photographer has created showing us (up here above the water) the manatee & hence, is helping the manatee with images and stories!...Looks as though the two precious manatees on the right are having a conversation! Captivating image!
So sad that the people who own boats have no regard for their environment or waterway rules/laws....
I am pretty sure they know when they strike a manatee with their boat....how many call for help?
Subscribe to National Geographic magazine and save. Print and digital editions available.