| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2005 07:24:44 PM · #1 |
I was just poking about on the Nat'l Geo. website & it occurred to me - a lot of you guys take photos that are just as good as - if not better than - the ones they have. And ya'll have something those guys don't - ya'll are accessible and willing to share your expertise.
Thank you.
Sara |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 07:34:55 PM · #2 |
You see, a lot of the business of photography is about promotion and marketing, just as with any other business.
But you're right - there are some photographers here who could make a seriously good name for themselves.
e |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 07:37:17 PM · #3 |
....and National Geographic doesn't just take pictures!
They make contacts, research stories and then tell them using words and photos.
I agree, nice photos here but it takes more than just that!
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 07:37:56 PM · #4 |
What differentiates a National Geographic photographer from any other good photographer?
1. He/She works for National Geographic.
It's unfortunate that there aren't enough great photography jobs to go around :)
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 07:38:03 PM · #5 |
Funny that, because I was browsing a copy the other day and was struck how brilliant some of the shots in that partcular issue were. Some due to timing and capture skill, others down to pure technical brilliance.
Definitely some great shooter here too, but I think they research their pics well - always impress me.
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 19:38:40. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:03:28 PM · #6 |
I hate to stir up an age-old debate about film vs. digital, especially since I may be wrong... but the last I heard (or at least had the impression) - don't photographers for organizations like National Geographic have to shoot film and do all their editing in the darkroom? And might even be limited to what they are allowed to manipulate? I know it's just a different method, but it certainly makes it more difficult than getting my preview immediately in Photoshop. Can anyone verify or disprove this statement for me/us?
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:05:59 PM · #7 |
Not to negate anything sara said (we DO have some wonderful shooters here) but what differentiates (or distinguishes) a Geographic shooter is the ability to deliver, time after time, in difficult situations and under considerable pressure. While many here have taken, and will continue to take, individual images the equal of any you can see anywhere, the Geographic people, as a group, are proven in the field.
I can see Imagineer working for them, and Librodo, to name but two; that's assuming they can "handle" the full scope of the job, which I've no reason to assume otherwise.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:06:22 PM · #8 |
And as Imagineer has mentioned, many of these photographers are excellent for producing images that effectively tell stories. We can sit around with our lighting, backdrops, props, play with our lenses, look at our LCD preview, fool with exposure settings, etc... but many of the photographers for NG, the AP, etc, etc are producing shots that may only present themselves for a second or two. On top of this, they produce them with precise composition, exposure, colors, emotion, etc. Maybe I just haven't seen the bad NG photographers' shots yet :P
edit: And what Robert apparently said while I was typing the above response :)
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 20:07:09.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:07:18 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
I hate to stir up an age-old debate about film vs. digital, especially since I may be wrong... but the last I heard (or at least had the impression) - don't photographers for organizations like National Geographic have to shoot film and do all their editing in the darkroom? And might even be limited to what they are allowed to manipulate? I know it's just a different method, but it certainly makes it more difficult than getting my preview immediately in Photoshop. Can anyone verify or disprove this statement for me/us? |
The last I heard they had to shoot film, yes, but it's transparency film and no darkroom work is involved. I don't know if they've made the switch to digital, my info is 5-6 years out of date.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:11:39 PM · #10 |
| I gotta agree with Robert here. It's one thing to take a gorgeous pic of a lion in a zoo, but ENTIRELY different when he's close enough to smell without any bars or moats around..... |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:33:56 PM · #11 |
also i might just add that we have a 'hobby' that we love, no strings attached, they are doing it as their job, with many strings attached... they know that it wouldn't take much for the next photographer to take an assignment away from them if their shots arn't great.... must take at least some of the love and fun away..... mind you.. wish i worked for them, the travel would be fun for a while.....
