Hard to break into National Geographic's staff.

Draco wrote:


Either way it is looked at, working at NG isn't as glamorous as it
once was. But then again no job really isn't that glamorous when you
are doing the job. What ever your choice, good luck.

It does, however, add a bit of luster to a photographer's resume to be
able to say he/she has shot assignments for National Geographic.

Andrew Venor wrote:


This topic got me looking around on the subject and I found that
National Geographic is running a photo contest right now where you could
end up winning a DSLR and have your picture published in a future issue
of the magazine.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...o-contest.html

While it obviously isn't a steady job, but I guess you would get some
bragging rights out of getting you picture in the magazine.

ALV

Cool! Now all I gotta do is go out and take an award winning photograph.
;-D

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...
Draco wrote:
On Aug 11, 6:19 pm, "William Graham" wrote:

I wrote to National Geographic asking them whether they would consider
hiring good quality wildlife photographers, and this is the response I
received....



----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 12:49 PM

Dear Mr. Graham: Thank you for your email to the National Geographic
Society.

Photography jobs on staff are very rare. National Geographic does use
freelance photographers, but to be frank, it is extremely difficult to
obtain a first assignment for the magazine. The magazine does not accept
any unsolicited submissions. The editors meet regularly to discuss
possible story ideas. If an idea is decided upon, the article is then
assigned, usually to someone with whom we've worked before or to someone
with many years of outstanding work in the field of journalism. Because
there is a large investment behind each National Geographic article, we
are conservative in choosing writers and photographers, opting for those
with well-established reputations. At this time we have many more
freelance photographers than we do assignments.

If this all sounds negative, we apologize. It is, however, a response
dictated by a rather precise goal for the style of the magazine, coupled
with the limited number of stories we are able to publish each year.

I am sorry that we could not offer more encouraging news regarding your
friend, but we appreciate your thinking of us.
Sincerely,
CL Stroud
Communications
National Geographic Society- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Bill,
Several years ago NG told all its staff photographers that they
would have to sign a "work for hire" contract with NG. This was in
effect taking all the work of the photographer away from the
photographer.Any extra income they might be able to generate in the
way of using their work to gain other jobs or even sell their own
photographs. Except for one or two who signed the agreement, the rest
walked. A "work for hire" contract gives all the rights to NG or who
ever holds it. The photographer has no rights to the image if they
sign this type of agreement. They get a flat fee for the assignment
and no way to earn any other money from their images.
Now NG has one maybe two staff photographers and a lot of
freelancers who will do the work for not much. Most of the stories are
work by two people. A writer who interacts with the subjects or has a
very good knowledge of the subject. And the photographer. They work as
a team to get the story. Sometimes the writer will guide the
photographer to certain images. Sometimes the photographers images
will guide the writers words.

Either way it is looked at, working at NG isn't as glamorous as it
once was. But then again no job really isn't that glamorous when you
are doing the job. What ever your choice, good luck.


Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.


Doing better does.


This topic got me looking around on the subject and I found that National
Geographic is running a photo contest right now where you could end up
winning a DSLR and have your picture published in a future issue of the
magazine.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/...o-contest.html

While it obviously isn't a steady job, but I guess you would get some
bragging rights out of getting you picture in the magazine.

ALV

Yes.....Well, at least they, (or someone who works for them) would have to
actually look at whatever photograph you submitted, and that is,
(apparently) not something they are accustomed to doing.

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article ,
William Graham wrote:
"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
news:Yatvi.9353$eb4.5464@trndny08...
Always has been the case. It's a very desireable job, and the
competition
has driven incomes down to the point where if you don't do it for love,
you have no other reason. Unless you're one of the top tier shooters,
you'll starve.

I think that's the case with any art. It certainly is true with painting
and
music.....They aren't looking for artists....They are looking for pushy
salesmen who can push harder than everyone else......Or, at least, that's
who they hire, so that's the bottom line......

At least for music (I don't know anything about the 'painting scene'),
that depends on how much the audience values content. If the audience goes
for the public image of the artist and accepts contents any competent
artist can deliver then yes, the best best salesmen will win.

Some time ago I went to concert and I was suprised how badly a rather
famous archestra performed a work of a famous composer. It was not that
the orchestra was bad, pieces from a different composer were excellent.

That concert reminded me how good those people a they are really
specialized in certain subjects and cannot deliver the same quality just
everywhere.

