Jim_Tardio Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 For those of you who are interested, the cover story of this months (Dec. 2003) National Geographic was shot digitally. Here is a link to some shots: <a href="http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0312/feature1/index.html ">National Geographic</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_rahman Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Jim, Very interesting, indeed. Hard to imagine, though, the photographers that have made this magazine great over the years, including Sam Abell, William Allard, Jodi Cobb, David Alan Harvey, etc. going digital. Although I think my fave of them all, Steve McCurry, uses Nikon digital now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Why is it so hard to imagine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickaubin Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 It's easy if you try... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukedavis Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I doubt that ALL of the NGS photographers are going digital; it would seem very odd for that to happen. I don't doubt that Cobb, McCurry, Johns will or have already switched. But Bill Allard and Dave Harvey, for instance, utilize the inobtrusive nature of their rangefinders to help do their jobs- and while they could still definitely do it with a digital SLR, it'd be harder, since their camera (and it's size and characteristics) is part of their style. For the most part, of course, it's not about the gear, it's about the great eye these guys have for photography that makes their shots so remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
over exposure Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Well, friends, why they should not in your opinion? Of course they'll use film when it's really required for effects and operating conditions...uhm, maybe I lost the point of this post.. Ciao! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_dewberry Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 If a carpenter switched from a hammer to a nail gun, would that seem unthinkable ? These are tools, just tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_clark10 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Ellis IMO the reason a lot of people see this as interesting or hard to believe is that for decades (if not longer) the National Geographic has been famous for its colourful images shot almost soley on slide usually Kodachrome. So for them to use a digital image like this shows a big change, eventually all the pictures will be digital images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn_rahman Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 David, Your point about the Kodachrome is exactly right. Someday digital color saturation will match 35mm slide, but that day is still ahead of us, IMHO. NG's decision to go digital probably has more to do with cost than anything else. Shooting up to 400 rolls of film for each story has to be crazy expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sb_smith Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 In 1997 the December edition of Life ran a photo essay by landscape photographer Stephen Johnson-the first story to appear in a national magazine produced using the computer-to-plate process, completely bypassing traditional film. I'm not suprised that National Geographic has gone digital. Also, the equiptment costs must be enormous, so I don't think that saving money is the reason. Keeping up with the competition is probably a better explanation. I am a film shooter. Just can't afford high-end digital equiptment. Maybe someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithdunlop Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 If you read the editorial info connected to the article, they discuss that one of the reasons that this particular story was shot digitally had to do with governmental review of the images. I forget which shot it is (the mag is home right now), but one of the planes was only available very close to deadline due to the Iraq war prep, and the only way to shoot the picture, get it past military screeners and to print, was to shoot digitally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_w Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Jim Brandenburg's "looking for the summer", published a few months ago in the Geographic was also shot digitally. Digital is, at this point, an accepted format like 35mm and or medium format film - appropriate for some things, not so for others. In recent talk, Gordon Wiltsie said he shot about 600 rolls for his work in Mongolia. Given that Geographic stories take months or years to conceive, research, edit and publish and have budgets of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'd be sursprised if the costs of film, processing and proofing even show up as line items in the budget. -brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Interesting; we got a questionaire in the mail yesterday; asking for comments on this issue. We have had a subscription since 1947! <BR><BR>There was a BIG stink; when NG started to use PHOTOS on the covers; in the late 1950's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Without trying to lessen Jim's post, it's the evolution of the craft for PJ's. It was a nice group of shots, and I doubt if the majority of the subscribers care if it's film, or if it's digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted November 23, 2003 Author Share Posted November 23, 2003 Agreed, Carl. I posted the link because I figured it was the kind of thing that gets discussed on these boards. If you think about it, digital makes perfect sense for National Geographic, and like publications. <p> Even though they are seemingly swimming in money, digital has got to be a big money and time saver. <p> Of course it's just another tool for the photographer, but it probably makes the bean-counters happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 You bet Jim, any corporate entity is cost conscious, unless they have a death wish. And there's also a logistical benefit, in not schlepping a boat load of film with you. I'm certainly no film basher, but digital has a lot of advantages for any that can get passed the concern of placing their trust in in it. It looks to me like digital has "arrived", and it will only get better. If it's good enough for the National Geographic, then there aren't many doors left to open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armando j. heredia Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Steve McCurry is still shooting film - the November issue showing life in post-war Afghanistan was shot with the F100. Jodi Cobb's article earlier this September on international slavery was an all-film affair with the F100 as well. I'm a digital convert, and it's certainly good to know NG is seeing the production benefits of putting the front end of their research and field work into digital as well. But regardless, it's still the vision of the photographers that brings me back time and again to the pages of my personal copies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith alan sprouse Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Thanks for the link! One thing that I should point out about this discussion, however, is that it's one thing to point out that the Geographic has finally used digital for one entire story and quite another to make the claim that the Geographic has "gone digital." The Geographic hasn't at all abandoned film and it's hard to imagine that happening any time soon, not only due to the superior image quality of film over digital, but also for other reasons related to individual preferences (i.e., some Geographic shooters prefer Leicas for the type of shooting they do, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 "Geographic has finally used digital for one entire story and quite another to make the claim that the Geographic has "gone digital." " True, but the elephant has his trunk under the tent. It won't be long until the rest of him is inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now