What National Geographic photogs use?

Do they use digital slrs or still rewind the film in their cameras?

Couldn't find the answer even on NG website. Thanks for your help.

Different NGS photographers use different cameras as per their prefeence. Some use

different

cameras and formats including digital for specific jobs.

If you look on their website it tells you that they use,

velivia 35mm and Nikon or Canon SLR, (mainly Nikon) and 35mm rangefinders. I am sure that this is not the only thing they use!

 

but a few months ago I did see one of their photographers using a Canon EOS 10D + 16-35mm f2.8 L.

 

rob

Info on the NG site in FAQ section has been unchanged for a long time so I think that things could change...

I think it was about a year ago that NG had it's first all digital article. The article was about the SR-20 Blackbird and was the cover shot as well. Shot 100% with Nikon dSLRs start to finish. They made kind of a big deal out of it at the time so if you look you should be able to find some info on it. I suspect film still predominates there with digital slowly being added in.

Start here: <p>

 

<u><A href =

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/media/photography/camerabag/>

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/media/photography/camerabag/</a></u>

Their photo FAQ is here <p>

 

<u><A href =

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/>

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/</a></u>

FAQ section has been unchanged for a long time so I think that things could change....

The piece shot with nikon dslr's is in the December 2003 issue, called future of flight, or something like that. But if you go to the archives at nationalgeographic.com and click on the magazines, most of them have pictures when you click on the article. If you click on the pictures it gives you the info about it--camera, film, lenses, exposure, ec. The vast majority of them, even hte most recent, are still slide film.

I'll repeat myself too:

 

"Different NGS photographers use different cameras as per their prefeence. Some use

different cameras and formats including digital for specific jobs."

a majority of ng photographers use slide film, with occasional digital files being printed.

<What National Geographic photogs use?>

 

Whatever they use, it's their eye behind the camera that spots and composes those wonderful pictures!

 

Merry Christmas

National Geographic & other magazines still consider slide film to be the best image quality.Whilst this may hurt the egos of DSLR owners I am not going to argue with an organisation of such high repute.At the last count National Geographic supplied new photographers with a Nikon FM2 & free access to their large inventory of Nikon lenses.If they wanted different they had to pay for it themselves.

Before the Nikon F came out in 1959; some used Exakta VX series 35mm slr's; and Kodachrome of asa 10. Ekakta even advertised in N G then too; some were of macro equipment; bellows; "the camera's NG photogs use"

They use a little bit of everything. Depends on the photographer. I know one guy uses a

Leica M in addition to his regular SLR arsenal. That helicopter guy uses a Pentax 67. That

Robert Glenn Ketchup guy (tomato based) uses a 645 or at least he used to. And of course

there's the traditional PJ getting up close and personal with a wide angle zoom. NG

photogs are no different from other pros. They use whatever they like.

I visited the archives and now I see that they use digital and film: canon d10, canon 1D, leica R7, leica m6, nikon F100.

"Whilst this may hurt the egos of DSLR owners I am not going to argue with an organisation of such high repute."

 

Nor would I try to argue but I think a question or two, reasonably, considering the advancement of digital technology and who has embraced this technology and who hasn't is in order.

 

First, with no disrespect intended in my following, I think the above comments is a bit of an ego statement in of itself. Why? Considering the demanding nature of the likes of the fashion/advertising industry, I highly doubt NG is any more of a stickler then any of the top fashion mags who are putting out tens of thousands of dollars for digital backs and how quick the likes of sports photographers and journalists were to embrace the Canon's "1" series of ruggedized sensor bodies.

 

If NG is still into the limited nature of slide film, that's fine and dandy but I think it's more along the lines a familiarity then it is that slide is superior to the current release of digital cameras such as the now old 1Ds or the current 1DMkII.

 

It takes time to port your work style over to new technology and usually the ones who are the most prejudicial towards change, as in the old geezers of life, are the slowest to embrace new technology. My last, as I fast become one of those old geezers, is just an opinion.

