More Large Format in National Geographic

[Alex Hawley]

Browsing through the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, I took notice of the "On Assignment" article, which spotlights the photography and photographer of one of the issue's main articles. This issue's feature article was on evolution, titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" and this was also the subject of the "On Assignment" article. I was happily surprised to learn all of the photos were taken for the Darwin article were done in Large Format, and color Polaroid to boot!

This is good proof that LF, and LF Polaroid work, is not dead. National Geo is an iconic publication is several respects, and its photography has always been one of those respects. This feature follows the one in the October issue that was shot in LF tintypes, and I think they are both a strong endorsement for LF work. I may write a letter congratulating NG for their support of LF photography.

 

[rbarker]

Interesting, considering the evolution through which NG itself is going.

Were they using 4x5 or 8x10 color Polaroids?

 

[Alex Hawley]

Were they using 4x5 or 8x10 color Polaroids?

I thought they looked like 8x10 but couldn't be sure. The article didn't specify.

Interesting, considering the evolution through which NG itself is going.

What evolution do you see them going through Ralph? I have noticed a change in their editorial tack, plus a renewed emphasis of highlighting the photographers and their work.

 

[rbarker]

. . . What evolution do you [see] them going through Ralph?

I like the section at the back that highlights photographers and examines some of the editorial choices made in the issue. It seems to me, however, that the magazine has suffered a bit over the last few years as the organization has tried to find its way in the new TV/Internet-dominated world. To be fair, however, that has been a problem with most print pubs of high quality.

 

[Tom Duffy]

National Geographic is going digital. I think that's what Ralph is referring to.

 

[anyte]

National Geographic is going digital. I think that's what Ralph is referring to.

The only way in which National Geographic would go digital is if the only photographers interested in doing photo assignments used digital. NG has an open policy that allows each photographer to use the equipment of their choosing. I wrote a letter to them a couple months ago inquiring as to the use of analog photography in NG and I was assured that they have no desire to create any barriers to analog users.

 

[roteague]

Were they using 4x5 or 8x10 color Polaroids?

It looked like 4x5 Velvia F100.

 

[John McCallum]

Yes - very nice to see LF in Nat Geographic. But hey, if Eric can photograph successfully with his 4x5, handheld through the plane window ... no excuses eh?

A National Geographic photographer spoke in Auckland a few months ago. He was asked about the magazine moving to digital media for convenience and he made the comment that several of the assignment photographers did use 35mm digi slr's. He also said that he was still very keen to continue to use film. He had been with them a long time.

One of the benefits being that it was nice to drop the film in a parcel and send it back to the office, then go to bed. Much better than "spending another 2-3hrs on top of a long day editing images, then emailing them".

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

One big obstacle I see to using digital SLRs with some of their work is concerning the battery. Charging those things in the Amazon must be a pain. At least with a film camera you can carry a large quantity of cheap batteries into the field. Also, I don't know how reliable those DSLRs are in hotter or colder climates. Cheers to them for allowing the photographer to choose his/her equipment.