gwilliams6 wrote:
Part of the reason in the film days they shot hundreds of rolls of film is that often those assignments could entail many weeks or even months on remote location. Nat Geo photographers have to shoot in all the different scenarios and lighting conditions as they tell their stories photographically. It IS NOT about getting that lucky shot folks. The person that said that has NO clue.
These photographers spend months researching their subjects and locations and planning the proper gear to take, including survival gear in many instances. So no photo is by dumb luck, but instead by smart planning ,skill, diligence and persistence. Back in the film days, there were more shots bracketed for lighting as no one had the benefit of a digital image to review and then delete any not perfect. Remember Nat Geo photogs were shooting color transparency film which has a very limited dynamic range, unlike the amazing up to fifteen stops of dynamic range of the best modern digital camera sensors.
In the digital age Nat Geo and other pro photogs have more control and in-the-field review of how the shoot is going. back in the HEYDAY of photo magazines, Life magazine Photographer John Dominis spent months in Africa photographing big cats and was paid a six-figure fee for the amazing final shots he got after shooting for hundreds and hundreds of hours in tough conditions. Those days are long gone and to be sure, beyond any standard rates, today's freelance photographers can negotiate their fees based on many factors including the difficulty and danger of the assignment.
Part of the reason in the film days they shot hund... (
show quote)
The national geographic photographer I talked with showed pictures of his trip to England. He liked the look of a bartender and had about 50 pictures of him standing there with a glass of beer in his hand. The pictures didn't vary much and it was kind of boring looking at so many of basically the same thing. That is how many shots they would take to get one the editors might choose.
He also showed about 50 pictures of a field of flowers, that many to get one that could be printed.
There are no lucky shots from the National Geographic photographers.