| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2004 05:56:16 PM · #1 |
I have been looking a bit at the National Geographic web site and I see they are getting more friendly towards digital photography. They now have a page that give advice on digital photography, pretty good advice at that. Link here
What is also interesting is the paragraph at the top of the page which reads
“For more than a hundred years the name National Geographic has been synonymous with excellence in photography. Now many of our photographers are joining the digital revolution, making them among the world's top authorities in the field.”
And then there is this Photography Editor w/digital expertise
The times they are a changing.
The clues are all there, it would appear that there will be a shift in National Geographic’s work flow coming some time. Sports Illustrated has already been through this.
I believe that a number of factors are all coming together to push them to this shift
Cost, they develop a lot of film
Quality, with the 1Ds Mark II out there is no question that digital photos can have the quality that they are looking for.
Cheap flash memory cards, Costco is selling the 1 GB compact flash cards for something like $75. When a 1 GB card was running in the many hundreds of dollars the cost to take enough memory in the field was prohibitive, now it is not too bad. Still for the amount of photos they take the cost of flash is going to be pretty high
Avoiding X-Ray machines is getting harder and harder, shipping the images on either DVD or compact flash removes this issue.
I would think that making the change from film to digital will be somewhat painful for them, they have a lot of experience with film after all. But I think they see the inevitable coming and are getting ready for the change. Given the size of the task I don’t expect that they will change overnight, I would not be at all surprised if it takes them another one to two years to “go digital”
I hope as they go through this change they are documenting it and that when they are done they share the experience in the form of an article, I think this would be most interesting.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 05:59:51 PM · #2 |
Just a matter of time. I'm sure their biggest concern is that they have always been proud of the integrity of their photo journalism. They're scared that some of their photos could have been manipulated. I can't see how quality of their printed images would be a problem with the 8MP + cameras.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:05:59 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
Just a matter of time. I'm sure their biggest concern is that they have always been proud of the integrity of their photo journalism. They're scared that some of their photos could have been manipulated. I can't see how quality of their printed images would be a problem with the 8MP + cameras. |
If they require the raw files from the camera it would be very hard for the average photographer to alter the photos, I would think. I know there are kits to ensure the photo is direct from the camera. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:06:34 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
They're scared that some of their photos could have been manipulated. |
For instance, the email entitled "National Geographic's photo of the year" or something equally as ridiculous. It's a great white shark jumping out of the water to make a meal out of a SCUBA diver clinging to a ladder hanging from a helicopter in the ocean.
*yawn* yea right. I was shocked at how many people would fight to the death that it was real. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:11:22 PM · #5 |
| I could be wrong, I often am, but they already did an article where the photographer only used digital. It was the one on the 100th anniversary of the Wright bros flight, I think. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:11:42 PM · #6 |
I found it interesting to read a while back that the bodies often used for wildlife photography for National Geographic photographers are often the 1.5x and 1.6x D100s and Canon D60/10Ds. The format of the magazine doesn't require huge resolution and the focal length multiplier of those cameras are seen as beneficial in those cases.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:54:46 PM · #7 |
I may have a photo in an upcoming issue of National Geographic! Granted, it's the Kids' edition, but I'll still emphasize the words "National Geographic" on my resume if they use one of my shots :)
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 18:56:39. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:57:54 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by pcody:
I could be wrong, I often am, but they already did an article where the photographer only used digital. It was the one on the 100th anniversary of the Wright bros flight, I think. |
You're certainly correct; I have a copy of that issue, even though I am not currently a subscriber (why I don't know, I seem to somehow read almost every issue, LOL).
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 06:58:31 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by alansfreed:
I may have a photo in an upcoming issue of National Geographic! Granted, it's the Kids' edition, but I'll still emphasize the words "National Geographic" on my resume if they use one of my shots :) |
Now THAT would be something to put on a resume!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 07:14:19 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by Jacko:
Just a matter of time. I'm sure their biggest concern is that they have always been proud of the integrity of their photo journalism. They're scared that some of their photos could have been manipulated. I can't see how quality of their printed images would be a problem with the 8MP + cameras. |
If they require the raw files from the camera it would be very hard for the average photographer to alter the photos, I would think. I know there are kits to ensure the photo is direct from the camera. |
These aint no average photographers. lol
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 07:35:38 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by alansfreed:
I may have a photo in an upcoming issue of National Geographic! Granted, it's the Kids' edition, but I'll still emphasize the words "National Geographic" on my resume if they use one of my shots :) |
Now THAT would be something to put on a resume! |
They contacted me about using photos of Punxsutawney Phil for an upcoming issue. Hard to say if anything will come of it... the lady I've been dealing with seems reasonably flakey. It would be cool if they used one.
I'm supposed to have a photo in the January/February issue of "KidZone" magazine (which I've never heard of), also of Groundhog Day related festivities. If anyone has ever heard of this magazine, I'm curious to know whether they're a big deal and if I should be excited :) The issue is supposed to be on the market on December 28. |
|
|
|
11/29/2004 07:39:29 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by hsteg:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by Jacko:
Just a matter of time. I'm sure their biggest concern is that they have always been proud of the integrity of their photo journalism. They're scared that some of their photos could have been manipulated. I can't see how quality of their printed images would be a problem with the 8MP + cameras. |
If they require the raw files from the camera it would be very hard for the average photographer to alter the photos, I would think. I know there are kits to ensure the photo is direct from the camera. |
These aint no average photographers. lol |
To fake a jpg image is pretty easy since there is a lot of editing software that will let you store it in that format. There is also software that allows you to set the exif data to just about anything you want. But to fake a raw file requires being able to write back into the raw format, at this time I don't believe there are any photo editing programs that do this. Whereas there are people who know enough about the raw file formats to do this I doubt that many of them work for National Geogrphic
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 07:45:24 PM · #13 |
I have a feeling they are looking at pretty much every way they can to verify photos, since the "elephant incident" earlier this year. And that was a film photo! Goes to show, digital is not the only format subject to funny business.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2004 07:49:42 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
Just a matter of time. I'm sure their biggest concern is that they have always been proud of the integrity of their photo journalism. They're scared that some of their photos could have been manipulated. I can't see how quality of their printed images would be a problem with the 8MP + cameras. |
This concern however does not go away with film photography, most of the recent "scandals" with National Geographic photos came from film shots.
example: //www.naturephoto.hu/natgeo_english/index.html
and this
//magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature4/special.html
Message edited by author 2004-11-29 19:50:52.
|
|
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: 08/08/2025 08:06:05 AM EDT.
