david alan harvey Vietnam

[tim_robinson]

What do you guys think of Davids Hanoi pics in Nat Geo ? And what do you

think of the mag in general these days ? Personaly i think my 6 year old could

have taken those shots. (ok i might be a bit harsh ). I think he is a good

shooter but those shots are ordinary.

TIM

[johan_greenhorn]

As always, some are better than others, but in general I tend to agree with you (except the 6 yo part). In a place like Vietnam there are a lot of photo opportunities. May be he had little time to take the shots? Or tested the new Digilux 2? ;)

[tim_robinson]

what ever hapened to the "stay until you have the shots ' Apart from the cover

everything looks like it was shot within 50m of his hotel.

[raymond_tai]

Maybe he had better shots but the magazine editor chose those. Isn't that how it usually

works?

[el_fang]

I was a little disappointed. I liked the opening shot of the decorated veteran posing in front of the Ho Chi Minh mausoleum, the silhouette street shot (which they ran too small), the woman putting on makeup, and the kids playing in the water. Overall I expected better, and it's probably a combination of the factors already mentioned.

[tim_robinson]

If he had better the mag would have run them ! If he had better and the didn't

run them then the editor needs to go. After 40ish stories in N G David would

have a bit of a say as to what is printed. Have a look at the grainy , contrasty

,badly lit cover shot and then have a look at the digi happy snap on the back

cover. This is "NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC" NOT the High school news paper.

[Karim Ghantous]

I had a look again. Some shots were aesthetically good while others were merely illustrating a caption (so to speak) but there's nothing wrong with that if you just want to show the reader what you're talking about.

 

I guess we can see the limitations of paper publishing: imagine being able to see at least decent sized thumbnails of most of the other frames that Harvey shot in 'Nam. On the Web it would be an easy feature to add. And you could give each pic a rating, so the highest rated ones are shown first and it adjusts dynamically.

 

One thing that gets me with the NG is that while I know that the 35mm frame is not the Alpha and Omega of photography the magazine shows it to be rather grainy. Nice grain, but it's there. I've seen two page bleeds off 35mm slides (and negs would be even better) in other publications with no hint of graininess. Still, the NG's pages are very nice in their texture.

[sal dimarco]

None of us hit a home run everytime we come up to bat. This time, Harv just barely got on base. It is by on means his best work. Maybe his one camera, one lens, one film attitude needs to be modified, or maybe he just didn't connect with the story. Only He and his editor know for sure. To correct some misconceptions.... Just because he has done over 40 stories, doesn't mean he has more of a say in the editing process. He and all the photogs don't. Secondly, the "stay until you get the pictures" days have been over for years. (credit the MBA bean counters) From what I'm told, if your not getting the story after three weeks of shooting, you're pulled back and the story reassigned. Happy Snaps, Sal

[cfimages]

I don't usually buy NG, although I do try to flick through each issue in the store. I bought this one as I spent 2 weeks in Hanoi early last year (and for some reason, the bookstore had sealed this issue in plastic so I was unable to have my usual flick thru). Most, if not all, of these shots were taken within walking distance of the hotel I stayed in, so in that regard, he didn't seem to have gotten around too much. The shot of the cup of coffee on the balcony table definetely brought back memories - I often had an afternoon coffee there and watched the traffic go by - and in case you're interested, the coffee was good, but pricey but Vietnamese standards.

 

But my biggest gripes with the pics and the issue in general are -

 

1. What's with the red-eye in the horse photo?

2. I would have liked to have seen more shots of Hanoi and not so much space given to the articles of rural US and Jim Richardson's pics. Nothing against either the pics or the article, (the pics were good and the article kind of interesting for someone like me who's never been to the US). But a pic of Hanoi on the cover, "Hanoi, The Soul of Vietnam" in big letters on the cover and then to get only 12 pages of Hanoi left me quite disappointed.

 

Well, that's my rant for the day!

[corey_wise1]

I think having the feeling that "hey I could do that" (or in this case 'my six year old could do that' is what drives many to pick up a camera in the first place. But it reminds me of something a seasoned photog told his griping assistant one time, "You may be able to shoot the job, but you can't get the job"...

