Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]i had a portfolio review with bert fox, a Nat'l Geo photo editor, last year in los angeles. he said that for a normal story that takes over two to three months of shooting, their photographers shoot 600 to 1200 rolls. and he was the person in charge of going through these thousands of slides to pick out the gems. so the percentage is even lower than quoted in the article. it was our internal mantra that weekend: anyone can expose 43,200 frames over three months for 8 to 12 photos to be selected and printed. doug - --- Kit McChesney | acmefoto <kitmc@acmefoto.com> wrote: > 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