National Geographic Magazine Special Edition

[Curt]

I just saw a copy of the National Geographic, a special edition, at the store this evening. Beautiful images in vivid color. The special edition was on how to take the best digital photographs. No Kodachrome 25 there anymore.

 

[Sanjay Sen]

Yes, they are increasingly leaning towards d****** now. I guess it makes sense to them from a cost perspective because NG photographers are known to shoot hundreds, if not thousands, of rolls for an assignment. There will be a significant cost saving, I would think, by switching from film. I am sorry to see them use less film than before, though, but the NG photographers whose work I like still shoot all film. That is not to say they will continue to, but until then.... However, I am unsure of the archival issues with the new media; they regularly print photos from the beginning of the last century and I am left wondering if they can continue to do this fifty years from now.

 

[MattKing]

IIRC, at one time National Geographic not only had its own processing facilities, it was the largest non-Kodak Kodachrome processor (by volume) in the entire world.

With volumes like that, and with the relatively small size reproductions that are in their magazines, it is not surprising that they would at least investigate a digital workflow.

It would be really interesting to know how they have archived their (film) photography in the past, and how they intend to archive their (film and digital) photography in the future.

Matt

 

[kjsphoto]

There will be a huge increase in money spent due to though digital workflow. Not only do they have to load every single image into a computer then have to also be able to view each one as well.

With chrome you just put on a light table with the recycle bin next to the desk and jam through them. Much faster for editing than digital files and you don’t need high computers that need replaced everywhere either.

The misconceptions of digital just amaze me. Digital is just so much more expensive even with high volume of images.

Anyway just my two cents.

 

[donbga]

There will be a huge increase in money spent due to though digital workflow. Not only do they have to load every single image into a computer then have to also be able to view each one as well.

With chrome you just put on a light table with the recycle bin next to the desk and jam through them. Much faster for editing than digital files and you don’t need high computers that need replaced everywhere either.

The misconceptions of digital just amaze me. Digital is just so much more expensive even with high volume of images.

Anyway just my two cents.

Well I have to disagree with your synopsis. The digital revolution in magazine publishing was over a long time ago.

Whether the initial capture was digital or on film, everything has to be digitized now.


The production of a magazine with an all digital workflow is much more efficient and less labor intensive.

The reason I know this is that in the early 90's I worked for a magazine publisher that went throught the conversion. The conversion was painful but once done work flow was really streamlined.

 

[roteague]

Well I have to disagree with your synopsis. The digital revolution in magazine publishing was over a long time ago.

Whether the initial capture was digital or on film, everything has to be digitized now.


The production of a magazine with an all digital workflow is much more efficient and less labor intensive.

The reason I know this is that in the early 90's I worked for a magazine publisher that went throught the conversion. The conversion was painful but once done work flow was really streamlined.

I have to agree with Kev. Yes, what you say is true, but most of the additional cost has been moved onto the backs of the photographers, not the magazine publishers, where it used to be.