National Geographic gone mad?

Lee L · Aug 11, 2008

df cardwell said:
I'm happy to see there are so many shooters here that will be taking away all those
overpaid jobs at Geographic. I'll follow your careers with interest.

Don,

Careers doing 6 posts/second to APUG?

Maybe if we stuck a load of monkeys in a chem lab long enough they'd come up with something better than Xtol, or Rodinal, or Pyrocat HD, or perhaps replicate APUG.

Lee

Photo Engineer · Aug 11, 2008

Guys;

I posted here earlier about the number of shots taken per job, especially with wildlife. I guess I'm one of the few who knows a number of NG photogs. Grant took loads of film to the Galapagos for his article and also took a lot to the Falklands where he was bitten by a penguin BTW. In the latter shoot, the article was not published AFAIK. For his re-creation of Ansel Adam's Grand Teton series, his stroke interrupted his submission, and I have the hundred sheet boxes of Ektachrome in my freezer for him.

I have watched these guys shoot at Cape Canaveral as if the film was free (which it was to them) and they took hundreds of shots each and there probably were over a dozen of them there. They also set up remote cameras, as I mentioned that would shoot a whole roll of 70mm film. So, the number of shots was quite high as were the numbers of photographers.

In addition, back in the "old days" of Kodachrome, we at Kodak used to make whole master rolls of Kodachrome available to NG! In fact, just at the Cape, I used to have a refrigerated freight car of Kodak materials delivered to the back of the Technical Labs for our photo people there.

So, with big photo products, that figure is completely normal to me and I didn't blink!

PE

isaacc7 · Aug 11, 2008

The more I read this thread, the more I think the cult of photographer as artist is reading the wrong magazine. If how the photographer takes pictures is so important to you, why look at the pictures at all? Why not just read the story of how the photographer went and carefully, slowly composed and ruminated over every picture. He used his 35mm (most likely DSLR) like a view camera and worried what people on forums with too much time on their hands and not a little jealousy thought about how he did his job. I can guarantee that the reason they shoot so much, and have shot so much over the years, is because that is the approach needed to get their employer what they want.

If you want to obsess about how a photographer works as opposed to the pictures that are produced, stop looking at Natgeo. This so called "trend' that many "blame" on digital really started with 35mm. If I remember correctly, most people I talked to were in awe of the NatGeo photographers that blew through thousands of rolls of film, it's what they had to do to get those "incredible" shots. Now that they are using digital cameras, the quality of the pictures isn't of any concern, they're shooting more pictures! They must be talentless hacks (not that that actually matters mind you, they deliver the shots). If it makes you feel better, instead of looking at them like Ansel Adams, think Jerry Ulseman. Most importantly, I think you'll live a lot longer if stop worrying about how a magazine (a magazine for God's sake!) gets it's pictures.

Sorry, rant over. I am just exasperated at the attitude that it requires an artist to make a decent picture. It can't hurt certainly, but just keep in mind that in many situations (not all) a motion picture camera with a competent operator can indeed replicate what an "artist" does. Don't hold a magazine to your own, personal artistic "integrity."

Isaac

2F/2F · Aug 11, 2008

If film had been as easy to carry and use as CF cards, the same thing would have happened when they were using film. We are really talking about human discipline here, not the medium of capture. There is not much to say, except that people are people. They walk on tight ropes and stretch things to the max with wretched excess as long as they can get away with it. Digital, being materially cheaper, makes it easier to make an argument as to why one should get away with this.

If I was on a half-year assignment and had only to carry CF cards, and not film, I would probably shoot more than average. I would be surrounded by interesting and unfamiliar things, people, and situations, so would likely be clicking away. It is really up to the editors to control their shooters in the end. I would venture to guess that this can be difficult from half a world away.

Do I agree that journalistic photographers are largely hacks nowadays? Absolutely. However, in the end, you need to just pick up the magazine, sit down, and enjoy it. How Joe Photographer works is up to him and his editors. If you don't like it, become a NG editor.

