Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       end
  

Archive 2004 · National Geographic 10D images
  
 
John Wright
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · National Geographic 10D images


Imagemaster wrote:
mdude85 wrote: "............and usually use the highest quality film equipment"

If that were true, why have they exclusively used 35mm and not medium or large format?


Probably for the speed, fast lenses and number of exposures per roll. Most National Geographic articles are shot in a photojournalistic style, rather than posed shots as in some other magazines.


Edited by John Wright on Oct 18, 2004 at 08:34 PM GMT



Oct 19, 2004 at 12:21 AM
tuannie
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · National Geographic 10D images


i think the photos matched up with all others WEB PHOTOS on their site. Just wait for the prints...but i am sure it will do fine. I printed up to 24 X 36 with my 10D and it looked great!


Oct 19, 2004 at 01:21 AM
xichlo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · National Geographic 10D images


Please take a look at his other photos, He got Canon 1V, Leica M6, so 10D may be just a backup camera and it happened that he took the photo with 10D.

However, i don't think NG care about what kind of camera you used to take photos, the content and passion of the photos that count and will be chosen to display.





Oct 19, 2004 at 02:08 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · National Geographic 10D images


Antje wrote " Ahem - I have to break my promise to ignore your posts and chime in because this is too gross to pass..."

Yeah, well so much for your promise. And who is talking about portability/flexibility? The comment I was replying to was "...........and usually use the highest quality film equipment"

The highest quality film equipment is not 35mm. What don't you understand about that? NG does not print only images recorded at remote locations or cheetahs chasing gazelles. They have printed thousands of images taken in urban centers which could easily have been taken with MF or LF cameras.

The word "usually" means most of the time. Try looking through some back issues and you may discover "a few" images where the photographer could have got out of his vehicle and set up his 8x10 Linhof on a tripod. You may even discover some "unusual" images taken by Ansel Adams with his large format camera.

Research NG's photo dept. and you may discover that portability/flexibility may not be the main reason they prefer 35mm slides. After all, that is the photographer's problem, not theirs. Accepting almost exclusively 35mm slides was the easiest and most efficient way for them to handle and catalogue all their images.

In other words, NG does not usually use the highest quality film equipment.

No gross promises please.










Oct 19, 2004 at 02:33 AM
Andrew MacKay
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · National Geographic 10D images


I know for a fact that Robert Clark shot some work back 2003 on a 1d body, see the Dinosaurs come alive story March 2003.

Andrew



Oct 19, 2004 at 02:54 AM
tuannie
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · National Geographic 10D images


i just did...it says he was using a 1V body not a 1D.


Oct 19, 2004 at 03:05 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · National Geographic 10D images


Another reason NG prefers 35mm is because many of their photographers are on staff and they have a considerable amount of money invested in 35mm equipment.

And to quote from the horse's mouth: "The National Geographic Society does not solicit images from photographers. Most photographic work is assigned by editors to staff and freelance photographers with years of experience in photojournalism."



Oct 19, 2004 at 03:16 AM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · National Geographic 10D images


Zapped writes, "Those images" and "dim situation". Did you read the technical details in the first link? Only one of the five images on that page was digital."

It seems you didn't bother to read my text because you were so busy defending your sacred cow:

Gochugogi wrote on page 2: "I looked at the photos again and I noticed many are scans of Velvia and Provia. Heck, those are crappy too. I think they need a better PS tech.

Sorry, if my opinion differs from yours. There may be some great photos on the 2nd page but the first page was so poorly processed I didn't bother to proceed further.

Edited by Gochugogi on Oct 19, 2004 at 04:54 AM GMT



Oct 19, 2004 at 03:30 AM
maxx9photo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · National Geographic 10D images


Leica is their usual suspect


Oct 19, 2004 at 04:20 AM
Andrew MacKay
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · National Geographic 10D images


tuannie wrote:
i just did...it says he was using a 1V body not a 1D.



Check "On Assignment" to quote Rob, " Going digital let me see the results on my laptop soon after the exposure"

Looks like a 10d on the tripod.

Andrew



Oct 19, 2004 at 05:46 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


AReineman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · National Geographic 10D images


Imagemaster wrote:

The highest quality film equipment is not 35mm. What don't you understand about that? NG does not print only images recorded at remote locations or cheetahs chasing gazelles. They have printed thousands of images taken in urban centers which could easily have been taken with MF or LF cameras.


