| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Video = Self-destruction of Photojournalism PT II
Kirk Mastin, Photographer
 |
Coeur D'Alene | ID | USA | Posted: 12:49 AM on 08.26.07 |
->> I like this thread. Most interesting thing I've read here in a long time.
So I wanted to share this as yet another example of how we must reach our audience whether it be through video or multimedia...or whatever.
Talk about audience driven news:
"The public is shaping news agendas as never before. Online editors can quickly see which stories "click" with readers. News risks becoming a "hit" parade, a top 10 list of most clicked items. How long before Australia gets its own version of Las Ultimas Noticias, Chile's most widely read newspaper? The paper, according to Knobel, has "a system where all clicks onto its website are recorded and displayed in the newsroom. The clicks — and the popular vote they represent — determine the print content of the newspaper. If a story gets many clicks, it will be followed up and similar stories will be written. If a story doesn't get enough clicks, it and its follow-ups are spiked".
From this article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/black-and-white-and-all-over/2007/08...
By the way, In addition to my commercial/editorial work I am starting a Digital Media masters degree at the University of Washington to study our basic assumptions on how media is created and distributed. So there you go. My reason for continuing this thread.
And if anyone says 'This is just another sky is falling thread' I would say that they just don't want to think about this and would rather shut down this conversation.
Rather than hear that, I would like to hear what everyone has to say about how we (photojournalists) can find increased relevance in a continually decentralised news gathering environment. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:42 AM on 08.26.07 |
->> Dave Yoder (from previous thread,)
I'm certainly not mocking people who want to pursue their own photojournalistic vision. But the reality is that journalism is done in our society as a business and that business is moving away from financially supporting visual journalists who shoot stills to the exclusion of other media.
Dedicated still photographers will still be able to do sensitive and relevant work, but they will find it increasingly difficult to make a living strictly from still photojournalism.
Visual journalists who want to protect their financial and career self-interests will have to expand their repertoire.
The only folks who will be able to make it shooting only stills will be the top-of-the-pyramid, super-elite shooters
--Mark |
|
PF Bentley, Photographer
 |
Planet Earth | HI | USA | Posted: 6:24 AM on 08.26.07 |
->> I agree totally with Mark's post and this thread has been fascinating reading.
I love photojournalism and made had a great career from it.
If TIME or NEWSWEEK called today and had a project for me to shoot, I'd dust off my still camera and be out the door in a second!
But for freelance photojournalists, the market had changed.
Day rates have either not changed or gone down along with increased rights grabs over in recent years. It's become harder and harder to make a living from it. Personally, I haven't done a professional still assignment in years and have been making my income from video shooting and producing multimedia.
For all you you working on a newspaper - Mark was right - the web is the "paper" now!
For all of you out there who refuse to get into video or multimedia production, I applaud your decision to pursue your passion and hope that you can make a living from it.
Thanks again for all the great posts.
PF |
|
Chip Oglesby, Photographer
 |
Columbia | SC | USA | Posted: 10:34 AM on 08.26.07 |
| ->> Mark, can you prove that "journalism is done"? Where are your facts to back up your statements? |
|
Matthew Ginn, Photographer
 |
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 11:20 AM on 08.26.07 |
->> Chip,
I don't think that's what Mark said. What he said is that journalism is "done ... as a business," i.e. "performed as a business," and that business is moving away from those who shoot just stills.
If you want to continue to shoot just stills, that's fine, but if you're going to feed yourself down the road, you'll probably have to go somewhere outside the realm of still photojournalism--audio and/or video or, heaven forbid, writing, or non-journalistic endeavors.
As for me ... sign me up for the "super-elite" squad. |
|
Phillip Davies, Photographer
 |
Garden City | NY | US | Posted: 11:50 AM on 08.26.07 |
->> Matthew,
I don't know if you are aware of it, but PF was on the "super-elite" squad of still shooters for many years. See http://www.pfpix.com/BIO.html He probably does not remember me, but I remember running into him at several high profile news events. He's an amazing shooter. To hear him say..
"Personally, I haven't done a professional still assignment in years and have been making my income from video shooting and producing multimedia."
Is quite a stunning statement from someone who was/is considered by many to be a very gifted still shooter.
What is important here is not that still photojournalism isn't what it was 5-10 years ago, it's that we need to adapt to the new opportunities and technologies that are available to us, just as PF has.
