Ask Brooks

Comments on why my work was rejected?

My submission to LensWork was recently returned, unpublished. Would you mind telling me why you decided not to publish my work? I'd love to know so I can learn from the experience.

— a common question

I wish I could add comments to the work we choose not to publish, but it's simply too overwhelming of a task to do so. We review hundreds of portfolios and as you can imagine, the process of commenting on each one of them would be more than a full time job.

In terms of something along the lines of "critique," I might suggest that workshop programs are a better format in which to solicit that kind of feedback. I found them incredibly useful in my photographic career for the honest and candid review I receive from the workshop instructors and fellow participants.

That said, I've often thought there might be some sort of opportunity for someone out there to offer print commentaries for a fee — sort of a remote review process either via recorded comments or via something like Skype. I'm surprised someone isn't doing it. It could be a great service to the photographic community and a lot less expensive for the photographer than attending a workshop or a review even like Houston FotoFest.

Of course, whoever offers such commentaries would need to be someone whose opinion would be sought by would-be reviewees, but there must be someone out there who has the time to do so — perhaps as a semi-retirement project. Maybe I should file this one away for my post-LensWork days . . .

Bill Jay

The death of Bill Jay left a gaping hole in both photography and humor. I dearly miss reading his EndNotes, which was the first thing I would read in each issue of LensWork. He was one of a kind and, I am sure, irreplaceable. Are there any plans to try and find another writer of similar humor and insight? Or would that be an exercise in futility?

— Chuck

Bill was one of a kind. He is irreplaceable. I am convinced it would be exceedingly unkind of me to ask anyone else to "take over Bill's slot" and try to write EndNotes in his stead. The inevitable comparisons would simply not be fair. No one alive has Bill's knowledge, experience, and wit — all combined into one irascible pen. I would suggest the way to replace Bill is to go back and reread him.

You are not alone. Believe me, there are more photographers than you would guess who miss him dearly.

Color work in LensWork

Does LensWork ever publish works in color or just pure black & white. If not, I would be interested in the rationale. Thanks.

—Ron

Actually, we do publish color work — in LensWork Extended. I cringe every time we get this question because it's an indictment about how poorly we are communicating what LensWork Extended is. We've got to do a better job of this.

As to the magazine, you're correct. We've considered it from time to time, but our audience influences our thinking as much as anything. LensWork was started and built as a publication for b/w work only and its audience is primarily photographers who work in b/w. I suspect this is because so many of them, like me, were so dedicated to the personal darkroom. Until the digital workflow entered the photographic world, a "personal darkroom" almost always implied b/w work because color was such a difficult (and expensive) thing to do well in a corner of the basement. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s in all the workshops I attended, I doubt I saw more than a half a dozen color portfolios. And of course, for many of us, the great masters of the tradition of fine art photography were all b/w photographers with few exceptions. So, momentum is the short answer.

Then there is the point of view that b/w photography offers more room for creativity than color does. This is open to debate, I know, but I tend agree.

But, the real reason? I'm a b/w guy and always have been. It's my first love. And LensWork is my baby, so I guess I get to do what I want — and then just hope enough other folks appreciate it that I can keep doing it.

I must, however, acknowledge that times are changing. Since most photographers now shoot digitally, they shoot natively in color. Their digital files are in color, so their workflow starts in color. Unlike the old darkroom days where b/w was natural and easy and color was the challenge that required extra effort, now the digital image is color by default and it takes extra effort to make the b/w print! A complete reversal of a century-old paradigm. I'm seeing more and more color work in our submissions. Indeed, I just announced my first personal work that is in color. (Gasp!) With this growing trend, we could add color to LensWork, but I'm hesitant. And, because we can publish color work in LensWork Extended, we're not ignoring color work, but rather just have a place for it where it fits very naturally.

DPI for submissions

I am preparing a submission to LensWork. The portfolio submission guidelines indicate a pixel width or height size. I did not see a dpi size. Do you prefer 72dpi, 240 dpi, or 300 dpi?

