| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/25/2004 11:13:47 PM · #1 |
| Why do magazines like National Geographic use film over digital? |
|
|
|
04/25/2004 11:22:53 PM · #2 |
Oh boy I can see this stirring up the pot.
I think there are a number of reasons, first off if just take time to get some people to change. Also I would think that most of the photographers there are using MF cameras, moving to a Digital SLR would mean investing in not just the new camera but the lenses as well. They may be waiting for a bit to see what developments in digital camera are coming before wanting to make such a big move.
Sports Illustrated is now shooting mostly digital, with some film still in the mix.
I would guess we will see National Geographic making the move over the next two to three years.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2004 11:23:51 PM · #3 |
much of it is inertia, I think. Some magazines have made the switch (Sports Illustrated for one, see the recent thread on the subject).
Note that NG recently shot a story completely in digital. It's only a matter of time...
|
|
|
|
04/26/2004 12:17:55 AM · #4 |
There is still no getting over the fact that medium and large format cameras capture just an amazingly more amount of detail than digital cameras can. The foveon chip, found only in the new Sigma digital cameras, approach film SLRs in terms of detail, but digital cameras are still way behind when it comes to such matters, and NG wants the best photography it can get its hands on.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2004 12:18:13 AM · #5 |
| Check out this thread -- with film they know for sure how long it will last and how to "recover the data." |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 02:09:16 AM · #6 |
| I was just thinking, while doing research on NG photography, how much I depend on looking at the picture I just took to figure out what light settings, etc. I want to use. I guess with more experience I will be able to figure those things out. After all, I am only 17, I still have a ways to go before NG will even consider me for an assignment. :-D |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 02:21:10 AM · #7 |
There is much data now on computers that can not be lost. Think about banking and social security just to name two. Clearly data can be kept safe with some degree of care. If one was really concerned that the digital format the images were in would not be able to be read 100 years from now they could easily make slides from the digital images. For that matter the cost to master a pressed CD is very low, last I looked it was around $1000 for a run of 1000. These do not have the life time problems that a CDR can have.
It is just a matter of time before they are shooting digital, how much time is the question. They don’t have the same time crunch that a newspaper has or even Sports Illustrated, so some of the advantages of digital are not so great for them.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2004 04:06:54 AM · #8 |
| I just had a read of the Sport's Illustrated digital workflow article and there's a few good pointers to pick up from their workflow. [i.e. maybe even a few apps or filters to grab and play around with] |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 09:10:35 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by bradical:
Why do magazines like National Geographic use film over digital? |
I suspect it has to do with having an established workflow more than anything.
Most are moving to digital, at least in part. NG recently did an article on military aircraft where the pictures were shot entirely on digital. It's important to remember that digital cameras are power hogs. Many film cameras are mechanical, and the battery only powers the meter. It's a lot easier to climb a mountain if you leave the generator at home.
The Iraq war is being covered almost exclusively with digital. Sure there are a few diehards running around with their Leicas, but for the most part, it's high end DSLRs, SatPhones, and portable generators.
Message edited by author 2004-04-26 10:12:55.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2004 10:00:01 AM · #10 |
| Well first of NG has a huge warehouse of normal photo equipment that its cant just change over to digital without at substantial cost, I am sure that with their in-house production pipeline at the moment the cost of moving over to digital just would not make sense. They probably get a crazy discount on film from Kodak and Fuji, and the way they shoot a assignment they have quite a bit of time to get to take the pictures they need and at the right moments, they can follow their subject for days until they get the photo they want. Sports Illustrated on the other hand has something between 2 to 3 hours (the duration of the sports event) to get their shots and it has to be out as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 10:34:11 AM · #11 |
| National Geographic shoots mostly 35mm, Sports Illustrated is mostly using Canon 1Ds and some MF. When people start to notice that Sports Illustrated has higher quality photos then National Geographic they will be shamed into making the move to Digital. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 11:11:27 AM · #12 |
If you read that Sports Illustrated workflow piece carefully, notice that they're using Hasselblad 4x5 cameras when shooting basketball, as the digital SLRs still have a disadvantage over the Hasseys in terms of imag equality with the ceiling-mounted strobes. Film is still being used, even by SI.
Digital is great for sports in that you can often get a shot that you wouldn't otherwise...look at the cover with Phil Mickelson winning the masters. It's of a surprisingly poor quality, and yet it's a great photo. Content beats quality almost 100% of the time when it comes to journalism. 9 frames per second helps.