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 20:36:20. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:38:58 PM · #12 |
It's true that when you do this hobby for a living, a lot of the "fun" goes away, replaced with pressure to perform, turn in work that exceeds expectations every time. I was never a Geographic photographer, obviously, but when we had our studio I was also on staff at two magazines, and it got really uncomfortable sometimes. After 25 years in the biz I totally burned out on it, and basically quit shooting for almost a decade. I'm back fresh now, having fun. Wild horses couldn't drag me back into commercial photography as a day-to-day job; I'm sure it's even worse for photojournalists, who are a very special breed. How would YOU like not living "at home" for most of the year? Not many can handle that, though some thrive on it.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:43:35 PM · #13 |
| I'd love to have that job, maybe someday...gotta finish school first. The next hunk of money I spend on photo gear I am buying a medium format system and a ton of velvia. There's great shots on here, but like mentioned earlier, the consistency is what makes it. I dont think (and not to put anyone down because I haven't even placed well before) that even the ribbon winners of every week have the quality of national geographic photos. Sometimes they do, but the consistency under pressure I think is what makes national geographic. I don't think that would necessarily take away from the fun of the job, it would add to the excitement that some people would thrive off of. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:47:06 PM · #14 |
With very rare exceptions, all Geographic work is done on 35mm slides. They are famous for it. Pioneered the whole idea, in fact, back when the common wisdom was that you couldn't do quality work with such small film. At one time they required Kodachrome, wouldn't allow Ektachrome; this was before Fuji Film days. I have no idea what their film requirements are now, but I'm sure they are strict about whatever they use. The whole key to producing a magazine like that is to be able to gang the separations, which requires consistent color and exposure throughout the book.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:50:28 PM · #15 |
Here is a great article that talks about the first time Nat. Geographic allowed digital photography for a story. This discusses the behind-the-scenes details of the entire affair.
While I'm sure the majority of their work is still film, I'm positive that more digital is working its way in.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 09:00:23 PM · #16 |
Here's another article in NG that was shot digitally. (Look at the field notes.)
Both of these examples were from 2003. I'm sure if I searched more, I could find more evidence that digital was in the mix.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 09:08:33 PM · #17 |
Thanks for the links muckpond - I checked out the first one and it was an interesting read. Imagine having to invert an airplane just so that you can pick up your roll of film!
I guess this means that NG may move to digital (although very slowly), just as many others are seeming to do.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 09:29:52 PM · #18 |
| They shoot tens of thousands of frames for each story...and they have access...secret of their success... |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 10:19:14 PM · #19 |
Something to keep in mind is that photographers who work for an outfit like NG or SI have virtually unlimited suport. If one of their shooters is in the jungles of Africa and his 1Ds MkII goes bad, he doens't have to send it off to Canon and wait three weeks like us common folk. More likely a new one is overnighted to him. And I doubt if they do their own darkroom work, traditional or digital. They have staffs of experts to do that for them. It's not surprising that they can come up with top notch photography consistantly. Afterall, a multi-million dollar operation is geared to do just that.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 10:21:12 PM · #20 |
| Or they simply have the resources to caryy dozens with them so no time at all is lost, rather than having to wait for an overnight package. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 10:31:20 PM · #21 |
i actually found this thread about SI's digital workflow incredibly interesting as well.
you think you have trouble going through the shots YOU take... lol
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 11:48:43 PM · #22 |
Wow, another very interesting article! Thanks again for linking it. The funny thing is that I bet the "15,000 pieces of crap" he went through before getting the cover were probably mostly images that we'd all be very proud to have taken. (This is especially evident when he calls his dual xeon monster computer a dinosaur)
If this guy is going through two images per second, he either has a very refined eye or is out of his mind. I suspect a little of both, but I'm sure that's what they pay him for ;)
|
|
|
|
05/03/2005 02:47:43 AM · #23 |
Exactly. They are very picky about what they put in the magazine, I'm sure a lot of the ones that end up on the cutting room floor would be prized shots for most of us. I think that given the same resources, more than just the few photographers Bear_Music mentions would be able to produce NG shots. The question is, would they be up to the extreme conditions to do so?
-danny
Originally posted by doctornick:
They shoot tens of thousands of frames for each story...and they have access...secret of their success... |
Message edited by author 2005-05-03 11:18:40. |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 03:07:03 AM · #24 |
Think I should mention virtual trinkets in the job application?
ROFL
I'd be lucky to qualify to sweep their floors! |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 09:15:40 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
...
If this guy is going through two images per second, he either has a very refined eye or is out of his mind. I suspect a little of both, but I'm sure that's what they pay him for ;) |
No, he just had plenty of practice by voting on DPC challenges ;o) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 11:49:51 PM EST.