— Michael

This is a common question and needs some clarification.

First, the term dpi is "dots per inch. " This is a hold-over term from offset printing days which refers to the dot density in a half-tone images, like in the newspaper. Lay down a ruler and count the number of dots in an inch; no more sophisticated than that. In recent years, this has fallen out of favor for computer images for a more up-to-date term, PPI which is an acronym for "pixels per inch."

Both of them are meaningless in some regards.

The PPI is not really a measurement of the resolution of an image, but rather the density of pixels when spread over a given linear space. Output devices require a sufficient density of pixels for their needs. Greater density is discarded to no advantage; lesser density will result in a compromise in image quality — often called "pixelization," a blockiness to the edges and smooth tones.

Inkjet printers typically require a pixel density of around 300 pixels-per-inch, give or take a little. Most people use somewhere between 240ppi and 360ppi; there is some debate about the optimum.

The resolution of most monitors is 96ppi, older ones as low as 72ppi.

We produce two different publications with the images that are accepted for publication.

• LensWork (our print edition) is printed on an offset printer that requires 400ppi for the best reproductions. Because of the page size, the largest images can be as wide as 5.5" or as tall as 7". A little math will show that a landscape orientation image must have at least 2200 pixels horizontally or we won't be able to provide the necessary pixel density. Portrait orientation images must have at least 2800 pixels vertically. Hence our submissions guidelines specify these as the minimum dimensions — 2200 pixels wide or 2800 pixels tall, depending on the orientation of the image. More than 2200 pixels in width or more than 2800 pixels in height is not a problem, but not needed for our use. Fewer pixels in either dimension mean we run the risk of compromising image quality on the press.
• LensWork Extended (our multimedia edition on computer disc) requires 96ppi for display purposes, but we produce it at 200ppi so readers can zoom in on the details of an image without pixelization. This also accommodates large monitors and HDTV presentations. Based on the size of the InDesign layouts we use to create LensWork Extended, we need images that are at least 2222 pixels wide or at last 1666 pixels tall. This is within the parameters of the print dimensions we need for LensWork, so the 2200x2800 pixel images in LensWork will reproduce beautifully in LensWork Extended, too. In essence, we simply resample the images to the required pixel density — PPI — as needed for each publication.

So, it makes no difference to us whether you provide 10 PPI or 10,000 PPI images as long as they are at least 2200 pixels wide or not less than 2800 pixels tall. We'll arrange the pixel density as needed for each use.

For your own use, the PPI can make a difference in this regard: Placing images into some other software application, e.g., InDesign, will cause the receiving application to size the image base on the PPI specifications in the image file. Drop a 2200x2800 image set to 72 PPI into InDesign and the image will be huge. Change the image (in Photoshop, for example) to be a 2200x2800 image at 5000 PPI and the image place in InDesign will be tiny. Both images will be 2200x2800 pixels, they'll just render in your layout at different sizes based on the PPI specification. You can, of course, resize either of these images inside InDesign and as long as the final pixel density meets your output requirements there is no functional difference between the 72ppi and the 5000ppi image in the output from InDesign. The only thing that counts is the final output pixel density — which is a function of the available total number of pixels in the originating file and the output size in the InDesign layout.

Whew! Make sense?

Submitting work for publication in LensWork

Without a doubt, the most common question I'm asked is, How can I get my work published in LensWork? Here is the answer . . .

We always enjoy getting a chance to look at new work. In fact, about half of what we've published in LensWork comes from submissions that were originally unsolicited, that is to say, from readers and subscribers who just send in their work so we can take a look. We love giving exposure to people who are doing good work but are not plugged into the publicity machines that galleries and traditional publishers provide.

Our submission guidelines are available www.lenswork.com/submissionguidelines.pdf. (You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader version 7 to open this file.) Please review these submission guidelines and then feel free to send in your work for consideration.

Obviously, we can't publish everything that is submitted, but we also can't publish work that isn't ever submitted! The best way to start is to send in the work and let us take a look!