What a wonderful blanket statement. By what criteria do you make the statement: "the highest quality equipment is not 35mm?" Do you mean the highest quality portable photo equipment? The highest quality ease of use equipment? Or do you mean the highest quality photojournalism equipment? The highest quality wildlife equipment?

Perhaps by quality you are refering to build quality? Are you saying that MF or LF cameras are built more solidly than their 35mm counterparts? Does that meant they are more likely to survive the rugged shooting conditions found in different parts of the world?

Your blanket statement about 35mm equipment is akin to saying the best vehicle in the world is a truck. I'd hate to be a formula 1 driver stuck in a truck.

Oh, and what don't you understand about that? Perhaps the part where the comparison was between apples and apples and not apples and oranges -- the part where mdude85 was comparing the 10D to the 1D (or 1Ds or 1v) in his post when he was referring to the best equipment?

And as for it being just as easy to use MF or LF cameras in large urban areas -- your definition of easy and mine differ in this case.

Imagemaster wrote:
The word "usually" means most of the time.


Wow. Thank you so much. I have been searching for that definition everywhere.

Of course you might find some MF or LF stuff in the annals of National Geographic. But taking a post out of context and basing the back third of an argument on it, doesn't really move your overall point forward. Just because NG has some MF or LF shots in its portfolio proves nothing about whether it is the best equipment or not, whatever that means.

Imagemaster wrote:
Research NG's photo dept. and you may discover that portability/flexibility may not be the main reason they prefer 35mm slides. After all, that is the photographer's problem, not theirs. Accepting almost exclusively 35mm slides was the easiest and most efficient way for them to handle and catalogue all their images.


Actually National Geographic makes the choice for the photographer, in that they own the equipment and buy the film. I am sure the photographer gets some say in what is purchased, but NG would seemingly retain the right of refusal.

Imagemaster wrote:
In other words, NG does not usually use the highest quality film equipment
.

Well, we are right back at the beginning. Your QED stopped at Q for me. Which brings me to:

Imagemaster wrote:
No gross promises please.


How about no gross generalizations please.



Oct 19, 2004 at 07:06 AM
Antje
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · National Geographic 10D images


Imagemaster wrote:
Antje wrote " Ahem - I have to break my promise to ignore your posts and chime in because this is too gross to pass..."

Yeah, well so much for your promise.


I'm so sorry, had you started the thread, I'd never have bothered to look. I'd have known what I was about to see. Do you think I enjoy reading bullshit?

And who is talking about portability/flexibility? The comment I was replying to was "...........and usually use the highest quality film equipment"

I should have known, you didn't get it. I was trying to explain why the statement is true that they take the highest possible quality. You can only do shots with suitable gear. Like I said, 35mm is a trade-off, a compromise, and the best image quality left if you can't get the shot with MF or LF gear. Is and has always been. Image quality isn't as good as MF and LF, but then, there are lots of occasions where you can't get the shot with MF and LF gear and have to use 35mm. Get it now? You lose image quality, you gain flexibility with 35mm. So, it's true, they use the highest quality photos they can get. If you had only once in your life hiked to some remote spot with half of your dad's MF gear on your back, you'd know very well why most shots from remote places are done with 35mm cameras, even though the image quality is inferior. The feature about hawaiian volcanoes - I'd rather not lug a MF camera up there. Snow foxes - there are no telephotos in that range for MF or LF gear and if there were, you'd not be able to carry them.

You can't capture a shy small animal with LF gear because you couldn't carry the lens you'd need to the specific location - if that lens existed at all in the first place. You can't do a stealth shoot with a 3kg Mamiya, but with a small Leica. So, when it's impossible or at least very hard to get a shot with LF or MF gear, they make do with the lower quality 35mm slides. That is, they use the highest quality images they can get.

But man, you should know that! I thought you were an accomplished, published photog!

The highest quality film equipment is not 35mm. What don't you understand about that? NG does not print only images recorded at remote locations or cheetahs chasing gazelles. They have printed thousands of images taken in urban centers which could easily have been taken with MF or LF cameras.