PhilD |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:29 PM on 08.26.07 |
->> Chip,
Sorry for the awkward sentence construction. What I meant was that journalism is performed in our society under the auspices of for-profit businesses.
--Mark |
|
Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 11:35 PM on 08.26.07 |
| ->> You can separate yourself from the crowd (as any kind of journalist) by your access. Those with access to things the masses can't see will always be able to find gainful employment. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
 |
Tucson | Az | USA | Posted: 11:54 PM on 08.26.07 |
| ->> Mark Loundy, well put and P.F., well said too. If I may be so bold, I think a lot of folks are going to have to get hit right between the eyes with this realization before they will accept it. |
|
Jim Metzendorf, Photographer
 |
Columbus | OH | United States | Posted: 12:33 AM on 08.27.07 |
->> I wonder if some still photographers are turned off to the idea of shooting video because they associate it with local television channel news type journalism, which has a very specific aesthetic and set of conventions associated with it? If you turn the channel away from the local networks and onto other news/documentary sources available online and on cable/satellite, you can find some great stories being told in unique, compelling ways.
Here is a question for Mark, P.F., or any other video savvy person out there:
Is it your observation that most freelance journalists shooting video are doing so on assignment from a news organization, or are they independently producing a piece and shopping it around? Further, how do media production houses fit into this as opposed to the individual freelance journalist? Are entire companies (even if they are only a handful of employees) essentially the collective journalist in many instances?
In my situation, I am freelancing as a still photographer, but I have a strong background in audio production and have had exposure in the past to the video editing world as well. I think it would be great to meld these disciplines together as a journalist, but I’m not sure of the course of action I would need to take to turn it into a money-making endeavor in the freelance world. |
|
Joshua Prezant, Photographer
 |
North Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:32 AM on 08.27.07 |
->> Mr. Bentley,
You said that "for freelance photojournalists, the market had changed.
Day rates have either not changed or gone down along with increased rights grabs over in recent years. It's become harder and harder to make a living from it."
Who says that these same problems do not and will not exist with the video journalist who switched over from stills? Do you really think that a typical shooter for a newspaper or magazine shooter is getting a higher day rate to shoot video? And even if they are getting a little bit more...are they not working 100 percent more? And are the same media outlets that are trying to get these rights grabs you mention trying to get them for video now??? Is the newspaper shooters getting a raise for shooting video and doing the same work of the TV stations that do it with a crew of 4 people?
I have heard of media outlets paying $100 or so for a video that takes a person to 8 hours to shoot and edit, while they were paying $200 for a still shooter to go and shoot one assignment that would take a total of 2 hours to shoot, edit, and transmit!!!!
I see the same crap that is hurting still shooters now and in the past moving over to people shooting video.
My issue is not if video is good or bad for photojournalism. It is if this new medium will mean more money in the shooters' wallets'.
The medium we shoot may chance, but the rights grabs, bad contracts, and low day rates will not.
Just My 2.5 cents |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 1:51 AM on 08.27.07 |
->> Rate
Joshua is correct. I have a full pro video kit with lights and wireless and plenty of experience. For a fully edited and ready-to-upload video file, most publications I've dealt with only want to pay the standard still assignment rate or a little more. I haven't taken them up on any yet. At those rates, it's really not worth it.
TV and ad work pays better for freelance video, but it's highly competitive and you really need to be in a big market to make it pay. |
|
PF Bentley, Photographer
|
Planet Earth | HI | USA | Posted: 7:04 AM on 08.27.07 |
->> First of all we are not competing with news crews, not do we want to become news crews. That's the last thing I want to do!
For the student out of college, the only way they have any chance of employment on a "paper" these days is is they can do multimedia, video and stills.
For the current newspaper shooter who wants to keep their job as the "paper" downsizes you need to know multimedia and video these days.
For the freelance videojournalist who wants to make money - media outlets pay crap like to you said.
Bold statement #1: PUBLICATIONS AND MEDIA OUTLETS ARE NOT WHERE THE MONEY IS.
But there are is plenty of money out there doing corporate web documentaries and television reality shows. But you gotta be good and gotta want to do it and you gotta put the time into it.
Don't feel that you need to be in a big market to do corporate work. Yes, you need to get the accounts or create the market for it but after that your traveling to the shoot and editing at home.