Popular music is strange in that a large percentage of the audience just
wants a show, and (apparently) can't tell a good musical performance from a
bad one. That's why groups that light themselves on fire and smash their
instruments to pieces seem to become very popular, while others, like Peter
Nero, just find a niche to operate in, but can't draw the huge crowds and
make the really big bucks, even though they are artists of the first
order. - And, I guess the principal applies to photography as well. Just
compare NG's circulation with that of People Magazine........

On Aug 13, 11:39 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 12, 9:16 pm, DMac wrote:

I really though Bret
was heading towards sponsorship to publish some "coffee table" book
but he says not so.

http://www.lulu.comis worth exploring.

I'd love to do a coffee table book and probably will some day, in a
very limited production run. My attorney friend even offered to
bankroll the whole deal on the whim that we could sell them. But when
I told him how much it would cost, he was less enthusiastic.

Self-publishing is a nice way to get your pics into a book, but 99% of
the time it's a money-loser like 99% of other photography books.
The exception would be a wedding book where you could command a high-
dollar fee. But nobody is going to spend a couple of hundred bucks
for a collection of photographs unless they were taken by HCB.

Lulu is cheaper than some, but even a good quality calendar will cost
you around $20. How are you gonna make money at that price when you
still have to worry about marketing them and selling them?

I appreciate you've come to a wall you feel you can't climb. Go down
to the local office equipment supplier and have a look at the output
from a Xerox C525 A digital laser printer. They cost about $550 AUD.
Next trip along to the paper suppliers and get a quote for 2000 sheets
of 180 GSM "silk finish" paper. Then trip on back to your lawyer and
get a grand off him and go get the stuff. With the change go to a
scrapbooking shop and figure out how you're going to bind the works of
art you'll make.

You know what a digital wedding album is?
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotograph...igi-albums.htm. Use that
fertile imagination of yours to figure out the rest. Print on both
sides of the pages and do it so they are horizontal orientation, with
the binding at the short side but don't bind them yet. From the
"Scrapbooking" shop get some "posts" and nuts along with a hole
drill.

A bit of woodworking here... Start with 1/4" ply and make a front and
back, just like a post bound photo album. Get some 1/4" foam and glue
it on the outsides of the panels figure out your own hinge method then
cover the boards with your favourite furnishing material or Use some
that Italian leather @ $70 a square yard I make my wedding albums
from. If you do it right, You'll easiely get $100 each for them. Get
real smart and buy some Coffee lounges so you can put them on the
'coffee tables' in the gallery with your photos adorning the walls and
you'll pretty soon be able to afford a boat like mine. Otherwise rent
them to coffee shop owners along with your monster wall art printed on
canvas. Mark's never been able to find my galleries because he
couldn't figure out where to look! Now you know.

I know you and I got into an unwinnable situation when I tried give
you valid advice. So lets leave it there for now. If you get real
serious about the idea, go off-line and I might help further.

Doug

I received another reply to my rather flippant answer to the NG
answer.....Here it is in its entirety:

Dear Sir: I did understand your first response, completely.

Desire and talent, both of which your friend will have, are very important
ingredients for success in a photography career here at National Geographic.
Equally important is experience. Our photographers have almost all come
from backgrounds in photojournalism, and a background in that field is
essential. The editors have to know that when they send a journalist into
the field that he or she has the experience and the know-how to bring home
photographs that tell a story. For example, how would a photographer
illustrate an article on smell (September 1986) or modern slavery (September
2003) or the war on disease (February 2002)? The harsh truth is that
because the investment in a National Geographic article is so great, the
editors are not going to trust a story to an untried photographer, no matter
how talented. Just to give you an idea of the time and staff involved in
one story, the following was taken from our Photography FAQs:

When a story is approved, the photographer and photo editor meet to plan
coverage and budget. The photographer sends images from the field to
Washington, and the photo editor contacts the photographer to discuss the
images. Midway through the coverage the photographer and photo editor meet
to assemble the best shots so far. Senior magazine staff offer comments and
the photographer returns to the field. When fieldwork is complete the
photographer and photo editor prepare a final edit to present to the
magazine editor. Once approved, a layout is designed. The process spans a
long period and involves many hands, so it is expensive. Travel costs and
fees to photographers and other staff involved often add up to hundreds of
thousands of dollars. This makes us quite cautious in choosing
photographers, opting for those with established reputations.