Most of what I've seen is more of the photojournalistic kind, even the ones done in Portland or Berlin. It's not hard to tell if you really care to look! I'd highly recommend taking a closer look, you could benefit a lot. Even in urban centers, speed and stealth required might rule out the use of bulky MF gear. I have only been to NYC once, but I'd rather not set up a tripod with a LF camera on it at Penn Station. Setting up a tripod is even forbidden in many cities here.

Btw there's series done with this ancient tintype system in the October issue http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature6/zoom1.html, done with a 8x10 view camera. Oh, and after looking for about two minutes, I came up with this series: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0408/feature1/zoom2.html Done with a 6x9 camera. So you not only failed to understand what MF, LF and 35mm can do for you, you're even wrong about your statement "If that were true, why have they exclusively used 35mm and not medium or large format?"

I'm starting to wonder if anything you said about yourself was true...

No gross promises please

Tsk. I told you before you could only benefit from an honest opinion. Why the fear?

Antje



Oct 19, 2004 at 08:27 AM
Guest
Offline
Guest
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · National Geographic 10D images


lets keep this going for another few years--by then NG will be 100% digital. go take some pictures folks.....


Oct 19, 2004 at 09:04 AM
jhailer
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · National Geographic 10D images


The latest issue has an article shot entirely on tintypes. Kind of makes this little argument a little silly.




Oct 19, 2004 at 01:33 PM
spartan123
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · National Geographic 10D images


Antje, you crack me up! I always enjoy your spirited posts.

BTW, did anyone catch the apology NG had at the front of the newest issue about the photographer staging photo's (about elephant tusks) It made me very happy I subscribe to the magazine.

spartan



Oct 19, 2004 at 01:44 PM
Nowhere Man
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · National Geographic 10D images


more 10d from NG .....hey that rhymes

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature5/zoom1.html



Oct 19, 2004 at 03:37 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · National Geographic 10D images


AReineman wrote:
What a wonderful blanket statement. By what criteria do you make the statement: "the highest quality equipment is not 35mm?"


Perhaps you should learn to read a posting properly before misquoting someone.
My statement was "the highest quality film equipment is not 35mm."

Notice how you omitted the little word "film"?

To me, the highest quality film equipment means large format film cameras and the lowest quality film equipment means a pinhole camera. If you don't like my interpretation of that, perhaps you should ask the poster of that phrase what exactly he means by it.



Oct 19, 2004 at 06:36 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · National Geographic 10D images


Antje wrote:
" Ahem - I have to break my promise to ignore your posts and chime in because this is too gross to pass..."

I'm so sorry, had you started the thread, I'd never have bothered to look. I'd have known what I was about to see. Do you think I enjoy reading bullshit?


Apparently, and making promises, but with exceptions.

I should have known, you didn't get it. I was trying to explain why the statement is true that they take the highest possible quality. You can only do shots with suitable gear.

And what didn't you get about my explanation that there have been thousands of images in NG in which suitable gear could have been MF or LF?

But man, you should know that! I thought you were an accomplished, published photog!

And where did you glean that information from? I guess the word "private" in "private message" is about as meaningful to you as the word "promise".

you're even wrong about your statement "If that were true, why have they exclusively used 35mm and not medium or large format?"

You are correct there, I should have said "almost exclusively".

Tsk. I told you before you could only benefit from an honest opinion. Why the fear?

Simple, I can't trust opinions from people who break promises and spout off about information which was given to them in private.



Oct 19, 2004 at 07:17 PM
Nowhere Man
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · National Geographic 10D images


'....here we are at Madison Square Gahden, where tonight, on the cahd we have as strong contenda who wants a title shot...'






Oct 19, 2004 at 07:25 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · National Geographic 10D images


One only has to look at this November issue of NG for an example of story in which all or most of the 47 photos could have been taken with 35mm, MF or LF.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/multimedia/index.html

It certainly is easier to pack 35mm equipment into many locations, but there are also photographers who feel it is more important to pack in MF or LF gear. Ansel Adams used a mule to pack in his LF gear and camping equipment. I guess he just thought he would get better results than packing in a Kodak Brownie or a Leica 35mm.

I have packed a 4x5 Speed Graphic, tripod, and camping gear up mountains. It was worth the effort, but I wouldn't do it now at my age.

As Nowhere Man says, "Who gives a hoot what gear that I shoot".

Darn, I reread that poem and missed two shots.



Oct 19, 2004 at 08:39 PM
1       2      
3
       4       5       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password