Bold statement #2: YOU NEED TO CREATE YOUR OWN OPPORTUNITIES.
Let's say you live in Bump in the Road Texas. You're thinking right now, okay Mr. PF Big-Shot Video Multimedia Man, where's the work? Well, guess what, there's no work there in Bump in the Road - but I bet Texas has oil money, I bet it has rodeo money, I bet it has race car money, I bet it has cattle ranching money, I bet it has port money and I bet all these entities have web sites whether it be the industry site or individual companies. And guess what I found out, most of these companies don't have a clue about good video and how to update their sites to this century. Plus once they get the good - they gotta "feed the beast" to update it.
You get the picture - just adapt it to your part of the country.
BOLD STATEMENT #3: WE ARE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN A 2 OR 3 OR 4 PERSON BETA-TYPE PRODUCTION CREW USING OLD TECHNOLOGY.
Let's say a client is used to paying $15,000 for a video shoot and you can do this for $7500 - and do a better job at it - you are going to the gig and every gig after that at that company.
I'm sorry if our photojournalism world is changing. I did not do this! But I am adapting and going with the flow using my journalism skills and sensibilities in a related way.
BOLD STATEMENT #4: IF YOU DON'T SHOOT VIDEO OR DON'T WANT TO OR YOU THINK I'M NUTS, IT'S OKAY. IT MEANS MORE WORK FOR US WHO DO.
You know, I miss a lot of the good old days at TIME Magazine. We traveled first class, had good pro-photographer contracts, no expense was sparred in getting the story and the photographs, large project agreements were done on a handshake or phone call, etc.
It was really nice.
Guess what - IT'S OVER! Those days are gone, I'm 55 years old and I'm not going to whine about it cause IT AIN'T COMING BACK.
I hope this post was of service to the SS community.
PF |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:48 AM on 08.27.07 |
| ->> thanks PF. you'll probably get blasted by some poor misinformed fool whose head in buried in the sand like an ostrich. I still laugh when I read posts here on sportsshooter by those who think they're going to be "THE" sports photographer for a newspaper. those jobs don't exist anymore. which brings up another question in regards to the changes we're seeing. what in the hell are the photoj school's teaching these kids? it truly seems a lot of students are misinformed on the current trends and state of the business. it couldn't have been put out there straighter than PF did...it's (the good old free wheeling fun days) over. and it sure ain't coming back, better deal with it or ignore it and face the consequences. |
|
Rob Ostermaier, Photographer
 |
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 10:09 AM on 08.27.07 |
->> In the end this whole discussion will become academic if the beancountes don't care about how good photo is or how well a video is produced at newspapers. Photographers try to maintain some standards but when you're under pressure to produce more and more with fewer and fewer resources and time the quality suffers. Our reporters are suffering from the same problems.
I feel like video is a way to keep papers alive for a while longer so parent companies can continue to ring 26% profit out of them for a couple more years until they sell them off. They sure don't give a damn anymore how good it is anymore just as long as a lot is produced for a little money. The death of newspapers is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. This attitude opens the door for "Ireporters" and reader generated content that organizations grab up for free! There's not a freelancer out there that can compete with free!
From what I've seen on our reader generated sports site quality doesn't matter to the reader either. The stupid awful photos that the soccer moms post get the same number of hits as a great action photo shot by a staffer. As Kirk pointed out the beancounters have instant access to that info and what they'll do with it is anybody's guess.
Money from web hits will never replace the money generated by the printed product. While building the web product maybe we should continue to build the printed paper that is still paying the bills.
I don't know what will save newspapers. I know a video that takes four hours to produce and gets 60 hits will not. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 1:10 PM on 08.27.07 |
->> For the current newspaper shooter who wants to keep their job as the "paper" downsizes you need to know multimedia and video these days. But there are is plenty of money out there doing corporate web documentaries and television reality shows. But you gotta be good and gotta want to do it and you gotta put the time into it.
And don't forget you'll be competing against trained, career video people who have been doing it for decades who already have professional-grade hidef gear that will look great on the web and on a 52" video monitor.
> WE ARE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN A 2 OR 3 OR 4 PERSON BETA-TYPE PRODUCTION CREW USING OLD TECHNOLOGY. Let's say a client is used to paying $15,000 for a video shoot and you can do this for $7500 - and do a better job at it - you are going to the gig and every gig after that at that company.
