I'm pretty surprised Nat'l Geographic is using anything less than 1 series for their photographing, considering they have the power to only use the highest quality stuff, and usually use the highest quality film equipment.
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?
Ahem - I have to break my promise to ignore your posts and chime in because this is too gross to pass... As a photog who claims to be published already, you should know 35mm is and has always been the compromise between image quality and portability/flexibility... NG often shows photos from very remote locations and of fast animals - MF cameras are heavy and often not as fast as 35mm cameras. Step into your local camera store and demand any given MF camera and the MF equivalent to a Canon EF 500mm lens and you will see what I mean. Or Leicas for example - they are a tiny bit less conspicious than LF cameras.
You have seen a MF camera before, haven't you? No?
Antje wrote:
Ahem - I have to break my promise to ignore your posts and chime in because this is too gross to pass... As a photog who claims to be published already, you should know 35mm is and has always been the compromise between image quality and portability/flexibility... NG often shows photos from very remote locations and of fast animals - MF cameras are heavy and often not as fast as 35mm cameras. Step into your local camera store and demand any given MF camera and the MF equivalent to a Canon EF 500mm lens and you will see what I mean. Or Leicas for example - they are a tiny bit less conspicious than LF cameras.
You have seen a MF camera before, haven't you? No?
Honestly, those images fall far short of the NG quality I've seen in the past. No snap and the colors are rather flat. I realize the dim situation is difficult. However, I'm a 10D shooter and I expect a little more... I don't give a rat's tail if NG uses film or digital. The only thing that matters is image quality. Maybe the prints will look better.
I have a carefully calibrated Apple 20" Cinema Display/Dual G4 (set to 2.2 gamma), but I'm a very picky guy and I've seen much better work in NG every month. They look equally weak in Safari, Explorer and Netscape (albeit slightly different contrast between browsers--Explorer is darker). These images really need a levels adjustment. Maybe I prefer the look of film for those types of shots. They just don't cut it for my taste and I generally love the pictorials in NG, especially the grity low light Leica essays of Tibetans, etc. Of course film grain is prettier than digital noise. Maybe it would help if the images were larger. They're really small on my monitor.
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.
Gochugogi wrote:
Honestly, those images fall far short of the NG quality I've seen in the past. No snap and the colors are rather flat. I realize the dim situation is difficult. However, I'm a 10D shooter and I expect a little more... I don't give a rat's tail if NG uses film or digital. The only thing that matters is image quality. Maybe the prints will look better.
i'm gonna hazard a guess that the low contrast and flat colours are part of the effect. not everybody likes full frontal colour...
i am also a 10D user and therefor was amazed that NG was using one on assignment and thought i would share with you guys. But i do agree that these images aren't the best NG can offer but if there was no photo facts stating a 10D was used...i would have never guessed that it was digital. My monitor is calibrated so the images look fine. I just hope the prints will look a lot nicer.
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?
Wow, "Imagemaster," I don't quite know what to say here. Have you ever tried to lug medium or large format equipment to the ends of the earth, and take spontaneous shots with that equipment? Not exactly studio conditions there in the amazon, now is it? Or how about asking that rhino to stand still for a moment so you can get close enough for your shot?
Perhaps Sports Illustrated should make the move to medium format as well. I can just see the photographer running onto the field with his/her tripod trying to get into position for that touchdown shot at the superbowl.
Nothing wrong with those photos. Up to Nat Geo's usual standard. It does irritate me that I live in the same country where those photos were taken and my images look nothing like that!
I don't see why 10D images might not be considered "up to standard" and why they need 1-series cameras. 10D files print great - even way past the double page fold out size of NG magazines.
I suspect that 1/8s at f/1.4 handheld isn't going to produce stellar results. It's still a good photo as it captures the mood and feeling of the event.
Not exactly studio conditions there in the amazon, now is it?