Posted by Greg Maklae on September 5, 2009 at 7:18 AM
To those of you who said I was wrong concerning National geographic and 6 megapixel cameras, and even the existance of such a camera, may I point you to the Feb 2008 issue of Outdoor Photographer, and the article that begins on page 36. The author used a Nikon D70, a 6.1 MP camera. I use a Nikon D40, another 6 MP camera. Sorry, 6 MP camera DO exist. Further on page 38 it is stated that to this day, NG accecpts photos for a 6 MP DSRL.
Further adding my humble opinion, I find that NP members are getting more and more arrogent in their mannerisms. Maybe if you got off your self constructed ego, you may learn something from the rest of the world. I find it amazing many quality photos may get 1 or 2 comments, but those from the "IN CROWD" get 100 comments in the first 10 minutes of posting. The rest of us are not worth the time of day. I would like to say it was a pleasure dealing with you, but no it was not.
Posted by Steve Foss on September 5, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Greg, I ignored what I considered your statements about NG in the other thread because it's a side issue. The core of your post was a discussion about how many megapixels is enough, and so I focused on that. And it's a good discussion to have. As photographers, we are pinned inexorably to what the camera manufacturers see as marketable cameras, and those advances don't always suit the serious amateur or pro. I want to thank you for bringing up that topic, as periodically revisiting the key aspects of our photographic lives gives us all a chance to learn new things and see how we've changed over time.
I spent two years with a 6 Mp Canon body and very much enjoyed the image quality. To this day, while I have shot pretty much all the Canon bodies out there, my workhorses continue to be two 8 Mp 30D bodies. I sold the use of an 8 Mp image to National Geographic Adventure Magazine last year.
To those of you who said I was wrong concerning National geographic and 6 megapixel cameras, and even the existance of such a camera, may I point you to the Feb 2008 issue of Outdoor Photographer, and the article that begins on page 36. The author used a Nikon D70, a 6.1 MP camera. I use a Nikon D40, another 6 MP camera. Sorry, 6 MP camera DO exist. Further on page 38 it is stated that to this day, NG accecpts photos for a 6 MP DSRL.
Respectfully--and I use that word deliberately and sincerely--go back to the original thread and re-read your initial post. I quote:
"National Geographic told there photographers they can use any digital camera they want, as long as it does not exceed 6 mpix."
Seven minutes after you began the thread, Frank Winters very politely responded thusly:
"Do you mean does not exceed or is not lower than?"
I have to assume, based on this thread, that Frank's query was apt--you must have meant that NG requires images from cameras with sensors of at least six MP. Every person who followed up expressing doubt to your initial claim was responding to what you wrote--that NG won't except images from cameras that exceed 6 MP, which you must admit is pretty hard to believe.
So, that was simply a misunderstanding based on a misstatement.
As for the rest of your post, specifically:
I find it amazing many quality photos may get 1 or 2 comments, but those from the "IN CROWD" get 100 comments in the first 10 minutes of posting.
A bit of hyperbole, obviously (e.g. 100 comments in 10 minutes), but your point is well-noted and can't be fairly dismissed. Not in my opinion, in any case.
While this sort of thing--cherry picking comments and views--is common and, sadly, (I've concluded) inevitable, it's certainly dispiriting, though I've essentially concluded that there's nothing to be done about it. I've tried, in my own small, ineffectual way. I spent several years sporadically commenting on every image I viewed and randomly choosing those images viewed in the first place; I'm positive that I'm not the only one doing this, but I've seen absolutely no change in the overall distribution of views/comments. It seems to be human nature at work. I don't believe there's anything deliberately unpleasant about it on the part of NPN members, but it's unfortunate nonetheless.
It's a shame really; I've seen many, many fine images all but neglected--and I want to be clear here--I'm not referring to images that I've posted myself, but those of countless others. I've found the whole thing so discouraging that I've dramatically scaled back my participation on the NPN IC forums in recent months, to the point of virtual non-participation. And every time I consider resuming, I find myself asking myself: what's the point? I've yet to come up with a satisfactory answer to that question.