Where have I heard that logic before? OH WAIT! It's from those weekend still shooters that will shoot with a D70 for $10 and sideline access!
Old technology has ZERO to do with the number of people you need on a video production crew. One guy runs the camera, the other takes care of sound, if you're lucky you have a third person as a grip that watches your hot lights for you. If you plan on doing a quality job in the corporate world, you still need those people regardless of what kind of camera you use. Of course if your idea of "quality" is doing it all yourself using a $3,000 video camera, throwing the audio into AGC, running a light on the hotshoe and not charging market rate for editing and post-production, I guess you CAN do it for less.
By coming in and doing it for less, all you're doing is bottom feeding like a $10/day freelance still shooter...and getting those corporate guys used to paying less for "just as good". In other words, you're taking the bad business practices from the still photography world and infesting the freelance video world.
Nice. |
|
Thomas Boydston, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Georgetown | Tx | United States | Posted: 1:28 PM on 08.27.07 |
->> I sat down and spoke about this "problem" with a news editor the other day. He really made me think of it this way:
Even if photojournalists at medium to large publications are making this transition into multimedia and video and are miffed, at least their work is still being shone. If anything, with the advent of the cyber newspaper, more work is being shown. I know plenty of papers in Texas put up an entire photo story or montage from each assignment (be it from one or multiple photographers). And you also get/have to shoot video- meaning your work is even more readily visible. Reporters are having similar grief with this situation. Nobody wants to read more than a few paragraphs on the Houston Chronicles website. The reporter never gets that opportunity for a real lengthy, well written, articulate article anymore. Their stories are becoming more and more succinct to make it as quick of an ordeal as possible.
Cane me if I'm wrong, it's entirely possible, but that's what I got out of the 20 minute conversation. |
|
Joshua Prezant, Photographer
|
North Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 2:04 PM on 08.27.07 |
->> Mr. Harpe-- Well said!!!! I could not have said it any better. You really hit the nail on the head with what you wrote.
Mr. Bentley---You didn't answer my questions at all. We are talking about "self destruction of photojournalism" on this thread. From what you wrote I take it that there is no money in photojournalism ( may it be video or still). I gather you are saying to become a cooperate videographer. Am I correct in my reading of what you wrote? Are you basically saying if you want to make money forget about journalism??
With this mind frame.. why are you not suggesting that these still photographer work towards doing advertising? It pays very well. If they can't make money doing video for media outlets...why switch gears with what you are talented doing and learn video to shoot corportate stuff when you can just take the skills of still photography and apply them to corprate stuff??
A still shooter can make plenty of money doing corprate work and Pr work.. not to mention advertising. However, we are talking about VIDEO/Still PHOTOJOURNALIST. How is video the answer for the death of photojournalism? They way you are talking it seems you should be saying VISUAL JOURNALISM IS DEAD AND NOT GOING TO PAY THE BILLS.
I am not saying at all that kids in school should not be exsposed and learn about multimedia. I am just saying that it is not the answer if you want to make a living doing VISUAL JOURNALSIM.
And Mr. Bentley, magazines ARE still paying lots of money for projects and pictures. They are still throwing around money to cover stories. Its just a new crop of photographers ( and a few from the old days) that are getting this work. Look at the folks from Vll. And like you said in regards to the video. IF you want to get these job, you have to be at the top of your game..both visual and business wise.
Again,
just my 2.5 cents *** that I probably should be saving :-) |
|
PF Bentley, Photographer
|
Planet Earth | HI | USA | Posted: 4:07 PM on 08.27.07 |
->> I like passion and I like the passion you all have here.
If I could make a living doing video or visual or photojournalism of any type, I would be happy. That's my background. If you're working on staff on a newspaper - you're in good shape. You got a job & benefits in journalism. As Thomas Boydston pointed out, the web has opened up more opportunity for photo, video and multimedia essays to be shown on newspaper sites and other sites.
No matter what you believe or say - the fact is that the paper part of the paper is dying off, literally with the older generation who are not computer inclined.
I love the NY Times, it's a great "paper". Probably the greatest paper in the world. I know a lot of the staff photographers there, who are the best in talent and as people. I've trained five of them throughout the years in video.
But I can't work for the NY Times at their current day rate of $200 per day, plus the rights, plus signing a contract, plus it takes them very long to pay. I know, I done some assignments for them and not at $200/day. (It's amazing sometimes what happens if you just say NO.)