NG is on the other end of the spectrum 99% of the time. Time to produce great photos. It's all about workflow, just like SI. You have a photographer that knows Provia or Velvia film in and out, and he or she is most likely going to be hesitant to move to something that exposes differently. Speed isn't an issue. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 11:44:10 AM · #13 |
Yes Film over digital. No matter what the diehard digital heads tell you for quality, film cant be beat. NG goes to extremes to get great photos. Dont look for SI to embarrass NG any time soon or ever.
Are the full size sensor DSLR cameras close in quality? yes, sure they are. Even the consumer DSLRs are pretty impressive. The digital advantages lie in speed and instant gratification. Even that carries disadvantages. Like missing a shot because you were looking at your last shot. Dont worry though you wont even know you missed it. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 11:46:36 AM · #14 |
| In the comparisons that I have seen the 1Ds beats 35mm handily. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 11:56:24 AM · #15 |
Here is an interesting link to look at comparing the 1Ds to 35mm
//www.sphoto.com/techinfo/ocesideharbor.htm
And here is the link about what NG mostly uses
//www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html#b |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 12:12:09 PM · #16 |
I'm pretty sure NG uses a drum scanner not the ones he used so those aren't fair comparisons. I dont doubt that you can find 100 digital sites that will say the same thing. The 1ds is a great camera. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 01:36:29 PM · #17 |
PG's at NG also use Rangefinders a lot. These camera's are easy to carry around and don't draw a lot of attention (a small rangefinder with a 50 or 90mm lens is a lot less "in your face" compared to a pro-SLR with a 300mm F2.8 IS USM or a big 16-35 F2.8). The film cameras are also easier to (keep) clean in inhospitable environments (cleaning the sensor in a AC'ed hotel room is something else as cleaning it in a tent at -30 on the Himalaya mountains or during a sandstorm in the Sahara). The rangefinders are also lighter, pretty useful when backpacking to nowhere and where do you charge your batteries in the middle of the Amazone? (Remember that there is often little sunlight for a solar charger under the treetops)
And why should you change if your results are just as good as ever? If you know the ins and outs of your film camera, when to use what filter with certain film, what film in certain conditions, how to set the camera with xx film and xx filter with xx light....
I can imagine that a good PG simply chooses the right tool for the right subject. When shooting Football or Nascar for sport magazines and websites, speed is everything = digital + wifi/sattelite/GSM/UMTS/hand in your CF.
When you want to do portraiture in a remote little community in the Sahara for an NG article that is going to be published 6 months after the shoot I think I'd choose film (+rangefinder).
For me personally:
If there was no digital I think I would never have made it a hobby. No patience to wait for processing to see what the results are (instead of instant review and adjustment). I'd rather pay one big sum up front instead of less startup costs plus processing costs every week.
I think that you can learn faster and easier at less costs with digital.
Digital is easier to share. With digital you can enter at DPC. :)
On the other hand it is very useful to read and hear from other PG's why they choose certain films, how they used them and how the processed them. Some of that info is very useful for digital.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2004 03:19:51 PM · #18 |
Scott, great article! That is pretty much how things have
been explained to me. 6MP is about the same or better then 35mm.
I heard that the 1Ds really gives medium format a run! And the 16MP
and the 22MP digital backs for medium format cameras are just awesome.
On a side note, I was talking to the guy at ritzcamera. They no longer do enlargements from 35mm negative on anything that is larger than an 8x10. He said that they can get better sharper results by scanning then printing from a digital file, with high res scan and interpolation techniques.
Message edited by author 2004-04-26 15:21:04. |
|
|
|
04/26/2004 04:10:48 PM · #19 |
There is another aspect to this whole thing, a really good digital SLR cost a lot of money and so one does not go into this change lightly. If there were no more improvements to be made in digital cameras then NG might well make the change right now. But they may also be waiting for one more generation to come out before making a change, it is hard to spend money on something that might well need to be replaced in a year. The other problem that they are going to have is that some of their photographers are simply not going to want to make the change, and dealing with a mixed work flow would be a real pain.
Still I would think some of the photographers might begin to push on NG to at least allow digital photos. The ability that the 1Ds has to shoot at an ISO of 1000 and still get good quality photos is pretty amazing and surely would be useful in many cases. What also might drive them to the change is simply the volume of photos they take, 300 to 400 rolls for an average story. Just taking the time to change all that film in and out must be a pain.
I don’t fault NG for using film I just think they will decide in the future (1-2 years) that they don’t want to continue using it.
The dirt on the sensor issue is a very real one, the makers of digital SLRs are going to need to address this at some point.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 05:06:27 AM EDT.