Quite honestly, I am more concerned about how their style of writing has become more informal and subjective in the past 10-20 years, and how the air of elitism is gone from the magazine. The magazine was one of the last quality formal documentary publications, and they have just cheapened it with stylistic and other changes, such as offering it in newsstands instead of by membership only. They had to diversify their audience to stay alive, and this, of course, led to content changes. I still like it, but it is much more of a McMagazine then it ever has been, IMO.

...and I am still upset about the NY Times printing in color as well.

BTW, NG is largely contributor based. Why don't you put together an expedition and submit? No one is stopping you.

Photo Engineer · Aug 11, 2008

Well, actually some of the NG photographers had assistants to carry film and equipment so that was never really a problem AFAIK. Grant's wife helped him at the Galapagos, and his daughter helped him at the Grand Tetons.

PE

DanielOB · Aug 11, 2008

PE
It must be really funny to watch that photogs machining aroung... with double-barrel... at one single duck.

.. and I can tell you that smart photographer as HCB never ever counted on statistical data in his camera.

Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

Photo Engineer · Aug 11, 2008

Daniel;

Even Ansel Adams said somewhere that it took him 10,000 shots to get the one good one that he liked. That is not, by any means, and exact quote but it gives the spirit of his comment I think.

PE

ilya1963 · Aug 11, 2008

“Your first 10000 photographs are your worst.” Henri Cartier-Bresson - Photographer .....

SuzanneR · Aug 11, 2008

National Geographic photographers and picture editors work very hard, and I've always had enormous respect for them. I had the opportunity to edit outtakes from several National Geographic stories for a small photo agency, and they shot a lot. A whole lot. It would take considerable effort and time to edit and organize the work so that they could be filed in a logical way, and be made available as stock. (Generally, with the exception of the pictures that were published in NGM.) We dealt with several freelancers, and those stories often took them away from home for 6 months or so, and another 4 to 6 months to edit it.

It's not easy work, and I'm sure the digital workflow hasn't made it any easier, either.

If you don't like the magazine, don't read it. I, for one, usually always find a photograph or two in each issue that I like. No matter if it was made on the classic Nat. Geo Kodachrome, or digital capture.

They did get a lot of flak for moving a pyramid over to fit the cover years ago... it was an Adam Woolfitt picture. Believe me, they shoot plenty of verticals... it always struck me as odd that they had to do that... with all those photographers... you'd think someone could have come up with a good vertical of the pyramids.

Then again... they didn't move it much, and probably would have been fine "as is", and I'm not sure it was worth the damage to their credibility at the time just to fit the shape of the cover.

2F/2F · Aug 11, 2008

"They did get a lot of flak for moving a pyramid over to fit the cover years ago"

...but they did not try to present it as journalism. They openly said is was Photoshopped. Basically, they were just screwing around with and displaying new technology, and people got up in arms. I understand the complaints, and agree as to how little photographs in NG should be altered, but at least they were forthright about it being an "illustration" as opposed to a "photograph" from the beginning, and not just trying to pass it off to us.

Marco B · Aug 11, 2008

Hi all,

As the OP, I think I need to just set something straight: I have no issues with the quality of the magazine itself, nor generally with the pictures therein. Once in a while, I buy an edition when I feel like it.. nothing wrong with that.

It's just that, after reading the newspaper article, I do think that at least some or maybe a big part of the work is a pure waist. Although I wouldn't go as far as stating that "monkeys" could do the job equally well, I do think it's unnecessary to shoot tons of images to become "better", as some other poster suggested... if that were the case, all of the LF and ULF photographers here on APUG would never get past the toddler state of photography

Clearly, APUG gallery contents tells another story...

So yes, there maybe some sense in "learning" to shoot on a long term project, but no, I don't agree it requires 50.000 shots and a significant digital "edit" to get a decent cover image... that's ridiculous!

PS: And all professional camera bodies support a vertical grip, if they don't have it already integrated, so there's really no excuse for not having a significant amount of vertical shots.