I guess my point as a freelancer is to look at alternatives using your talents. Maybe you could fund what you would really like to shoot or do a book with the money you make shooting ads, or annual reports or corporate stills, video and or multimedia.
Video is not the death of photojournalism, just another way of telling a story.
Oh, and one last thing to Mr. Harpe - I'm doing quite well alone, without the other 3 people in my "crew" shooting HDV. All my clients are very, very happy and keep calling. Luckily for me, they have no taste.
I'll crawl back into my hole now. Good luck. See ya.
PF |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 08.27.07 |
->> Luckily for me, they have no taste.
I apologize for my comment that inferred you were not turning out quality content. The "you" above was in reference to a generic "you", meaning people who charge too little for their skills. I don't know what you charge, so I have no way of knowing. But whoever hires you is undoubtedly getting a bargain.
Doing a google search on "videography day rate" is pretty enlightening. I'm finding HDV packages using pro gear with operators and audio for under $1,000 per day. I guess it doesn't have too far to fall in any case. |
|
PF Bentley, Photographer
|
Planet Earth | HI | USA | Posted: 5:48 PM on 08.27.07 |
->> David:
I accept your apology. Thank you.
As long as you brought up money..here's what I've been charging. I've always been very open about this as I believe the industry professionals should know current rates in different markets. Why be secretive?
I base my project rate on roughly $1250 day. Sometimes it works out more per day based on the project and how quickly I can get it done. That would include travel,shooting and editing days.
So for that particular $7500, I worked 4 or 5 days on it. It's helps that I'm an experienced fairly fast editor in Final Cut Pro and try to keep my shooting down to one hour of tape if possible. (Or the least amount of tape on larger projects - that really saves logging time)
I don't go out the door for less than $2500 and my usual project pay has ranged from $2500 to $35,000. This does not include my additional agreement with a think tank in California for which I've been contacted to produce web documentaries on topics dear to their hearts, such as Immigration, Eminent Domain, Gridlock, Medical Marijuana, etc.
Their site which will offer these documentaries in both HD and SD formats goes live in October.
I hope this has been a help to you and others reading this thread.
PF |
|
Pete Souza, Photographer
 |
Arlington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:53 PM on 08.27.07 |
| ->> Thanks very much PF for all your comments on this thread, which is one of the best I've read on this message board. |
|
David Brooks, Photographer
 |
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 10:04 PM on 08.27.07 |
| ->> I'm proud to know you PF! The fun that I get paid to do is in part because of you. Thanks for throwing my portfolio across the room, I needed it... and I hope to be just as relevant when I'm 55 years old. |
|
Jason Fritz, Student/Intern
 |
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 4:53 PM on 08.28.07 |
| ->> telling stories - whether its with a pen and paper, a still camera, or video camera - is the basis of journalism. Give me any of the three, or all three, and i'll be happy. |
|
Heather Hughes, Photographer
 |
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 8:19 PM on 08.28.07 |
->> I refer those of you that didn't see it to the first thread on this subject:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=26142
Which maxed out by Saturday afternoon but covered a lot of issues and points on this topic.
By the way, I appreciate everyone's input on this subject, on the board as well as the private messages I received. I was out shooting (stills only ;) and didn't get the final word in on my first thread but I'm glad it has continued. This is an issue that has been on my mind for a couple years now and I was very happy to get so much feedback from all over the country.
Good luck to everyone regardless of your path and feelings towards video and thank you for the open exchange of ideas!
Heather |
|
Jacob Hannah, Photographer
 |
Watertown | NY | USA | Posted: 9:48 PM on 08.28.07 |
->> I applaud those who are willing to adapt and learn a new craft in order to survive as newspapers push toward video. I wish I could be as excited about it as some people seem to be.
I think it is sad that people seem to have forgotten the power of a single image, and I would hope that newspapers could embrace both video and still photography as well as their online and print product without compromising the quality of either, but unfortunately I don't see that happening.
Personally I am more inclined to work towards perfecting my craft as a still photojournalist, as that is what I love to do. I believe there will always be a job for the still photojournalist if they are good enough.
