National Geography photographer's film choice.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Jimmy Martin - 14 Jun 2005 16:18 GMT

Back in the early day's before digital became mainstream the photographs
from this great magazine had some really outstanding photography that I had
ever seen. I heard from some veteran photog's that they only shot on 35mm
slide film and kodachrome I think.Can anyone confirm this one? Their
exposures were right on even in remote areas where the light was very poor.
They must have been great at metering. And they probably went through tons
of film per assignment.

Jimbo

Reply to this Message

Justin Thyme - 15 Jun 2005 22:47 GMT

> Back in the early day's before digital became mainstream the photographs
> from this great magazine had some really outstanding photography that I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> poor. They must have been great at metering. And they probably went
> through tons of film per assignment.

I can't remember where I saw it now, but I did see an article about National
Geographic's photographers. I don't recall any specific requirement for it
to be slide film, or specifically Kodachrome, but the images did have to be
top quality (which pretty much excludes anything other than slide film in
35mm format). Likewise there was no requirement for 35mm, 120 was often used
also. A recent issue that I have mentions that the photographer was using an
8x10 view camera. As for the quantity of shots, for a single story it was
common for them to take several thousand shots.

> Jimbo

Reply to this Message

TAFKAB - 21 Jun 2005 23:37 GMT

>> Back in the early day's before digital became mainstream the photographs
>> from this great magazine had some really outstanding photography that I
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> of shots, for a single story it was common for them to take several
> thousand shots.

My sister worked for them as a reseacher for a while, and sent me some stats
about the story they did on lake Baikal in Russia. They took their own lab
with them, shot several million (yes, really) frames, and used about 20 for
the story. Ridiculous, isn't it? How do you edit down that many frames?
Anyway, it was all Ektachrome of one flavor or another.

>> Jimbo

Reply to this Message

zeno - 16 Jun 2005 00:04 GMT

Provia is not uncommon today...

> Back in the early day's before digital became mainstream the photographs
> from this great magazine had some really outstanding photography that I had
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Jimbo

Reply to this Message

Keith Tapscott - 02 Jul 2005 20:39 GMT

I think many of the photo`s in the National Geographic were on Kodachrome,
the ISO 64 film is very good, but I used to love the old Kodachrome 25.

> Back in the early day's before digital became mainstream the photographs
> from this great magazine had some really outstanding photography that I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Jimbo

Reply to this Message

Keith Tapscott - 02 Jul 2005 20:41 GMT

Test.

>I think many of the photo`s in the National Geographic were on Kodachrome,
>the ISO 64 film is very good, but I used to love the old Kodachrome 25.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>
>> Jimbo

Reply to this Message

babelfish - 21 Jul 2005 02:04 GMT

It was until the late eighties. They were doing a special issue devoted to
emeralds, and Kodachrome was yielding black stones instead of green. After
many tries and one pitiful result after another, they reluctantly tried Fuji
film, and they haven't looked back since. That was the last time that
National Geographic exclusively used Kodak film. Seeing the endorsement of
"Fujichrome" under each of the shots in that issue sent a powerful message
to photographers around the world that Kodak wasn't the pro film of choice
any longer. That might just be the day the music died for Kodak.

(sorry it took so long to respond to this thread)

john c.

"Jimmy Martin"

> Back in the early day's before digital became mainstream the photographs
> from this great magazine had some really outstanding photography that I
> had ever seen. I heard from some veteran photog's that they only shot on
> 35mm slide film and kodachrome I think.Can anyone confirm this one?

Reply to this Message

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com - 27 Jul 2005 16:44 GMT

Although one film may reproduce a given color well, it may may do
poorly on another. Certain colors always present problems for films. I
have seen side-by-side comparisons of Provia and Ektachrome of a
greenish bedspread (sheet film), in which the Ektachrome did better.
There is no one film that does it all perfectly. Kodachrome is designed
to be the most accurate overall, but even it is not perfect: no film
is.

> It was until the late eighties. They were doing a special issue devoted to
> emeralds, and Kodachrome was yielding black stones instead of green. After
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> > had ever seen. I heard from some veteran photog's that they only shot on
> > 35mm slide film and kodachrome I think.Can anyone confirm this one?

Reply to this Message

babelfish - 29 Jul 2005 01:52 GMT

That goes without saying, but until then, Kodachrome was just about all that
the Geographic ever used. They really had a hard time coming to grips with
it.

> Although one film may reproduce a given color well, it may may do
> poorly on another. Certain colors always present problems for films. I
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>> > on
>> > 35mm slide film and kodachrome I think.Can anyone confirm this one?

Reply to this Message