 

Corey

www.coreywise.com

[maclean]

is this online? I'd like to check it out, but didn't see it on the site. What issue was it?

[cabophoto]

Tim,

 

I love Harvey´s work from Cuba, Mexico, Brazil and Vietnam (there are great pics from Vietnam in a 1989 Nat Geo). This time however he failed. The pictures look uninspired to me, like from someone trying to imitate Harvey´s style. Definitely not his best work.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[peter_n1664876959]

<i>What issue was it?</i><br><br>

 

National Geographic Vol. 205 No. 5 May 2004 pages 80-97.

[preston_merchant]

I just got the issue, and I don't see why people are taking DAH to task. The shots look like his and the mag's usual fare. But NG has been advertising for a new photo editor for some time now. Maybe you are used to an old editor's take on Harvey and the developing world.

[bob soltis]

The magazine is still excellent. Perhaps the Hanoi coverage was heavily edited to make

more room for the Heartland article, which IMHO is better illustrated. The black and white

images of Cuba, Kansas are a nice touch.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<em>The magazine is still excellent</em><p>

 

I'm sorry but I disagree. IMO it's been in the doldrums ever since every photographer

decided that every single story can be covered with an ultra-wide-angle lens and "oh-

golly-look-how-hyper-saturated-the-colours-are" Velvia.<p>

 

Compare the content they used to have in the 80's - a variety of shots taken with different

lenses and films to properly cover the subject.

[cabophoto]

Andrew,

 

I agree wholeheatedly. The 1992 article on Spain with David Alan Harvey´s photographs is excellent, as are a lot of articles with pics by Sam Abell, Bill Allard, Thomas Tomaszewski, Jim Stanfield and some others. At present, photography at NatGeo isn´t all that great.

 

Carsten

[boris_chan1]

"One thing that gets me with the NG is that while I know that the

35mm frame is not the Alpha and Omega of photography the

magazine shows it to be rather grainy..........I've seen two page

bleeds.........in other publications with no hint of graininess."

 

What you're actually seeing are sharpening artefacts rather than

grain. The production staff at Geographic indulge in an awful lot

more photoshop work than most magazines, and that's why,

despite the small format, that many of the images appear

"grainy".

[melvin_h_j_tan]

No comments about how NG is doing its editing but I really agree that the pics of hanoi are about the worst i've seen of harvey's work. my first impression when i thumbed thru the pages was: "what? these were shot by harvey?" and secretly (i'm sure you guys too..), i was thinking to myself that NG should put me on assignment too! i guess its a long-time dream to shoot for the geographic. with pics like those of hanoi, the dream may be closer to reality than i think!

 

melvin h j tan

[monsoonphoto.net]

I was especially disappointed by the shot of the coffee cup. That's the kind of snapshot I

would do if I were traveling through a city! Perfectly pointless.

[abraham_heinsheimer]

anyone familiar with david's work can be justifiably dissappointed with his recent natgeo contribution on hanoi. fyi, you can check out http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0405/feature5/index.html for the online version, which gives some insight into his experience shooting in hanoi, and some facts and stats behind some of the shots. his 1989 essay on hanoi is a natgeo classic, and like his spain essay, one of the works that stands out in his excellent career. for that precise reason, this "return to hanoi" piece is doubly dissapointing. sure, it must have been 'easier' to snap great shots in hanoi in 1989, as it was still shut off from the world and considerably more dour and "communist" than it is today. but this year's shots are unarguably uninspired, poorly researched or crafted and definitely give the impression of having been shot on the fly in near proximity to his hotel. hanoi is a wonderfully unique city. david captured it in 1989. he missed the mark by a mile in 2004. i think everyone involved, the photographer and the editors, should shoulder the blame for this one (the cropped pic used for the cover does not work at all. that's an editing gaff, not the photographers). and as for the comment above that if a shooter isn't getting the story in three weeks they are then replaced: if these are the best pics from three weeks of shooting, then he should no longer be hired by the mag. natgeo readers expect the best, and this was totally unacceptable. (for the record, i mean no disrespect to an otherwise great photographer. i guess high expectations create large dissapointment).