Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In the days of the real LIFE magazine it used to be said that one should expect to get about two 'keepers' per 36 exposure roll - two frames that meant something special to the photographer. I've always heard that the NatGeo photographers consume tons of film...But don't forget that they are often involved in assignments that extend for months, and involve travel to difficult and distant places, places where you can't easily return - or can't return at all - to get the one shot you missed. I would assume that if you are doing a piece on, say, endangered gorillas in the mist, you are going to shoot all the film you can get your hands on. B.D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Kit McChesney | acmefoto Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:41 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage Maybe this will make you feel better, but there is probably a greater percentage of pictures that are "successful" than the few that are published in any magazine or newspaper. Those photographers, as well as many others, have larger portfolios of work than the material you see in print. And it may be that some of those pictures are even "better" than the ones that are published. Editors may not always select the most edgy pictures, aesthetically speaking, or even subject-matter speaking (especially in National Geographic, whose politics are pretty conservative compared to some other pubs), and so what many photographers produce may never be seen by a mass-market audience like the subscription base of National Geographic. So take heart. Your "success" rate could and should be better than 0.05%. If not, something is terribly wrong. I would also venture to say that if it takes 20,000 shots per story, someone is wasting lots of film, and maybe the photographers aren't that good after all. I'm sure if I took 20,000 shots (and I don't consider myself a half-bad photographer) I could get five or six pictures, or even a dozen (most National Geographic stories don't have much more than that) that would pass muster for just about any publication! Even National Geographic! Kit (who at age 15 wrote a letter to the editor of National Geographic asking "what do I have to do to become a National Geographic photographer?" and who later found out that there were many other equally or even more interesting things to do in the world!) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Gerry Walden Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 6:30 AM To: LUG Subject: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage I notice in this months National Geographic that they reckon to use 550 rolls of film per story. Assuming they use 36 exposure rolls, that means they shoot close 19,800 frames per story. Based on using about 10 frames per story for publication, this is a success rate of roughly 0.05%. I think even I could make that, as could most of us on this board. So are the NatGeo guys that good or do we just see the very best? Just a passing thought! Gerry Gerry Walden LRPS www.gwpics.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html