the photographers that shoot for national geographics are what i consider pros. there was a program on tv some ago about the photos they use in the magazine. you were right about the quanity of photos shot. but sometimes after shooting all those pictures the magazine may only use one. MR.HARRY BAUGHMAN
Tom C. wrote: > I was looking at an issue of National Geographic the other day. I have seen > some great photos in the magazine. I have also seen whole articles the > pictures for which would never have made it past one look on the light > table, if I had taken them. They were obviously pictures that were sold to > go with the article, they were not art, and I believe were not saleable > except for the fact they gave readers a visual stimulus to accompany the > words they were reading. The typical _National Geo_ photog doesn't select his own work. They're generally sent on assignment for anywhere from 2 weeks to 4 months and shoot anywhere from 200 to 1,200 rolls of film, with the average probably in the 400-600 range. Then they send the unprocessed film back to the magazine and the editors select pictures to use with the articles. This is the way it used to be, anyway. I understand there's been a bit of belt-tightening there in recent years. They don't have nearly as many staffers as they used to, for one thing. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