2F/2F · Aug 11, 2008

Of course it is not necessary. But that's what happens, whether it is necessary or not. Have you ever heard of the serenity poem/prayer? Well, it's a good thing by which to live your life, IMO. It involves wisely recognizing what can and what cannot be changed, being able to accept the things that cannot, and having what it takes to change the things that can.

I would venture to guess that none of this takes place at APUG, or anywhere on the Internet.

What are you going to do about it? Vent on the Internet, or go show NG your portfolio? If you can honestly convince them that you will do the job better, and make the editors' jobs easier, they will give you an assignment for sure. Better start working on your convincing skills, though! I would not approach them the way you have here. You don't get a job or change things by bashing the more accomplished people in your field as a noob. All you have to do is be better, and you will have said enough.

SuzanneR · Aug 11, 2008

They were met with similar criticism in the film days... I mean the huge budgets and time was such a luxury, how could they not make good photographs? These are in-depth stories, but I don't think they have the budgets or the time they once did, so maybe a little more "waste" is creeping in. Frankly, I question some of those numbers. Most National Geographic photographers have deep roots in film, and I doubt very much they've turned into spray and pray shooters.

Marco B · Aug 11, 2008

I have never said that I "would do the job better", nor have I wanted to suggest that NG photographers are "bad", if that were the case, I wouldn't buy NG at all! I do however think that some of them (the ones shooting 50.000 images) maybe taking an easy path by simply swamping the editors in the hope of having those 12 "excellent" images that make it into the magazine among the tons delivered.

Honestly: can you say that you would still be inspired, alert and totally committed to the project after shooting 500 / day during 6 months??? I just don't buy it... but maybe my concentration span is just to short.

2F/2F · Aug 11, 2008

If it is really eating you, I would write a letter to the editor explaining your views.

SuzanneR · Aug 11, 2008

Well, remember... they don't just send it all back to their offices, and let the picture editors sort it all out! They are often there every step of the way working with the photo editor, the art director and layout folks, the writers... the "legends" (fancy word for captions) writers, yadda, yadda, yadda... it's no picnic, I'm sure, and I bet many of them grow weary of the story by the time it's finally on the newstand!

Lee L · Aug 11, 2008

Marco B said:
Although I wouldn't go as far as stating that "monkeys" could do the job equally well, I do think it's unnecessary to shoot tons of images to become "better", as some other poster suggested... if that were the case, all of the LF and ULF photographers here on APUG would never get past the toddler state of photography

Clearly, APUG gallery contents tells another story...

I'd agree to the extent that it's largely the amount of time spent working on your seeing that counts, not how many times you press the shutter. The formats typically used by NG photographers permit them to make shots that couldn't be done with LF, but LF photographers spend more time with each image. Shooting under the quickly changing conditions, and for the variety of shots required for NG makes it necessary to shoot more to get the best nuance on film. In the end it's how much time attending closely to getting the best possible image that improves seeing, not the frame rate. However, being able to reflect on the greater number of variations during editing can be highly instructive, and improve the work.

But as the variously attributed "10,000 image" quote in this thread says, you get better the more you do it and the longer you look, regardless of format. Read the editor's quote in the Joel Sartore article linked to earlier in this thread.

Lee

doughowk · Aug 11, 2008

Around 1980 I had lunch with a friend and an NG photographer he knew. I naively wanted to talk about photography, whereas the NG photog spent the entire time recounting his cocaine & sex escapades. He liked life in the fast lane with adrenalin highs; so fast cameras in unusual places were just part of the lifestyle. He was just one, so don't extrapolate.

Marco B · Aug 11, 2008

Lee L said:
In the end it's how much time attending closely to getting the best possible image that improves seeing, not the frame rate. However, being able to reflect on the greater number of variations during editing can be highly instructive, and improve the work.
Lee

Lee, I fully agree with you on these topics. It's the dedication to the job (and the possibility to fully exploit it in long term projects) that sets the NG photography apart, not the number of shots...

