National Geographic and Leica

If you browse through the images on National geographic's archive

page, clicking on the images listed on the lefthand side of the

screen brings up the photog's settings (camera; film; exposure).

Many of the images were shot with m6's and m7's. Most shots are

chrome. Leicas must be rugged !! Link:

 

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/archives.html

 

Marc

Note that "many" does not translate to "most," and I have no idea how you can infer that "Leicas must be rugged." More interesting for the gearheads IMO would be the increasing appearance of Nikon and Canon dSLRs in the information boxes you mention.<p>NG's new editor-in-chief (and veteran photographer) Chris Johns said in <a href="http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=76301&sid=29" target="_blank">a recent interview with the Poynter Institute</a> that "We are jumping into digital imaging with enthusiasm. As the technology continues to improve, we feel it can help us become an even more relevant and timely publication."<p>The writing is on the wall, and it doesn't care what stage of denial you're in...

True oh toothsome one the finger writes. What I don't get is the guy;s statement ". . . we feel it can help us become an even more relevant and timely publication." How? Does it change the images? Do they currently have deadline problems? Does NG want to put out a daily now? Sounds like pure crap to me more intended to blow smoke at investor's or trustees etc. but has NO relevance to the images in NG.

natinal Geographic goes back to the late 1880's I have all issues from 1914 to present and I can tell you there were way more photo's taken with 4X5 Graphic's and the like then any DSLR. and onlyt since WWII have any but a couple been taken with 35mm cameras. They wanted much higher quality then 35mm film could produce. The war changed that snce some of the war reporting was done with US made 35mm cameras Kodaks mostly. But the main camera for war time work was a 4X5.

 

The 35mm really only became popular with the Nikon F in the early 60's.

 

The last few year mean very little when you compare it to the zillions of photo's taken before M6 M7 or Digitals showed up.

Mr. Fang,

 

I own a canon mark 2 and 6 lenses. It performs great but I sure love shooting my M7. I spent 25 days in Indonesia last November lugging that big DSLR and lenses around (laptop,cards batteries etc.). Only the leica will go on my next trip. The rangefinder gives balance to my photography (even though I'm not that good with it yet)--- I'm not sure that would be called "denial"--

 

marc

Yawn..The writing is on the wall, and it doesn't care what stage of denial you're in...Yawn

I dont really need the photographers settings to identify the digital images,

they are the flat looking ones with the limited dynamic range, no just kidding,

digital imaging is cool but merely a pimpled adolescent in the history of

photography. It has a bright future but there are many bugs to work out.

Al Fang it seems Marc just made an observation. He never infers that MANY translates to

MOST. It's his opinion that Leicas are rugged and your opinion that they are not. What

does going digital have anything to do with the post too?

"What does going digital have anything to do with the post too?"

 

Absolutely nothing. Don't expect logic or common sense from Fang. He is a provocatuer who has nothing to say and comes on this website only to bash Leica. And of course he hides behind a silly pseudonym because he is afraid to sign his real name to his "drive by" Leica bashing posts.

Nope digital is clearly the way. If Leica want to stay in the game they'll have to get that digital M7d out, or NG will just have to put up with Canon and Nikon digital images. My guess is there won't be a film based image in the magazine 5 years from now. Kodachrome will be dead by then anyway so there won't be any point in using film. Between now and then you'll be able to tell the digital images. They'll be the ones which aren't full of grain.

I've shot with Leica for a few years now having used Nikons for many years before that. My son introduced me to Leica. This last year he was the photographic intern at the Nat. Geographic. I can tell you that they are interested in the image more than the camera, film or digital and the technique or feeling and interpretation that the photographer brings to his work. Slide film is always appreciated for the unique tonal qualities it can have. One editor stated that it's an "art form" , no post processing just the image and its light quality. They were encouraging in image taking and digital was done expertly as you might expect. I an interview David Harvey stated that he is used to the "flow of shooting with Leica" and I believe that is the element we all strive to acheive. The ability to become part of whatever camera we have so the focus is on the imagery and importance of recording our impression of the reality in front of us.

 

His impression of the magazine and the people there was incredible. very dedicated, intellecually honest and very thoughtful, quite an endorsement from him.

I can't resist, so here goes. Had fun watching all the digi shooters at the snowmobile races last week where the temperature was around 10F. Their jackets stuck out like full sets of "Hooters". My old film stuff was "cold soaked" outside and fully operational. Maybe digi is for "fair weather" shooters. Which wall is the handwriting on?

 

PS: Picked up some more Kodachrome last week. Clerk said he was selling more recently. Received some processed slides this week as quickly as in the old days. Hope they last as long as my earlier slides (50 plus years and counting).

Though I prefer Leica cameras and film images, I think there may be an upside to NG using digital: since current digital sensors have trouble with wide angle lenses, perhaps we shall see a return to the "normal" looking photographs of the older Geos, rather than the up-close-and-wide-angle look that, in my opinion, the magazine overuses today.

 

For a page-size image or double-page spread at normal reading distance, give me an image taken with a 35 or a 50 anytime, an image that shows me what the subject really looked like. I think wider lenses are great for bigger enlargements, or for "art" shots. But for traditional here's-what-it-looked-like shots, I prefer a combination of lens and enlargement ratio that preserves the natural perspective of the viewer and thus the natural appearance of the subject.

 

Of course, once the sensors can handle wide-angle lenses with ease, as they will probably be able to do in the not too distant future, we may end up back with the current aesthetic, which simply isn't my cup of tea.

Bob: All trade reports suggest only a very small percentage of professional photographers have gone completely digital. Most still use film one way or the other, with ATHENTICITY and AESTHETCS among the most important reasons for using film. There are a lot of people who don't like the look of digital as it is, grainless or not. And in case you haven't noticed, new films and film-based cameras are still being released (F6, VC R2A/R3A, Zeiss Ikon), including even consumer-grade point and shoots (Fuji Natura, for example, which is a big hit in Japan). So perhaps you're the one who's delusional?

so ng is using digital now, so what? it matters only to you if you are shooting for them.

anybody in this thread shooting for them now? el fang?

Delusional me? I'm not the one paying $2000 for an obsolete film based camera. Film's dead. Get used to it. Magazines want it fast and digital delivers.

There was abit of a ruckus when NG started to use full page front cover<B> PHOTOS</B> on the covers of NG; before that time the white ornate trim; and a token drawing or small photo was deemed "OK". In the 1950's; NG used Exakra VX's; and Exakta even had regular ads for macr settups; nature photography. This was before the Nikon F or Canon R came out in 1959.

For over the last two years I have been asked to provide digital files to the magazines and Picture Agency that I send images to, No one has requested film excusively. A digital file with the minimum adjustments to it is the usual requirement and emailed JPEG is also often the requested format, around 9 megs is the average file size. I have offered uncompressed files by CD and have not had one picture editor require that. Sorry boys, get your heads out of the sand, time has passed you by! As for Leicas being rugged, how is it that members of the forum are always asking who is the best Lecia repair person for mundane things like a bent rewind knob etc?

Quoting from the National Geographic web site (FAQ photography):

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html

 

"What types of film do National Geographic photographers use?"

Ans:

"Nearly all use 35mm transparency film, such as Fuji Provia 100, Fuji Velvia 50, Kodachrome 64, and Kodachrome 200. Brand and type are up to the photographer, but most use three or four different emulsions, depending on the situation. They also use small amounts of other 35mm transparency emulsions as well as some 35mm color negative and larger format films. In 1995 they shot 32,000 rolls of film on magazine assignments."

 

"What types of cameras do they use?"

 

"It?s up to the photographers, and their most popular choices are Canon and Nikon 35mm SLRs and the Leica M6 range finder."

I guess you can drag a luddite to the truth and smash some sense into his head with a Nikon DIX, ( the rewind knob would get bent on a Leica, thus rendering it useless) but you don't have to convert him!

 

<a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6450-6561">HERE</a> is a link to the first full Digital shoot plus cover for "The National Geographic" in 2002. The info in the post above refers to a 1995 time frame.

El Fang ,you are over active, you seems like the anti-leica missiles aiming at every question relating to leica. Please be patient. Leica cameras are tools for taking photos. Let those people like it and don't angry with it.

i still don't get it your argument bob. so NG is shooting digital. so what? does it affect your

photography? yes they want it fast, they want it digital, but are YOU personally affected by

the deadline? i don't. should i just toss my $2,000 film based camera because NG is

shooting digital? if going digital will do NG good, then good for them.

 

Why should i accept that film is dead? Because NG is shooting digital? because every tom,

bob and harry are shooting digital? two weeks ago you admonished people bout coming

into this "FILM-BASED" forum just in order to have tossing session, but for this week

alone, you've been jumping at every digital versus leica thread like el fang.

 

the question is, if you are so certain that film is dead, why do you still hate us bob?

It will be many many more years before film is completely replaced by digital, if ever at all. As of last year, professionals who shoot film exclusively outnumber those who shoot digital exclusively 10 to 1. And that's in the United States where digital has a great presence. Film gives the impression that it's in trouble mainly because the sales of new film cameras have been poor. That's mostly due to the relatively low price of film cameras on the used market as well as (perceived) uncertainty. The sales of 35mm films, on the hand, have been healthy and prove the viability of this market. The drop (roughly 25%) was very much anticipated. What is now known is that eventually an equilibrium will be reached where both film and and digital will coexist. What is not known is the equilibrium split (40:60 or 30:70).

 

Despite having several advantages digital is not yet a mature technolgy. The digital of today is not a perfect substitute for film. Until senors, storage, archiving, color reproduction, moire filtering and so on are standardized, digital cameras in their current form will remain transient and become superceded by more mature offerings eventually. Those who are not in a hurry (especially amateurs) can save a whole ton shooting film in the mean time.

I've shot for hours at a time in the cold, with a battery grip that holds two batteries. Fair

weather my ass!

Bob is being a little confusing lately.

 

He stands up and supports Tony in tightening up discussion on this forum (which includes tolerating no inflammatory film vs digital comments or politics) but then spoils the message by making (what he knows will be provocative) anti film comments, anti Leica comments and even political comments that seem designed to initiate flame wars. (The Qaddaffi stuff a couple of days ago especially)

 

I am not immune to this myself BUT I am NOT a moderator on PN! I am not responsible for keeping people to the rules of the forums.

 

I don't care for the film vs digital nonsense as I happily use and enjoy both and if film or Leica or Contax or Zeiss or Kodak or even Ilford disappear I will not worry as long as there is something left for me to enjoy photography with.

 

However I think people should be concerned (Tony?) if moderators are fuelling digi VS film, political, Canon DSLR vs Leica M arguments in the very same forum they have helped to try & moderate such behaviour out of.