Re: [Leica] Re: Nat Geo & Amount of film.

[Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu>]

To Ted: the point is not the sheer volume of film.

To Sal: the point is not the artistic merit of the pictures.

My point is that a lot of film gets burned on a lot of unmemorable
pictures.  They are pretty, but as someone pointed out, "the National
Geographic style" is ultraconsistent and visually fatiguing without
having durable content (for the most part).  Some, like McCurry, are
standouts, but imagine my surprise when reading his portfolio book I
discovered that a large number of head shots were just out of focus.

The pictures are in the top 1%, but the bottom thousandth of that top 1%.
I would put at least two PJs on this list in a higher bracket.


On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Sal DiMarco,Jr. wrote:

> LUGgers,
>     While, a valid point can be made for  calling the National Geographic's
> photography "eye candy," it does the photographer who shoot for them a
> disservice and demeans their talent.
>     As to memorable photos in the Geographic, off the top of my head and no
> particular order...
> 1.- Bruce Dale's time exposure of a 747 landing.
> 2.- Jodi Cobb's Geisha's Lips
> 3.- Jim Stanfield's Vatican and Paris Essays.
> 4.- Bill Allard's Peruvian boy in tears after one of the family sheep was
> killed by a car.
> 5.- Joe McNally's shot from the top of the Empire State building.
>     Ted Grant made an excellent point about how much film is consumed on an
> assignment.
>     But for the unconvinced... A long time ago, and a forget exactly where,
> I heard it, but if you translate each situation photographed as a specific
> assignment,  a National Geographic photographer shoots about three rolls per
> assignment. That's not really  outrageous.
> Happy Snaps,
> Sal DiMarco, Jr.
> Philadelphia, PA
> Web Site: http://members.fcc.net/sal.dimarcojr
>
> --
> 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