Does National Geographic still use film?

[ACDCROCKS]

Hi all,

I was wondering if National Geographic still use film slrs for all of their work?

[Scottes]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html

[tommykjensen]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html

Ahh, You beat me to it. I was checking the NG site too :lol:

[Jon]

It's photographer-option, like the choice of cameras is. The first all-digital story they ran was in 2003, for the centennial of flight.

[GWilliams]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html

That looks like quite an old article. Their seem to be using facts and references from 1995.

[Hellashot]

That looks like quite an old article. Their seem to be using facts and references from 1995.

Yes, lol! They've probably moved to the $8000 Canon dSLR.

[ACDCROCKS]

Is 16 MP consisted as film*quality ( I know 8mp is "considered" but what MP is really considered Exactly fim quality or have we passed it yet?

[ssim]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html

Did you see some of the workshops they have on this site. A couple of them would be so cool to attend. Now I need to find a rich woman.:D:D:D

[Jesper]

Is 16 MP consisted as film*quality ( I know 8mp is "considered" but what MP is really considered Exactly fim quality or have we passed it yet?The question "how many megapixels is exactly film quality" is not a valid question with an exact answer. Different films have different resolutions, and film and a digital sensor work differently, so you can't compare them exactly.

[matzkemd]

The recent special edition "National Geographic's Guide to Digital Photography" is entirely digital. It also states that about half of an average Nat'l Geographic's images are film, half are digital.

Interesting! :)

[Zepher]

They offer some nice Expeditions, kinda pricey though,
http://www.nationalgeographicexpeditions.com/486.html

[dietcookie]

a select few shoot with kodachrome and aren't stopping anytime soon.

[grego]

a select few shoot with kodachrome and aren't stopping anytime soon.

Closest to the sensitivity of digital, so it wouldn't be hard to transfer to digital or likewise.

[dietcookie]

Closest to the sensitivity of digital, so it wouldn't be hard to transfer to digital or likewise.

True, Kodachrome looks so much better though.

[grego]

True, Kodachrome looks so much better though.

Yeah, although i prefered fujichrome, but yeah, slide film was defintely beautiful, but very little room for error in exposures. :)

[coreypolis]

its still up to the photographer. there was big news last year when 6 went to the 20D


chromes are still so nice though, and it really does fit more with their style of color vibrancy.

[coreypolis]

They have a dvd on tigers that has a 2nd movie in the special features of one photographer and his journey photographing tigers. it shows how they set everything up, the remote triggers, finding exposures with flash that can work at any time of the day etc

[dietcookie]

Yeah, although i prefered fujichrome, but yeah, slide film was defintely beautiful, but very little room for error in exposures. :)

it certainly is beautiful. looking at kodachrome slides from the 50s they just look amazing, no color shifting at all. it's a shame only one place in the US develops the stuff.

[Longwatcher]

Is 16 MP consisted as film*quality ( I know 8mp is "considered" but what MP is really considered Exactly fim quality or have we passed it yet?

As mentioned it depends,
Assuming 35mm format film.
But 6MP is the point at which you compete with film for 8x10 prints
3.1MP for 4x6 prints
ignoring prints for a moment:
Someone using some math figured once that a good B+W film has an equivilant resolution of 22-25MP, however due to the more random nature of grains versus pixels, you can actually percieve more detail in a digital image before this and in line-charts this worked out to about 11-12MP for digital=good film. Note that the best B+W films will give higher resolution so we are heading back up to the 16-22MP range. You may have noted the use of the term "B+W films", color films will actually have less resolution.

Then there is the issue of color, dynamic range and "the natural film look" which also affect whether digital=film arguments.

Short form: At the 8MP point, digital starts passing film in overall utility and characteristics, but MP alone do not determine if film or digital is technically better. In the end I feel my 10D is equal to good color 35mm film and personally my 1DsMkII is better then my MF Hasselblad shooting color film, but not B+W film.

Just my opinion and memory,

[coreypolis]

chromes will always have more accurate and more vibrant colors

B&W negs will always have more tonal range

but digital obviously isn't terrible and holds a lot of other advantages

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yes that NG FAQ is a little out of date.

I recall when NG was still saying "film Only" but that has long since gone by the board.
I recall that the 10D was popular when NG started allowing digital.
Also,. I seem to recall it turned out that some of the articles they had allready published were shot on the 10D before they (NG) even knew it? I may be making that up ;)

In any event,. here's an article regarding the first official use of Digital in NG
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6450-6561

[coreypolis]

Current National Geographic has articles shot with 10D, 20D, 5D and 1DSMII.

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0606/feature5/gallery1.html

[ScottE]

Current National Geographic has articles shot with 10D, 20D, 5D and 1DSMII.

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0606/feature5/gallery1.html
Those photos show great use of a super-wide angle lens. Most appear to have been shot with a 10-22 lens on the 20D. The other lens used might well have been a 16-35/2.8 on the 10D and 5D and probably to 20D shot at 23 mm.

When used skillfully a super-wide is very effective.