As I mentioned, we have many more experienced photojournalists than we do
assignments. However, if your friend would care to send in an article
proposal, the editors would certainly give it consideration.
CL Stroud
Communications
National Geographic

In article ,
William Graham wrote:
I received another reply to my rather flippant answer to the NG
answer.....Here it is in its entirety:

Dear Sir: I did understand your first response, completely.

[...]

As I mentioned, we have many more experienced photojournalists than we do
assignments.

I think this is the key issue. You don't want to be in a profession where
qualified people are abundant and commercial issues very much
constrain/determine what can be done.

I don't read NG, but there is good chance that the risk of taking on an
unknown photographer exceeds the potential for the quality improvement (as
perceived by the readers) that person may be able to deliver.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article ,
William Graham wrote:
Peter Nero

As always, just putting some mp3 or avi online is too hard for most artists.
For security reasons I don't do flash. There's this great medium, and people
can't be bothered to fully exploit it.

make the really big bucks,

An real artist should be lucky to make a living.

There can only be relatively few people who make big bucks. And then you
have to be more of an entertainer than an artist who is potentially way ahead
of his audience. Great artists often produce art that requires a significant
mental effort of the audience. Most people just want to relax / have a good
time.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Aug 11, 7:46 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
William Graham wrote:
If you were a brick contractor, and I asked you if you needed any more
bricklayers, and you replied: We're sorry, but NG only lays 100,000
bricks every year, and we already have 152 bricklayers, which is more
than enough to lay all those bricks, so we are not accepting any
applications at this time....Then I would understand your answer
perfectly. But, in fact, we are not talking about bricklayers
here....We are talking about artists. So, what I want you to
understand is that it doesn't really matter how many photographers
you have already on your staff, or waiting in the wings. - The fact
is, I know one who is better than all those 152 (or howevermany) that
you have........(some unimportant details deleted)

You are missing the point. It's all about simple economics. Why should
they hire anymore on-staff photographers for their limited on assignment
jobs when they can go to pbase, flicker, photo.net and other photo hosting
sites and offer the photographer $5 and a years NG subscription for truly
spectacular wildlife photos instead of some over-Photoshopped crap? There
are some really spectacular wildlife photos out there other than what you
see on Usenet.

Rita

Yes William missed the point, but this isn't the only point he
missed. What NG was saying is "we have plenty of gifted photographers
who we know and trust, we do not know you and we do not trust you. Go
get some experience and if you stand out, we'll call you (just like
the other people we already use) and then we can talk.

William, if you want assignments like that, you need to earn your
stripes. Go start shooting assignments like that for a stock company,
a newspaper, or someone. When you work stands out, then you can go
talk to them.

This level of photography isn't about pulling off 1 really great
picture in your life. It's about pulling off a dozen really, really
great pictures in a day -- doing that day in and day out until you get
the pictures they want.

They aren't looking for someone who want to move into the big
leagues. They are looking for people who are already there.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Pat wrote:

You are missing the point. It's all about simple economics. Why
should they hire anymore on-staff photographers for their limited on
assignment jobs when they can go to pbase, flicker, photo.net and
other photo hosting sites and offer the photographer $5 and a years
NG subscription for truly spectacular wildlife photos instead of
some over-Photoshopped crap? There are some really spectacular
wildlife photos out there other than what you see on Usenet.

Rita

Yes William missed the point, but this isn't the only point he
missed. What NG was saying is "we have plenty of gifted photographers
who we know and trust, we do not know you and we do not trust you. Go
get some experience and if you stand out, we'll call you (just like
the other people we already use) and then we can talk.

William, if you want assignments like that, you need to earn your
stripes. Go start shooting assignments like that for a stock company,
a newspaper, or someone. When you work stands out, then you can go
talk to them.

Let me get this straight.....NG doesn't trust it's own judgement well enough
to do its own hireing and fireing.....So, instead of looking at the work of
photographers, they sit back and wait for other people (of completely
unknown ability) to do it for them, and then after one of those
photographers makes it and becomes well known, they pay an exhorbitant price
to hire them away from who,ever found them......I would think that they
could trust their own judgement a little better than that, and find their
own gems among the pebbles......



This level of photography isn't about pulling off 1 really great
picture in your life. It's about pulling off a dozen really, really
great pictures in a day -- doing that day in and day out until you get
the pictures they want.

They aren't looking for someone who want to move into the big
leagues. They are looking for people who are already there.

Well said.

They are refusing to trust their own judgment, or are too lazy to trust it,
is what they are doing.