Re: Only 100,000 exposures???

[Eric Welch <ewelch@gp.magick.net>]

At 10:18 AM 5/15/96 -0500, you wrote:

>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 

Jim is an aquaintance of mine. I never meant to imply his was overkill
though I can see why one might think I meant such (or Allard either). They
are photo editor's dreams. Bob Gilka told me one time that Jim's probably
the best technician at NG, during his tenure, anyway. But the technique only
gives Jim the base from which to produce such wonderful work. I still think
he's one of the most underrated, by photojournalists, at NG. Some day I hope
they do a book of his life's work. In fact, the year he had to share the
"Photographer of the Year" award with Harry Benon (another nice guy) was a
shame. There's no comparison between the two photographers' bodies of work.

Students at the University of Missouri questioned my opinion of Jim
Stanfield until they saw his slide show, which included his Vatican
coverage, on a screen thirty feet wide. They changed their tunes. (About
Leica, too!) 

Just one example of why he uses so much film. For my favorite picture from
the Vatican (turns out  it's Jim's too <g>) Jim was high up in the chapel
while priests are prostrate on the ground in front of the Pope during their
ordinations. Jim used four lenses 15, 16, 19, 24 and three types of film,
Kodachrome, 40 and 64 and some other film. Talk about needing to be
prepared. It didn't last long.

>The heaviest film users for Geographic though are not the real pros who 

No doubt about it.

That happens everywhere in photography. I think it comes from the assumption
that photography is easy with all these new whiz-bang cameras.

>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'm amazed the illustrations editor assigned to her didn't. Wonder why?
>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. 

And you never know what's coming around the next corner, or not coming. So
shooting in the National Geographic "way" seems to me the ultimate statement
of their committment to quality. Even if there has been some belt-tightening
even there, it's not nearly as bad as more "commerical" situations most of
us work in and we cab only dream about such oppotunity to do it right.

>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.

I can only repeat the story as told to me by Guido Mattoni, editor at the
time of Epoca magazine. And he said it with some admiration in his tone -
after some wine and good pasta. Guido last I heard was working for an
Italian Business Monthly magazine, covering the U.S.

==========================
Eric Welch
Grants Pass Daily Courier