I've always wondered if anyone else shared my concerns about this matter. Thanks for posting, Greg.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on September 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM
If you looked hard enough, you could probably find hundreds of examples where NG has used images from a 6 mp cameras. That doesn't mean they won't use images from larger cameras.
This is the comment I took exception to, your quote "National Geographic told there photographers they can use any digital camera they want, as long as it does not exceed 6 mpix" I personally have sold NG Traveler and Adventure images from the 1Ds III. They even requested the raw file, so I'm sure they were aware the camera source was a 20 plus mp camera and they had no complaints..
It didn't occur to me until reading the comments in this thread, maybe you mixed up your words?
I do agree with your original point, that the MP race has gone too far.
I don't post photos, but it seems like your other issue might be better served in a separate thread.
Posted by Kent Staubus on September 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I too was a little confused by the phrase, "As long as it does not exceed 6 mpix." As written, it means that a camera with more than 6mp is prohibited, and that didn't make sense to me. I just assumed you meant the camera had at least 6mp. Either way, I didn't take it as a big deal because at one time even the top pro cameras had 6mp or less. I"m thinking of the Nikon D2h for example. At any rate, I frequent several photo-oriented message boards and find this one to be the least sarcastic and "combative." I honestly don't think anyone was picking one you. As for leaving comments on photos, as a former gallery moderator I'll offer the observation that almost always the people who comment the most on others' photos get the most comments in return. It's a two way deal.
Kent in SD
Posted by Stan Rose on September 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Kent is right, my comment to post ratio is like 20-1 cause its the only way i can get anyone to look at my crummy shots 3-1 is on the low side, Greg
Posted by Bryan Maltais on September 5, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I don't want to get off my self constructed ego! It's plush and has cup holders!
Posted by Dan Borzynski on September 5, 2009 at 10:33 PM
I did not state that there were not quality 6 megapixel cameras out there. What I did state is that there are none out there whose image quality is better that the current generation of cameras. Never has been. Given the current megapixel arms race, probably never will be.
I find it rather difficult to believe that National Geographic, which lives and dies on photos, would ever state that they would not accept photos from a camera beyond 6 megapixels. Maybe not accept a resized photo file for publication over 6 megapixels (which would be in the ballpark of a double page spread), or maybe misquoted in the article, but to dismiss the current generation of cameras, no.
And yes, while you are are right about the replies on photos at times, Kent's remark on comments vs posts is also very true.
Posted by Phil Pogledich on September 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I'm reluctant to jump into this debate, particularly given some of what kicked it off. But here are a few observations.
First, I don't have that OP article in front of me, but I think I recall the gist of it from having read it many months ago. The article described a specific assignment (or something of the sorts) that National Geographic gave to certain photographers. And as part of that assignment, they were told only to use cameras of 6MP or less. At least that's what I seem to recall reading. I can't remember the point of that exercise . . . it was described in the OP article. In any event, it was a one-time thing as far as I recall, and not a description of National Geographic's current policy on image submissions.
Second, for no reason other than to procrastinate at work, I went back and read the responses to your earlier post. I expected to read some sort of "in your face" statement that would have prompted your post above. I didn't see it. Not even close. Just a sound debate prompted by, and directly responsive to, your original post. Let's face it, there's nothing wrong with folks expressing some surprise with the statement (obviously untrue, at least as a general matter) that National Geographic will only accept images from cameras with 6MP or less.
Third, I don't think many folks who post to this site are going to look down upon a 6MP camera. Most of them probably used one themselves at some point in the not too distant past, and got perfectly good results. I had one myself until last year when I picked up a used 5D after the 5DII came out. It's a nice upgrade, but on my office wall I've still got two and only two framed 12x18 photos . . . both taken with my 6MP camera.
