National Geographic Prediction - DPChallenge Forums

01/13/2004 06:15:37 PM · #26

In general, when I think of NG photos, I think of well photographed scenery (natural, monumental, city-scape, wildlife - "most" anything outdoors... except oil stains on driveways) and cultrural portraits (this is where the topless natives comes in). Yes, almost anything could appear in NG, but I think the key here is not to take a picture of whatever you want then say "hey, NG covered this topic in the January 1973 issue", but to take a picture that people will look at and think/accept "hey, I could imagine seeing that in NG".

I think quality is part of the key in this challenge. As much whining as there is about DPC voters being stuck on sharpness, color and pretty pictures, I think this is one where those will be integral. (Are there often/ever black and white photos in modern issues of NG?)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/13/2004 06:20:38 PM · #27

Originally posted by ScottK:

I think quality is part of the key in this challenge. As much whining as there is about DPC voters being stuck on sharpness, color and pretty pictures, I think this is one where those will be integral. (Are there often/ever black and white photos in modern issues of NG?)

yes - and quite a lot of soft, blurry or alternatively focused stuff too

Nat Geo 'Through the Lens' is an interesting book - I'd estimate that about half of it is first world urban images of people, normal life that sort of thing, portraits, as well as a sprinkling of macro work, some wildlife, some landscape, some very technical subjects etc...

It isn't just 'they did this in 1973' the last two editions for example have mars explorer/ science pictures on the cover for one, and B2 bombers on the other - this is why its a dumb theme - oil on driveways is a really common subject too (there is a lot of work on polution/ conservation...) The one thing National Geographic is about is interesting photography - that doesn't mean perfectly taken either - just interesting. As it stands, its about as a non-themed challenge as the december free study (with the general assumption that entering crap is never supposed to be any good - though you seem to disagree in your post) but with the problem that there is a lot of pre-concieved notions about what 'national geographic' is that don't have a whole lot of basis in reality (okay - I've just realised this is like every other challenge too) It's probably an apt challenge for roadkill too - there are plenty of dead animals on the nat-geo web site

Message edited by author 2004-01-13 18:23:33.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/13/2004 06:27:19 PM · #28

Or to help further confuse the issue, this is how the National Geographic describes itself

The National Geographic Society was created in Washington, D.C., in 1888 for "the increase and diffusion of geographic knowledge." The Society mirrors the world and all that is in it through incisive magazines, maps, books, films and interactive media. [...]The magazine provides in-depth coverage of cultures, nature, science and technology and sets the standard for excellence in reporting, photography and mapmaking

so it is about 'the world and all that is in it' tack on the fact that they are doing a whole lot of mars coverage and lunar images and it doesn't really narrow the scope or exclude much as 'meeting the challenge' even though there will be plenty of those sorts of comments no doubt...

Message edited by author 2004-01-13 18:28:32.

01/13/2004 09:11:14 PM · #29

Yeah, but you and I aren't going to get anywhere near Mars or a B2 bomber, sooooo.... :)

I guess all I was getting at was that while "argueably" anything could be included, that there is a certain quality (aesthic, not technical) of photograph that is associated with NG that doesn't include everything in the world. There are certain themes, subjects, styles that I would relate to being a type of photo that someone might view as a NT style of photo. For example, I don't wouldn't expect an abstract photo as a standard NG style - if I'm wrong, I'd love to see some. But maybe that's all just my perspective or limited view. Or, since it showed up as a challenge topic, maybe it's one others share as well.

On the issue of "crap" entries (which I never said was good, I never even mentioned anything from that angle - not sure what that little attack was about), I was simply trying to suggest that they aren't good - but we all know they exist. I just think that, from my point of view, I'm going to be hoping/looking for a bit of a higher standard from a technical aspect than giving points for clever or cute ideas.

I have seen the "Through the Lens" book, but haven't picked it up yet. Maybe I'll go take a look after work. I do have to admit that I haven't seen NG on a regular basis in a few years. But looking at the Online Photo Gallery, there are tons of entries under the nature, history and culture categories - and not quite so many under the "black and white" and "science and space". Again, lots of photos may make it into NG, but I think there are certain subjects and aesthetic qualities that make for a "typical" NG photo.

But, that's just my thoughts on the subject. If you don't agree, no need to get bent. :)

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

01/13/2004 09:15:06 PM · #30

Just did a search on the NG site for "oil on driveway". The only match was a new column on bird watching - "The Birdman of Bel Air". Figure that one out... :)

JC_Homola

Canon EOS-20D

01/13/2004 09:38:27 PM · #31

One of my favourite features of the magazine is the last page, where they show a "flashback" vintage photo that never appeared in an issue.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/13/2004 11:23:24 PM · #32

Originally posted by ScottK:

On the issue of "crap" entries (which I never said was good, I never even mentioned anything from that angle - not sure what that little attack was about), I was simply trying to suggest that they aren't good - but we all know they exist. I just think that, from my point of view, I'm going to be hoping/looking for a bit of a higher standard from a technical aspect than giving points for clever or cute ideas.

It isn't an attack - you said I think quality is part of the key in this challenge I don't see what's special about this challenge that makes that somehow different from all other challenges is all.