Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with you. I hadn't read NG for a good 10 years, until a few months ago when I renewed my subscription. Frankly I was disapointed with with a lot of the photography. A while back I had access to a large amount of issues that dated all the way back to the 30's, so I have a fairly broad selection to compare the current work to. I've never been a big fan of the purple or green skys, shot with a super wide angle lens and colors so saturated that everything looks like an acid trip. It reminds me of bad stock photography. Lot's of it feels like like has a slight case of MTV. You know, hip, cutting edge, edgy. Of course there is still a lot of really great work in it. And then there are the articles... but that's a whole different rant... feli Mike Quinn wrote: > > I guess I'm the only one in the world who can't stand most National > Geographic photographs. I don't want to see the world in saturated color > through a distorted wide angle lens. > > When I first moved to the west from the midwest I was amazed how good things > looked out here through a 50mm lens. I think that's one of the definitions > of paradise. If it looks good through 50mm, then it may be paradise! > > NG goes to paradise and then distorts it. One day my house will sink because > of its collection of bad NG photographs. Sigh. > > Mike (Really mom, I just buy it for the maps) Quinn > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html