Re: Only 100,000 exposures???

[Fred Ward <fward@erols.com>]

Having photographed for National Geographic for 28 years, I can tell you 
that shoooting 1000 rolls of film a year is not excessive. Many 
newspaper, magazine, and commercial photographers do that. 

I did more than 20 articles that took between 2 and 9 months in the 
field. In all those, I averaged about 300 rolls per article, which was 
quite normal at the time. On one article that seemed to never end, I 
consumed about 500 rolls, which I thought was too much over too long a 
period. But that was a personal reaction. 

Stanfield and Allard do tend to shoot a lot. They can go to the 500-900 
rolls of film per article. But in Stanfield's case in particular, almost 
every frame is usable, beautifully composed, well exposed, and 
publishable. The additional coverage is not over-kill. It is just 
expanding the "look" at the subject, to be sure that everything of value 
and interest is photographically covered. And in his case, you see his 
fabulous Vatican coverage, the definitive work on the subject, 
transformed from article to book to video and everything else NGS 
produces. They are not getting everything from the pig but the squeal.

The heaviest film users for Geographic though are not the real pros who 
used to be on the staff. They are the "should never have been assigned" 
freelancers who are running scared in the field and who think if they 
turn the motor on, surely something good will pass in in front of it. 

The record for this kind of shooting was some years back when a woman 
photographer took a couple of years in South America, shot more than 
1400 rolls, and never had the coverage right. NGS had to send in someone 
else to finish it up and make it publishable. The obvious lesson there 
was that the photographer was not at fault. NGS was for not pulling her 
off the job after a month or so. 

I am reminded of a Japanese fable that speaks to this kind of coverage 
and shows the value of in-depth work. No space for it here, but suffice 
it to say that all good writers write vastly more than is printed. 
Singers, musicians, and athletes practice constaantly to get it right. 
Having a photographer shoot 10-100 times as much as is published the 
first time is not excessive. It is producing what a fine editor needs in 
order to select the best. 

That said, I must also add that if HCB really did shoot 2 rolls of film 
on a country for a magazine assignment, then the magazine was cheated 
and HCB was more arrogant than I have ever heard said about him. I am a 
great admirer of his work, but would find such an action to be 
unprofessional. There is no way to preconceive a true running story, 
photojournalism instead of movie-making, and there is no way to predict 
what the editor or the magazine needs as a final product. Try to imagine 
one of LIFE's greats, or Dave Duncan, or even Stanfill trying to pull 
such a stunt. It is an absurd story, and I truly hope it is not true.

Fred Ward (alive and well and publishing books in Maryland)

***  Visit my Gem Book Publishers site
***  http://www.erols.com/fward/
***
***  fward@erols.com