National Geographic Magazine Special Edition

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Equipment' started by Curt, May 20, 2006.

  1. Curt

    Curt Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,560
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just saw a copy of the National Geographic, a special edition, at the store this evening. Beautiful images in vivid color. The special edition was on how to take the best digital photographs. No Kodachrome 25 there anymore.
     
  2. Sanjay Sen

    Sanjay Sen Member

    Messages:
    1,249
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes, they are increasingly leaning towards d****** now. I guess it makes sense to them from a cost perspective because NG photographers are known to shoot hundreds, if not thousands, of rolls for an assignment. There will be a significant cost saving, I would think, by switching from film. I am sorry to see them use less film than before, though, but the NG photographers whose work I like still shoot all film. That is not to say they will continue to, but until then.... However, I am unsure of the archival issues with the new media; they regularly print photos from the beginning of the last century and I am left wondering if they can continue to do this fifty years from now.
     
  3. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,191
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    IIRC, at one time National Geographic not only had its own processing facilities, it was the largest non-Kodak Kodachrome processor (by volume) in the entire world.

    With volumes like that, and with the relatively small size reproductions that are in their magazines, it is not surprising that they would at least investigate a digital workflow.

    It would be really interesting to know how they have archived their (film) photography in the past, and how they intend to archive their (film and digital) photography in the future.

    Matt
     
  4. kjsphoto

    kjsphoto Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,322
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Sub 35mm
    There will be a huge increase in money spent due to though digital workflow. Not only do they have to load every single image into a computer then have to also be able to view each one as well.

    With chrome you just put on a light table with the recycle bin next to the desk and jam through them. Much faster for editing than digital files and you don’t need high computers that need replaced everywhere either.

    The misconceptions of digital just amaze me. Digital is just so much more expensive even with high volume of images.

    Anyway just my two cents.
     
  5. donbga

    donbga Member

    Messages:
    2,084
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Shooter:
    Large Format Pan
    Well I have to disagree with your synopsis. The digital revolution in magazine publishing was over a long time ago.

    Whether the initial capture was digital or on film, everything has to be digitized now.


    The production of a magazine with an all digital workflow is much more efficient and less labor intensive.

    The reason I know this is that in the early 90's I worked for a magazine publisher that went throught the conversion. The conversion was painful but once done work flow was really streamlined.
     
  6. roteague

    roteague Member

    Messages:
    6,671
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Kaneohe, Haw
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I have to agree with Kev. Yes, what you say is true, but most of the additional cost has been moved onto the backs of the photographers, not the magazine publishers, where it used to be.