Finally, I'm new to NPN so I can't fairly express an opinion on the number of comments a photo ought to get and whether there's some sort of conspiracy to ignore good photos for no valid reason. I will say, however, that when someone comments on one of my photos, I often browse around to see if they have a recent one that I can post a comment on. I don't always do that . . . often, I can't think of much to add to what others have said on a post, and I'm reluctant to just say "nice" because it doesn't add anything. It's the give and take described by Stan Rose. And I really think there's something to what he said, as you can see some sort of correlation between how many comments folks make and how many they get.
At the end of the day, if you get only one comment on a shot but it helps you, then wasn't it still worth the minimal trouble of posting? A cheering section is nice, but a solid comment is nice too.
Those are my thoughts . . . don't know if they add anything. Hope I'm not totally wrong about the content of that OP article, but I'm fairly sure of my memory on that one.
Posted by Donna Erhardt on September 9, 2009 at 6:15 AM
BTW, for those who are looking for photo critique with "no names attached" please do not forget our Anonymous Gallery!
Posted by Brent Murphy on September 18, 2009 at 5:56 PM
On the second page of that article, you can find the sentence: "To this day, the minimum requirement for a photographer shooting digitally for any National Geographic publication is a 6-megapixel SLR." That's the minimum requirement, not the maximum. So yes Greg, you were incorrect in your statement that NG wouldn't allow photos that exceeded 6MP, and a number of replies to your previous thread were correctly skeptical.
Also, on the previous post, no one ever doubted the existence of a 6MP camera. The quote was "From what I have seen, there hasn't ever been a true 6 megapixel DSLR on the market with better image quality than anything currently made." Which is most likely true.
It appears to me that you've gotten pretty offended by the response from members here, but most of this seems to have been caused by the fact that you either read or typed something incorrectly.
Discussion
10 repliesFurther adding my humble opinion, I find that NP members are getting more and more arrogent in their mannerisms. Maybe if you got off your self constructed ego, you may learn something from the rest of the world. I find it amazing many quality photos may get 1 or 2 comments, but those from the "IN CROWD" get 100 comments in the first 10 minutes of posting. The rest of us are not worth the time of day. I would like to say it was a pleasure dealing with you, but no it was not.
I spent two years with a 6 Mp Canon body and very much enjoyed the image quality. To this day, while I have shot pretty much all the Canon bodies out there, my workhorses continue to be two 8 Mp 30D bodies. I sold the use of an 8 Mp image to National Geographic Adventure Magazine last year.
Respectfully--and I use that word deliberately and sincerely--go back to the original thread and re-read your initial post. I quote:
"National Geographic told there photographers they can use any digital camera they want, as long as it does not exceed 6 mpix."
Seven minutes after you began the thread, Frank Winters very politely responded thusly:
"Do you mean does not exceed or is not lower than?"
I have to assume, based on this thread, that Frank's query was apt--you must have meant that NG requires images from cameras with sensors of at least six MP. Every person who followed up expressing doubt to your initial claim was responding to what you wrote--that NG won't except images from cameras that exceed 6 MP, which you must admit is pretty hard to believe.
So, that was simply a misunderstanding based on a misstatement.
As for the rest of your post, specifically:
A bit of hyperbole, obviously (e.g. 100 comments in 10 minutes), but your point is well-noted and can't be fairly dismissed. Not in my opinion, in any case.
While this sort of thing--cherry picking comments and views--is common and, sadly, (I've concluded) inevitable, it's certainly dispiriting, though I've essentially concluded that there's nothing to be done about it. I've tried, in my own small, ineffectual way. I spent several years sporadically commenting on every image I viewed and randomly choosing those images viewed in the first place; I'm positive that I'm not the only one doing this, but I've seen absolutely no change in the overall distribution of views/comments. It seems to be human nature at work. I don't believe there's anything deliberately unpleasant about it on the part of NPN members, but it's unfortunate nonetheless.
It's a shame really; I've seen many, many fine images all but neglected--and I want to be clear here--I'm not referring to images that I've posted myself, but those of countless others. I've found the whole thing so discouraging that I've dramatically scaled back my participation on the NPN IC forums in recent months, to the point of virtual non-participation. And every time I consider resuming, I find myself asking myself: what's the point? I've yet to come up with a satisfactory answer to that question.
