What National Geographic photogs use?

[pbizarro]

I have no idea. As pros, I am sure that they will use what is most suitable for the task at hand. Also, the present day day crop of slide films is more than adequate to handle the small print sizes required by the magazine (no bigger than, say A4 size?).

 

But for a magazine such as NG, the speed and ease of the digital workflow, compared to having to scan the film, would make a lot of sense.

[andy_piper2]

Two points concerning NG:

 

1) Much of their work is shot over 9-18 months, with another 9-24 month lag time before publication. So the "now-ness" of digital is not an big plus. And the magazine is produced using very high-end drum scanners, so the "grainless" beauty of digital can be mostly duplicated even with film (so long as it's K'chrome/Velvia/Provia) at the size they are printing (even a spread is only 10" x 14"). And the magazine is paying for the film, so cost isn't the photographers' problem. So many advantages of digital tend to be negated.

 

2) OTOH, a lot of NG work is done in remote areas (Himalyas, deepest Africa) where being able to recharge proprietary batteries is a problem. Which lets out many DSLRs. Steve McCurry uses AA-powered F100s, but AA's of some sort can be packed and/or found locally fairly easily (and he can carry a battery-free FM2 as backup). They also do a lot of wide-angle low-light work, where it's nice to have a 20mm f/2.8 or 35 f/1.4 that doesn't behave like a 30mm f/2.8 or 55mm f/1.4.

 

So it's just a function of what trade-offs work best, and in NG's case film still offers advantages for the kind of work they do at the pace they do it.

 

The one article they published digitally so far ("Flight...") was partly shot on a tight deadline, as least by NG standards - they could only get in to shoot the B2 base the day before deadline, or some such. I'd expect to see more digital stories make it to the pages as time progresses.

 

But given their long publishing lag - mosy likely by the time the story comes out, the digital camera(s) used to shoot it will be "obsolete". (Wink!)

[francois_gauthier]

They sure seem to still use mostly 35mm slide films. Final picks are from a huge number taken over many weeks in the field. That formula has always served them well and let's not forget the magazine itself is not huge (in size) and does not need too high definition.

 

Now, what i would like to know is how and how much Photoshop is used in the process. Do they have strict guidelines about 'enhancement' and 'manipulation' ?

[michael s.]

On the subject of size, I can say that the film being used by "National Geographic" photographers is certainly capable of making prints much, much larger than A4 (approx 8.27 x 11.69 inches).

 

Just this morning, I saw an exhibit at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (Washington, D.C) entitled "In Focus: National Geographic Greatest Portraits."

 

Many of these poster-sized photos were printed quite large -- closer to life size -- and they hold up beautifully.

 

Not long ago I saw an exhibit of Steve McCurry's work. Some large prints there, too, and certainly very high quality.

 

There are obvious advantages to digital in deadline-oriented work, as has been pointed out. When you have the luxury of more time, I suppose you can use what you're most familiar with and comfortable using.