Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage
From: "Kit McChesney | acmefoto" <kitmc@acmefoto.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:54:19 -0600

Well, I wanted to shoot for NG because I wanted to travel to all those
exotic locales they seemed to be able to visit. Where I came from, that
seemed like the only way I'd ever be able to do such a thing.

As it turned out, I went to many of those places on my own, and didn't have
to work for anyone else to pay my freight while I was there!

K.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of bdcolen
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:17 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage


If I may be so bold - the old gray goose was never what some people seem
to think she was. Yes, there are some wonderful photographers who have
worked for the NG over the years, but their best work hasn't generally
appeared in the NG. The publication has been, and continues to be, a
collection of beautiful color postcards for armchair travelers and
explorers. As a kid I dreamed of shooting for LIFE, for LOOK, but never
for the National Geographic.

B. D.
A minority of one ;-)

- -----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 3:07 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage


The old gray goose just ain't what she used to be.

I'd say that the magazine has become so mass-market (the last time I
checked, which was about ten years ago, they were charging about
$175,000 for a four-color full page ad) that the content has definitely
suffered. Seems a bit thin. It's fast-produced, mass-produced. Used to
be you could not buy the NG on newsstands. It was just not possible. Now
they're in Safeway and everywhere else. It's a nice magazine, but it's
not the same publication it used to be, not a journal of the National
Geographic Society, which meant something quite different from what it
means now.

There is still good work in it, but it just doesn't have the same feel
it once had, at least not when I was a youngin' lusting to be the
"other" woman in its ranks. Every month I would grab the new issue as
soon as it arrived, and look in the credits to see if the lone
female--whose name I can't remember anymore--had been joined by any
other. I can't remember if, in my days of rabid NG fandom, if there was
ever more than one woman on staff. Now I see they've come out with a
book called "Women Photographers of National Geographic." I must have
been doing something else while they added enough women to qualify for a
coffee-table book featuring female shooters.

Kit

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Rolfe
Tessem
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:26 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] OT - National Geographic film usage




- --On Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:06:39 PM -0400 bdcolen
<bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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.

B.D.,

You are talking about the National Geo of the "old days". I think very
few, if any, assignments are that long anymore. In fact, I think plenty
of stuff in the magazine is shot in just a three or four days. At least
it looks that way, which is why I cancelled my subscription. Is there
anybody who doesn't think that the photographic quality of the magazine
has gone way, way downhill?

Rolfe

- --
Rolfe Tessem
Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
rolfe@ldp.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

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html