John's comment raises some interesting issues. "Photoshopping" covers a multitude of things, both for the photographer and for whoever is reproducing the picture. I doubt many pictures get reproduced without some kind of "post processing" in a computer program, if not by the photographer than by some graphics artist. Some things are probably pretty obvious, like presumably the more resolution the better. But other things like cropping and color are a matter of taste. In a few cases the graphics artist has done things to my images that made me wish I hadn't submitted the image. Then there are some really interesting technical issues like sharpening. Most graphics artists for obvious reasons want "control" of all this, and will suggest "send me the raw file" or some such. Of course, as the photographer I prefer to have some "control" over MY photographs because the graphics folks can and do occasionally botch the image.

But there can also be some useful interaction. I recently got some advice from a graphic artist
about scanner color settings when scanning old slides that have significantly improved my recent scans.

My experience has been that most "publishers" looking for pix don't provide much information to photographers about all this, so a lot of the stuff submitted is less than ideal. I don't get the sense that there are many standards. Back in the old days an 8x10 glossy print was sort of the standard.

Seems to me there is room for better communication, especially when you often have "professional" graphics artists who presumably have a lot of experience dealing with amateur photographers like me.

JBWX