How does NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC do it? I’m sure that we have been in awe as we looked at the superb quality of the images regularly published on the pages of the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC...

univac1103

I’m sure that we have been in awe as we looked at the superb quality of the images regularly published on the pages of the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazines over so many years. Exotic settings - yes, but outside of that, the artistry and technology in bringing the images to print is always to be admired! We know that these images are for the most part not what you would expect to be SOOC… Can anyone provide information about the technology used by NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in processing the images that they publish?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

univac1103 wrote:

I’m sure that we have been in awe as we looked at ... (show quote)

Do National Geographic photographers use Photoshop?
As Sarah Chalek says, all photographers use Photoshop to enhance their images. But National Geographic photographers have very strict rules on what they are and are not allowed to do.

As Sarah Chalek says, all photographers use Photoshop to enhance their images. But National Geographic photographers have very strict rules on what they are and are not allowed to do. The magazine got into big trouble when it published an edition with this cover:

The magazine had moved the two pyramids closer together to make a more striking cover - and the result was public outrage (well, outrage among the small coterie of Nat Geo subscribers who cared about this sort of thing).

So today they can use Photoshop to replicate traditional darkroom techniques, such as fixing contrast and tone, but photomontage of any sort is a definite no-no.

Canisdirus

Contributors can post process, but also need to provide information on what they have done to the images.
How do they do it?
They use a cadre of professional photographers who walk around with 20k of equipment...for the most part.
It usually comes down to the artist ... and the glass..... always the glass.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

I remember reading an article 'way back' that described their equipment... second to none. They started with super equipment.

Dik

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Today all NG photographers are free-lance, on assignments of up to 14 days depending on their specialty. They are paid $500 plus travel expenses. So, quality of equipment is whatever these professionals are using, but being the cream of the crop assume their equipment is too. NG will also accept submissions from individuals. Here are their guidelines:
https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

univac1103 wrote:

I’m sure that we have been in awe as we looked at ... (show quote)

Nikon camera's in the hands of professionals.

ggab Loc: ?

Stardust wrote:

Today all NG photographers are free-lance, on assignments of up to 14 days depending on their specialty. They are paid $500 plus travel expenses. So, quality of equipment is whatever these professionals are using, but being the cream of the crop assume their equipment is too. NG will also accept submissions from individuals. Here are their guidelines:
https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/

"14 days depending on their specialty. They are paid $500 plus travel expenses". $500.00 for 14 days hardly seems worth it.

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

I remember reading that one Nat Geo photog, I believe it was Bill Allard, photographing Icebergs for one issue. He had all this photography gear in a dinghy, when a stray wave turned Bill and his equipment into the icy waters. Apparently, once rescued, Bill got one of those little Fuji disposable 35mm cameras, from his supply on the mother ship, and carried on making images, and one of these images
Made the cover. Proof that the camera doesn't matter, just the eyes and mind of the photographer.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

ggab wrote:

"14 days depending on their specialty. They are paid $500 plus travel expenses". $500.00 for 14 days hardly seems worth it.

I think you are right, By the time you take out taxes, SS, and Medicare. Then retirement contributions. Include the time involved. To me, it doesn't add up.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

univac1103 wrote:

I’m sure that we have been in awe as we looked at ... (show quote)

Skilled and talented photographers with vision. Let us not forget all those decades of them burning Kodachrome 64, and no post processing. Technology will never trump talent and vision.

SVP

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

If you are a professional photographer, the status of having your image on the cover or inside pages of NG is priceless.

ggab Loc: ?

suntouched wrote:

If you are a professional photographer, the status of having your image on the cover or inside pages of NG is priceless.

Are you able to advertise that you have a photo in NG?
A lot of prestigious organizations do not allow you to advertise your relationship with them.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

There simply is not enough information here to make a determination of Worth. Does the photographer get ownership of the images shot? One could also shoot thousands of shots in a few days. Maybe the photographer can sell these photos as prints or to other magazines. Besides expenses there are also write offs and exposure. It is not a simple equation. There is also the magazine side of the project. What if they pay all these expenses and end up not using any of it...

traderjohn wrote:

I think you are right, By the time you take out taxes, SS, and Medicare. Then retirement contributions. Include the time involved. To me, it doesn't add up.

ngrea Loc: Sandy Spring, Maryland

I once attended an event where a NG editor spoke. She said that for the average article the photographer takes 50,000 pictures (that was 10 or 15 years ago and it was still film) She also described some of the “expenses” including armed guards and robotic cameras destroyed by animals. Maybe the thrill is more important than the $500.

ggab Loc: ?

ngrea wrote:

I once attended an event where a NG editor spoke. She said that for the average article the photographer takes 50,000 pictures (that was 10 or 15 years ago and it was still film) She also described some of the “expenses” including armed guards and robotic cameras destroyed by animals. Maybe the thrill is more important than the $500.

Well regardless of the payment or ability to professionally "brag" about being used in NG, I can see the personal effect of being honored to have your work used.

Unfortunately it is not something I will experience!