 

I guess anybody who feels a need to take 100-300 rolls of 36 to get one assignment of ten or twenty images right, has to be given some credit for tenacity. Do you think the point that an organization, who's dedication towards burning up incredible amounts of film at this sort of rate just to get a few worthy shots might have something to do with this steadfast nature of hanging on to past technology and it's not that the slide film is better. I think (opinion) it's just that they're stuck in a time warp of burning up a 100-300 rolls of 36 and they don't want to change this pattern of film abuse.

 

I will acknowledge that being a nobody, NG holds all the marbles and I don't have a clue but I think there's more to the issue as in not wanting to port over to digital then some working at NG are willing to admit.

 

Either which way, what they use doesn't matter as all that matters is what do you do with what it is you have today as that's the pudding materials you've been blessed with today.

I was at a recent event for Jim Brandenburg who has been one of National Geographic photographers for many years. In the last couple years, he has switched almost entirely to digital SLR's.

When you spoke with Jim Brandenburg, did he say that he, for his personal use, used a digital body or that NG has changed over to a digital standard and that was what he now used on NG's behalf? Or is NG currently mixing it up where NG's standard is still slide film but some of the photographers personal camera of choice is digital, so if they want to use their personal gear, NG's good to go and will now accept digital files if that's the format the photographer chooses use to make the capture with and turn in to the editors?

I don't know the answers to your questions. I am not even sure if he works for NG anymore. All I recall is that he made it clear that his film cameras were now cathering dust. I concluded that this professional would not have switched from 35mm film to digital unless he thought the format was better or at least equal.

 

Personally, I will be more interested in digital photgraphy when a magazine like Arizona Highways begins to accept digital photgraphs. I can hardly wait for the day when medium and large format can be equaled by digital (at a price that I could afford).

"I can hardly wait for the day when medium and large format can be equaled by digital (at a price that I could afford)."

 

You, me and about a hundred million other dedicated fools:) I'm sure it will happen as I'm just waiting for the likes of a 1DsMkII to become affordable, sub $2,500.00 (US) let alone the resolving capability of a 4"x5" or 8"x10" in a full frame 35mm format.

 

Now if I could only afford the computing power it would take to process all the information that an 8"x10" is capable of holding. What's that, about a 160mb file? :)

<I> I'm sure it will happen as I'm just waiting for the likes of a 1DsMkII to become

affordable, sub $2,500.00 (US)</I><P>Are you naturally a blue-ish color or are you

holding your breath?

Holding my breath. Why! Is that why I've turned so blue of late:)

 

Tell ya what. If Canon breaks with the 3D that they've promised not to make, I'll start breathing again..... thump! :)

Thomas wrote: I think (opinion) it's just that they're stuck in a time warp of burning up a 100-300 rolls of 36 and they don't want to change this pattern of film abuse.

 

You make some fair points, but I have to say, I only shoot *more* when I am using a digital camera.

You may shoot more but at least you're not abusing film:o

 

I'm kinda old school in my shooting style and it looks like, from your comment history that you have a strong professional film background. With that in mind, I go out with an empty memory card and an inspiration and shoot ten to twenty-five images. Rarely would I burn up the equivalent of a roll of 36.

 

Out of outing, I'm expecting (hoping for) one to maybe three totally different, printable images.

 

How many shots are you making in an inspired outing? And how many totally different printed images are you expecting to get from each outing?

 

To give you an idea of my thinking, I got an inspiration from yesterday's urban landscape walk. I've saw two images that should/may pan out and a half dozen images that will maybe look anywhere from halfway decent to total crap because of the subject matter. In the mean time, I figure I can mine at least two maybe three additional outings to this local oasis of photographic relief. I try to shoot where people don't shoot so as to try and keep the photographic cliche's to a minimum:) Each time I go out, exploring the light in the process I'll expect to grab no more then ten to fifteen captures and in this case will hope for one or two printable images worth printing 11"x17". Not always do I achieve these levels of satisfaction as like others I come back with nothing but garbage and place the whole photographic session into the wastebasket file:)

 

What are your overall expectations in regard to number of images you normally expect to capture and are expecting to print when you go out? Do you shoot from an inspired point of view or just go out and see what's worthy of capturing?

 

Kinda interested in how others look upon their efforts, how they decide to make their captures and if they have some sort of production expectations out of their photographic efforts.