[Leica] Leicas and National Geographic

[hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)]

Thanks for your contribution on this Emanuel. I cannot think of another
periodical that goes to such lengths for photography essays. I noted in the
television programme that the audience for each issue was 39 million people.
At one point you could purchase a large set of CD/DVDs of all back issues up
to a certain point. However I discovered that they were completely
unsearchable, that is simple single images of each individual page, all
thousands of them. Imagine what a resource it would be if re-done in a
modern way.
 Cheers
Geoff
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman


On 17 February 2010 15:26, EPL <manolito at videotron.ca> wrote:

>  Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
> > I just enjoyed a program here showcasing the top ten photos for 2009
> > according to the NG magazine. Amazing work of course and their number one
> > shot was a vertical panorama if you like of a magnificent Redwood tree. I
> > think something like 84 shots from a bank of pro Canons hauled halfway
> into
> > orbit. Naturally there were plenty of top level Nikons and Canons in
> > evidence as the best tools for some of the applications (including
> > underwater housings and banks of remotely controlled multiple cameras).
> >
> > What was a pleasant surprise was to see that  at least two of the
> talented
> > photographers were using M's. Film M's no less. One whole essay was done
> in
> > a remoter part of China and the placing shot was taken while hanging
> upside
> > down from a cable strung between two mountain tops. That is amazing
> > dedication. I think that the photog's website says that he used two M's
> with
> > Provia. The one I saw was an MP with a Summicron 28 fwiw. The
> photographer
> > was Fritz Hoffmann and the other (working in Africa) was Martin
> Schoeller.
> > It was also very interesting to see the photogs and editor peering at
> small
> > prints with loupes which isn't quite how I imagined their main method
> would
> > go! Then their layout was all around 12x18 prints per spread sorted on a
> > blarge wall. Only one photog was shown editing on I think two 30 inch
> > screens. Another comment was that their photogs take I think one million
> > photos annually of which one thousand make it into the magazine. Sheesh,
> > Tina thought she had an editing challenge!
> >
> > Anyway well worth a look at their site and the magazine of course.
> > http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/top-ten-photography
> > Cheers
> > Geoff
> > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman
>
> I worked for National Geographic Magazine in the early-mid 90s.  At that
> time,  a photographer would shoot 500-800 rolls of 36 exposures for a story
> that would run 10-15 images in the magazine.
>
> A story assignment could last 3-5 months, not working every day (but many
> days) but spread out to catch seasonal changes or events. Film was shipped
> back to DC every week or so for processing and for review for technical
> flaws, this on desk-mounted film reviewers. The techs who did this work
> would report back to the photographer in the field via the editor assigned
> to the story. Later, at the halfway point, the photographer himself had to
> assemble a slideshow for the editors and did the same again at the end.
>
> Technical flawlessness of every image was an absolute. Lighting, framing,
> foreground/background relationship: a picture had to convey a great deal of
> accurate, verifiable information, a story in itself but also function as
> part of the larger story told by the total number of photos that ran under
> the title. The pictures were not intended to illustrate the text at all.
> They stood on their own.
>
> The photographer -- an artist, really -- had a good deal of influence over
> the rough cut of a story, although in the end the final selection had a lot
> to do with design people and the editor. The final slideshow was done in a
> very large room, like a movie theatre -- exciting stuff.
>
> At that point many photographers still carried Leica M cameras in their
> bags
> but I daresay the majority of pictures were actually taken with Canon and
> Nikon SLRs (F4 Nikons were popular). Photographer could use any equipment
> or
> film he/she preferred.
>
> It was normal for a photographer to go to extreme lengths to get any single
> shot. Just saying, "Hi, I'm on assignment for National Georgraphic
> Magazine"
> opened any and every door. The sky was not any kind of limit.
>
> At that time, a photographer might be paid about $40,000 for a story but
> the
> standard of quality expected for that fee was very high indeed. Very long
> hours, risk and danger were very much part of it all. Total cost of
> photography per story was $100,000, all expenses included. At that time,
> there was feeling at the top that the costs were too high and I expect
> there
> have been significant reductions. In my opinion, quality too has declined
> somewhat.
>
> Emanuel Lowi
> Montreal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>