Marco B · Aug 11, 2008

But, if after 50.000 shots a photographer, according to NG, still hasn't made "THE cover shot", and shooting 50.000 shots is the "personal style" of a certain photographer, than sending him out for another month's shooting and another 10.000 shots is in order, and NOT d******lly moving the pyramids of Giza as if they were some checker board pieces...

Marco B · Aug 11, 2008

2F/2F said:
If it is really eating you, I would write a letter to the editor explaining your views.

No, it's not really eating me, although some of you may have missed it, and I generally tend to be a bit (c)rude in these things, there also was a lot of irony intended in my original post. I also posted simply for the fun of it, and get some discussion going...

2F/2F · Aug 11, 2008

As I said, if you have a problem with who NG is hiring, and how they have designed their work flow (and there is plenty of reason for this), write them a letter. What the hell are we APUG visitors going to do about it? While we may agree at heart, I also believe that there is more to life than being right on the Internet. I just think the world would be better served if you discussed this with NG proper, in an intelligent way. If more concerned people bitched and whined straight to publications, instead of to Internet forums, maybe things would change. I understand the just trying to get things going reason for the post, but I think this is a case where it just seems like an aimless bashing session.

Colin Corneau · Aug 11, 2008

I have to agree with the above post.

Who cares if NG is digital, or analog, or a mixture? They've run collodion plate images by Robb Kendrick, among other innovative moves.

It seems to me they're more keen than ever to run innovative, arresting images. And just because I have a resurgence in interest in analog doesn't mean I can't admire a great image.

FWIW, I've shot a number of big events in my time as a newspaper photographer and whether it was film or digital, I've gone through a LOT of frames. It happens. What matters to me is the image in front of me.

arigram · Aug 11, 2008

Shooting like a machine gunner might make you an adequate camera professional but does not make you a photographer. Photography in a way is done then by the editor, not the button clicker.

2F/2F · Aug 11, 2008

arigram said:
Shooting like a machine gunner might make you an adequate camera professional but does not make you a photographer. Photography in a way is done then by the editor, not the button clicker.

Methinks we are getting obsessed with titles here. What is it that entitles us to be the ones who title "professionals" and "photographers"? What good is a title anyhow?

There seems to be a lot of assumption that we know what the hell we are doing and they do not. Balls to that, sez I. The Internet has a habit of breeding exceptionally arrogant, posturing people out of nobodies. We don't know shit. NG shooters are the ones out getting stuff done, not sitting in front of a computer. Just being there is 90% of being a good photographer, IMO.

There also seems to be a lot of assumption that they are shooting like sports hacks. We did not see these people working in the field. Taking a lot of shots does not mean you are firing bursts. Take the 10,000 shots per month number, which is 333 shots per day in an average month. Say you are awake and with camera in hand six hours a day, every day. That's about 55 shots per hour. Lets just call it a shot a minute, or about two rolls an hour. That is not really that bad, especially considering that they probably have cameras in hand for longer than six hours a day. Also, I am sure these number average out. Some days might have fewer than average shots, while others might have more than average. Let's assume they are taking twice as many shots on digital as they would have on film. Over all, not bad. If I was asked to document my daily life for a month, in detail, I might take as many photos (not that anyone would actually want to see them). If I were in an unfamiliar, exciting, fresh environment, working every day, I would probably shoot 10,000 shots per month...and it wouldn't mean I was a hack. It would just mean I like taking pictures.

Oh, and most would be horizontal, too.

National Geographic gone mad?

Lee L

Photo Engineer

isaacc7

2F/2F

Photo Engineer

DanielOB

Photo Engineer

ilya1963

SuzanneR

Moderator

2F/2F

Marco B

2F/2F

SuzanneR

Moderator

Marco B

2F/2F

SuzanneR

Moderator

Lee L

doughowk

Marco B

Marco B

Marco B

2F/2F

Colin Corneau

arigram

2F/2F

National Geographic gone mad?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency