The new issue of the National Geographic has plenty of Leica images.

There are images of walruses made by Norbert Rosing with the Leica R. You can see some technical information and images not in the magazine at http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/09/01/html/ft_20010901.4.html.

And Vincent Musi has images of Dayton, Ohio made with the M6: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/09/01/html/ft_20010901.7.html

David Enzel Chevy Chase, MD

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), August 19, 2001

Answers

> Dayton, Ohio made with the M6 Sigh... it is sad to see that NGS continue their downhill slide from the brilliance they had in the 1980s. The Happy Meal shot is particularly lazy and odious.

A M6 + wide angle + tilt + Velvia does not a good photographer make.

:?(

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), August 19, 2001.

Happy Meal, hello; irony....

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), August 19, 2001.

A fun thing to do on the
-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), August 19, 2001.

Color film shot in fluorescent lighting without an FL-D filter? I don't think so. Except for the church front, all the shots belong in the garbage.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 20, 2001.

Wow, I thought you guys were being a little hard on Vince. Then I looked at the shots. I figure that Vince shot a few dozen, or more, rolls of film for this assignent...and these are the shot the editors choose for the magazine and web site?!?!? Makes me wonder what hit the editing room floor.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), August 20, 2001.

Whew! I thought that I was the only person on the planet that noticed the frequently poor photography at the Graphic. Pick up any issue and you will find poor composition, lousy lighting and many out- of-focus shots.

There are many good to great shots as well but considering the time, money and energy that they supposedly put into each piece there is no excuse for less than spectacular photography being published.

Further, I feel that the photographers often lie about how they got some of the shots, i.e., "I turned around, saw that composition, lighting and subject was perfect for a fraction of a second so I grabbed a camera and shot without even focusing", seems to happen way too often on the best photos. And in the next breath you will hear how they spent months setting up the next photo which usually is completly lacking in substance.

For a reference check out the Nat'l Geo Video, "The Photographers" at your local library.

This being the case their photographers should stop whining about how the rest of us say, "Well I could have gotten that shot too if I was paid to hang around Venice for 6 months and shoot 1,000 rolls of film". Because it's true.

-- Larry (waffle@morning.com), August 20, 2001.

Yes, I agree the McDonalds shot deserves the garbage too. An FL filter was a necessity here. Mind you, my only comment is that it would be tough to get gripping set of shots from Dayton - yes, that would be a challenge for anyone.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 20, 2001.

As a former Buckeye I feel compelled to point out it's Dayton Tennessee, lads, not Dayton Ohio. Dayton Ohio is another place altogether.

And technical issues aside (printers can color-correct pretty good) I think the Happy Meal shot is a riot. Live gospel music at McDonalds? Incongrous and inescapable, faith in the megacorporate culture. Dayton is an unusual place, for sure.

So how come these folks look so expresionless, like they're listening to the recitation of a bus schedule? Is that what is odious? My citical skills are obviously unevolved. Please help me understand.

Thanks, Jeff

-- Jeff Stuart (jstuart1@tampabay.rr.com), August 20, 2001.

In the defense of NG photographers. I thihk a lot of the 70's-80's talent has been chased away by the horrible usage policys being forced upon NG shooters these days. The real problem happened when the magazine stopped being run by photographers and started being run by bean counters.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), August 20, 2001.

I know I'll take heat but I have to pass on this joke. Q: How many photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb. A: Ten. One to screw in the light bulb and nine to sit back and say "I could have done that better". Sorry - just had to be sa

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), August 20, 2001.

I agree with most of the observations regarding the decline of photography at Nat'l Geo, but then I see page 26-27 of the current issue (Sept. 2001) and realize that some of it is still pretty damn good.

-- steve (steve.l@kros.com), August 20, 2001.

its so easy to knock others. I don't see you guys getting assignments from the graphic. Thats because your too busy wrapping your cameras in tape not to scratch them, thinking about which bag will hold all your bits. You guys run for the photo section in the bookstore or the newsagency, just so you can say I'm a photog. If you haven't got anything constructive to say, say to yourself while you test film. Get a life, go and get an assignment and we'll see how talented you are. Post your pictures here, and we'll edit them. And theres no need to get upset, you know its true, thats why you want to lash out at me. Please.

-- lux (welcometoo@ozemail.com), August 20, 2001.

Do I have to be skilled in plumbing just so I can get pissed off at the plumber for not doing a good job, i.e. my dog is paddle swiming around the living room? I simply expect better photographic quality from Nat. Geo., even as an amateur photog. myself.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), August 20, 2001.

true. But don't shoot the messsenger.

-- lux (welcometoo@ozemail.com), August 21, 2001.

Here's my take: I have made my living wholly as a photographer and have, to coin Shakespeare 'suffered the slings and arrows of outraged clients'. Granted I didn't always perform upto my clients expectations. Now I make part of my living through gallery sales and have to accept the musings of some of the local newspaper critics and such. You'll never survive in either art world if you don't have a bit of a thick skin. Just seem though IMHO that it is too easy to sit on a forum on the web, that the artist knows nothing about and slag him or his work. Maybe I'd feel better if the attempt at least was made to forward the thread to him so he could respond. Even when I've been cut to shreds in the local paper, I was given a chance to respond in the paper. This thread just seems too much like the old 'someone who can does - those who can't critique'.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), August 21, 2001.

Dayton, TN! That would be even more difficult!

It is still an "unprofessional" shot, but I expect he did not have a fluorescent fliter and they thought the whole concept was great so it went in anyway. For a more casual reader this shot may well work, for the annoying photog types the green cast is terrible. I never carry a fluorescent filter around either - there again I am not a NG photographer...

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 21, 2001.

I know I'm probably taking this way to seriously. But I've made my living (and I admit not a bad one) for the last 25 years through photography in one way or another. Consider myself a pretty good shooter, but NG sure isn't beating a path to my door. I actually like the McDonald shot. It just seems some of the criticism (and there's nothing wrong with legitimate criticism) got a little vitriolic...stemming more from a bit of jealousy. And believe me, I too think I have images more worthy of NG than some I've seen published there. But c'mon guys...let the guy have his moment in the sun - I know we'd all die to be in his place..

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), August 21, 2001.

Sometimes a photographer may do what is technically "wrong" in a photograph in order to express what they are trying to say. I think the mcdonalds shot was the best one of the group - the rest wern't very strong. The green cast adds to the wierdness of the shot - a buch of old people at mcdonalds listening to music! Not something you see every day (at least not where I'm from).

If they really would have wanted to, NG could easily have removed the green cast from the picture (they've even moved pyramids before).

john

-- j locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), August 21, 2001.

Here's a little different spin on what's been said so far. As a part time pro, I have noticed that in most cases, clients have the final say in what is chosen to be published, not the photographer. Most publishers do not know photography( composition/ good light/ DOF /framing/etc) as well as we do. As a result, the published images are not always the ones we would choose. There are many business reasons why decisions are made to publish certain shots and not others. Besides this fact, printing from slides is not a perfect science, with the print not really looking like the slide that was shot in most cases. I feel that Nat Geo's problem is partly due to their management's philosophy about what will sell and not fully understanding what great photography is. When the client doesn't have a good eye, the published material will suffer. The other part is due to NG management encouraging photographers to shoot 20,000 frames to get ten printable shots. But, I have to agree that there is some talent issue to blame as well. When I hear that David X has shot 500 rolls of shark images and is only happy with five shots, I have to wonder.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), August 21, 2001.

1. Words of Nat. Geo (and Leica) fotog Dave Harvey: "Almost every photographer has taken pictures good enough to run in the Geographic - the trick is being able to do it every time, all the time, in a place you've never been before, and on a four-week deadline."

2. Styles change at the Geo. Remember 15 years ago when they ran several B&W(!) stories on Native American themes by the reservation priest/photographer Don Doll, SJ (also a user of "L" cameras). I'm just glad their shooters go out now with Leicas instead of 39 cases of Nikons and flashes. I think their work is more immediate and intense, if not always as slick. The photo director (if it's still Ken Kobersteen) is an experienced newspaper photographer and former director of the U.Missouri School of Journalism's photo program.

3. The section Vince Musi was shooting for, Zip codes USA or whatever, intentionally uses a very casual style (DAH has done a couple of these, too). I don't always like it either, but if you look at past issues it's just the way they want that section to look.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 22, 2001.

RE: the walrus pictures - note that YOU can have the equivalent of a fancy Nikon/Canon IS lens on your Leica R-whatever by getting a gyrostabilizer - and it will work on all your lenses that have tripod mounts.

I suppose you could use one on an M-camera as well, but who'd know the difference? They're already sharp at 1/8th second.

8^)x...

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 22, 2001.

As a pro shooter i try and make these sort of shots look atlaest a little bit interesting but that "Happy Meal" photo has not one good point to it except the fact that it has been in Nat Geo.You would throw it out if it was yours right?But then go and have a look at several fashion mag covers, take the mast head off and forget obout the Celeb factor and most of them are nothing much. Most of the famous ( i am talking famous to the general public not you and I) photographers shoot celebs ,it doesn't mean they are great photographers. Just because you shoot for Nat Geo doesn't mean your a great photographer either. I wish that was my shot there to but i'm also glad it's not.

-- Tim (timphoto@ihug.com.au), August 22, 2001.

Having now seen the magazine that came this morning (Wed) The Happy Meal picture is NOT in the magazine - the shot published is a 180 turnaround shot of the gospel singers themselves with McDonald posters behind them.

In fact almost NONE (just a couple) of the pictures on either the Dayton or Walrus web sites are duplicated in the magazine - so we can criticize the quality of Geographic's Web editors, but don't judge the printed publication by the Web alone.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 23, 2001.

To see more Leica pictures on the NG website type "Leica" in the "Search Our Site" box at the top of the page. Interesting to try other camera makes too.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), August 23, 2001.