I've always wondered if anyone else shared my concerns about this matter. Thanks for posting, Greg.
This is the comment I took exception to, your quote "National Geographic told there photographers they can use any digital camera they want, as long as it does not exceed 6 mpix" I personally have sold NG Traveler and Adventure images from the 1Ds III. They even requested the raw file, so I'm sure they were aware the camera source was a 20 plus mp camera and they had no complaints..
It didn't occur to me until reading the comments in this thread, maybe you mixed up your words?
I do agree with your original point, that the MP race has gone too far.
I don't post photos, but it seems like your other issue might be better served in a separate thread.
Kent in SD
I find it rather difficult to believe that National Geographic, which lives and dies on photos, would ever state that they would not accept photos from a camera beyond 6 megapixels. Maybe not accept a resized photo file for publication over 6 megapixels (which would be in the ballpark of a double page spread), or maybe misquoted in the article, but to dismiss the current generation of cameras, no.
And yes, while you are are right about the replies on photos at times, Kent's remark on comments vs posts is also very true.
First, I don't have that OP article in front of me, but I think I recall the gist of it from having read it many months ago. The article described a specific assignment (or something of the sorts) that National Geographic gave to certain photographers. And as part of that assignment, they were told only to use cameras of 6MP or less. At least that's what I seem to recall reading. I can't remember the point of that exercise . . . it was described in the OP article. In any event, it was a one-time thing as far as I recall, and not a description of National Geographic's current policy on image submissions.
Second, for no reason other than to procrastinate at work, I went back and read the responses to your earlier post. I expected to read some sort of "in your face" statement that would have prompted your post above. I didn't see it. Not even close. Just a sound debate prompted by, and directly responsive to, your original post. Let's face it, there's nothing wrong with folks expressing some surprise with the statement (obviously untrue, at least as a general matter) that National Geographic will only accept images from cameras with 6MP or less.
Third, I don't think many folks who post to this site are going to look down upon a 6MP camera. Most of them probably used one themselves at some point in the not too distant past, and got perfectly good results. I had one myself until last year when I picked up a used 5D after the 5DII came out. It's a nice upgrade, but on my office wall I've still got two and only two framed 12x18 photos . . . both taken with my 6MP camera.
Finally, I'm new to NPN so I can't fairly express an opinion on the number of comments a photo ought to get and whether there's some sort of conspiracy to ignore good photos for no valid reason. I will say, however, that when someone comments on one of my photos, I often browse around to see if they have a recent one that I can post a comment on. I don't always do that . . . often, I can't think of much to add to what others have said on a post, and I'm reluctant to just say "nice" because it doesn't add anything. It's the give and take described by Stan Rose. And I really think there's something to what he said, as you can see some sort of correlation between how many comments folks make and how many they get.
At the end of the day, if you get only one comment on a shot but it helps you, then wasn't it still worth the minimal trouble of posting? A cheering section is nice, but a solid comment is nice too.
Those are my thoughts . . . don't know if they add anything. Hope I'm not totally wrong about the content of that OP article, but I'm fairly sure of my memory on that one.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/photo-traveler/dodging-the-magic-bullet.html
On the second page of that article, you can find the sentence: "To this day, the minimum requirement for a photographer shooting digitally for any National Geographic publication is a 6-megapixel SLR." That's the minimum requirement, not the maximum. So yes Greg, you were incorrect in your statement that NG wouldn't allow photos that exceeded 6MP, and a number of replies to your previous thread were correctly skeptical.
Also, on the previous post, no one ever doubted the existence of a 6MP camera. The quote was "From what I have seen, there hasn't ever been a true 6 megapixel DSLR on the market with better image quality than anything currently made." Which is most likely true.
It appears to me that you've gotten pretty offended by the response from members here, but most of this seems to have been caused by the fact that you either read or typed something incorrectly.