Framework vs National Geographic photographers

[hjoseph7]

<p>LA Times - Framework photographers have surpassed National Geographic photographers in high impact photo journalistic style pictures in my opinion. Just take a brief look at their pictures which are posted weekly in the Online paper. <a href="http://framework.latimes.com/">http://framework.latimes.com/</a> . I'm not sure if these photos are taken by independent photographers, or if the photographers actually work for the paper. In any case these guys are beyond National Geographic.</p>

[phule]

<p>Below and on the right side of every photo is the credit. </p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>I spent many years trying to convince students that the "rhetorical context" of their writing was significant, that audience, purpose and occasion shape style and content.</p>

<p>I believe the same can be said of National Geographic photo editors, whose choice of image is guided by similar principles. </p>

<p>And I saw nothing in the first few screens of "Framework" photos that would make me re-evaluate the contributions of such Ntl Geog greats such as Joel Sartore or Frans Lanting.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>With complete understanding that the statement above is your opinion Harry, IMHO - they have not surpassed the Nat Geo team. </p>

<p>What I saw (looking at the pages you linked to) was a collection of good, not great newspaper photography. The NATO protest photo on the Framework page was not as moving as a photo I saw on a friend's flickr stream - with Cops and protesters both clearly visible and a clearly visible story.</p>

<p>The other difference - is that Nat Geo photographers will spend hours, if not days trying to get the "shot" and if it's not happening on a given day - they come back and try again. News photography just doesn't allow for that kind of research, setup, planning and prep. </p>

<p>Not that those photos aren't good - they are very good...just not in Nat Geo range good.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>The other difference - is that Nat Geo photographers will spend hours, if not days trying to get the "shot"</em><br>

<br />Correct ! There is somewhat of a "staged" aspect when it comes to NatGeo pictures. There is also heavy duty editing. Who knows how many pictures the editors there sift through before they decide to choose the right one then publish it. On the other hand, Framework photographers do not have that luxury, they seem to be working on pure photographic instincs. I would say they are highly trained.<br>

<br />It's not just these set of pictures, but others they have published in the past. I have been following them for 3 years and can't stop being amazed. The Washington Post my hometown paper does not even come close !</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Few of them will ever surpass the most under-rated journalist-photographer of the 20th c: Gordon N. Converse of the <em>Christian Science Monitor</em></p>

<p>IMHO</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Gordon N. Converse ?<br>

I see...</p>

[graham_line]

<p>I don't quite see the purpose of comparing daily newspaper work to a monthly science magazine. They are very much different publications.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about the <em>quality</em> of the photographs.</p>

<p>If you look at Converse's work, it is not "daily journalism" of the Weegee type in any case.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I went through the first 20 pages and there were a lot of outstanding photos. I also have a bunch of Geographic books that are also filled with outstanding photos. I don't think that one set of photos is better than the other. This is why I don't believe in photo contests. Why not just say that Framework and Geographic are both outstanding?</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Looks like a bad screen saver collection, IMHO

[rossb]

<p>+1 National Geographic. </p>

[marshall]

<p>Harry - With all due respect, I think you've done Framework photographers a disservice. There is some very fine photography in there. However, your choice to announce it as "beyond National Geographic" in addition to the "Framework vs. National Geo" title of your post, turn this into an unnecessary competition. What is your goal is in creating the post in that manner?<br>

<br />I don't think National Geographic photography needs our defense. Their long-established reputation doesn't (and shouldn't) protect them from criticism if the quality of work their declines. But I'm not sure that's the point you're making, either.<br>

<br />I will say this: I am very pleased to see photography featured well. The Boston Globe's "Big Picture" may have been early in this, but it's by no means unique in putting great photojournalism front and center, with Framework echoing the NY Times' solid "Lens" feature.</p>

<p>Don't we all win by having good photography presented well? Competition is fine, of course, but I don't get its application here.</p>

[k5083]

<p>Maybe he was trying to provoke us into following the link. If he'd just said, "Great photography at Framework," we might have shrugged and thought, maybe I'll find time to look at it later. By saying they've surpassed Nat Geo, he got a number of us thinking, "Oh yeah? I'll be the judge of that!" and following his link when we otherwise might not have. Cheap trick but probably a successful one.</p>