I'm not saying I wouldn't want to learn video as I am always up for a new challenge. It can be a very effective and powerful way to tell stories, but it is different than a still image, and cannot replace it. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
 |
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:04 PM on 08.28.07 |
->> Count me in. The transition has been difficult. I am an old dinosaur (but not quite as old as PF) but one thing I try to avoid in life is contempt prior to investigation. So, yes, its difficult to transition to video, and its difficult to try to shoot both. We have a shooter here at the Sun-Sentinel, Lou Toman, who has been here FIFTY years. And guess who made the most seamless transition to video?
I know it can be disheartening. I've heard web video compared to AM and FM radio- and most newspapers sites are just barely working thier way into the FM side of things- long meaningful, video with rich content.
A lot of what I've done is AM- interview the PIO at the scene, get some Broll. But its a lot like still photos, or basic reporting. You can't expect to get to the multi section project without first cutting your teeth on the daily assignment. Heck, I've learned quite a bit from grinding out those 60 sec. hit-and-run pieces. I feel as if I'm just about qualified to take on the next step- the FM piece- and I've dipped my toe in the water only a few times.
Is this the self-destruction of Photojournalism? Well, I guess it is if you allow it to be. I look at Lou Toman, who could retire tomorrow if he wanted to, but he LIKES coming to work every day. Its the challenge, however difficult, that motivates. Lose that, and I might as well be selling insurance. (Please don't flame me if your other job is selling insurance, I love insurance.) |
|
Les Stukenberg, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Prescott Valley | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:01 AM on 08.29.07 |
->> I am not sure I am qualified to be chirping in here, but after reading all the posts on both of these threads I guess I am as qualified as many of the others. We recently (within the last 6 months) jumped into the video game at our paper. We are learning the cameras, the programs, and what works and doesn't by trial and error, asking questions and sending one person to a Platypus workshop. Anyway what we are seeing is a big increase with unique visitors to our web site, actual feedback to our stories (videos) and many requests for more of the same. Compare this to our print product, which has basically remained stagnant to growth and has the same basic design for the past 10 years.
We are now able to let people tell their own stories, in their own words, and I believe we are just at the tip of the iceberg of what we here will be doing.. I have so many ideas and stories I want to see told it's invigorating to be part of something where we are not held back but rather told to go and get the story... Hmmmm does that sound familiar to anyone here?
The problem I still have is when I leave the car I always instinctively grab my still camera and not the video camera. I am working to change that but I do know that even using a video camera I still look through the lens and capture what I see... That is no different than a still photo, what makes it different in my thinking is that I have to plan to tell a complete story all with imagery!!! If that doesn't get a visual journalist excited ..... What I see is we are now the reporter and photographer and we can tell the whole story.. actually we can let our subjects tell the story in their own voice... I really saw this when I shot a small wildfire and people told me I took them there...(http://link.toolbot.com/dcourier.com/87564) For me that's what photo journalism has always been take people where they couldn't be or where they wanted to be.... Show them what it's like... I am continuing to do that, just sometimes with a video camera and I know it will evolve into more and more as we move forward. |
|
Matthias Krause, Photographer
|
Brooklyn | NY | USA | Posted: 8:10 AM on 08.29.07 |
->> I'm with Les and others here that feel that video is becomming an additional way of telling a story - and I like it a lot. Unfortunately my (German) clients haven't really started to adapt the world of multimedia yet, but I'm hopeful. Meanwhile I try to sharpen my skills and stay ahead of the curve. I just finished my first project where I did it all - write the story, do still photography and shoot video. And while is was a lot of work and took up quiet some time it was a lot of fun too and I love to be in total control.
"I think video is intrusive, limited and doesn't have anything close to the power a still image has to tell the story and create change." - That's what Heather said in one of her posts and I'm a little surprised by that. I strongly feel that I can add another dimension of storytelling by shooting video. And if I'm given enough time I don't think it has to be shallow or "bad" journalism.
"You can do both but not well. People want good "quality" journalism, not video, from their newspapers. They watch video online to see something funny, not to get their news. Video is entertainment, not journalism." Heather said. Really? Well, you be the judge (and I don't say there isn't lots of room for improvement...): http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1156002426
Best,
Matthias |
|
Rob Ostermaier, Photographer
|
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 08.29.07 |
->> Matthias,
We produce videos like yours multiple times a day. No body is looking at them. The number of views have not come close to amount of effort we put into producing the video. Meanwhile our still galleries kill with hundreds of thousands of hits monthly!
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People watch video of cows being sucked up by tornados on the web not talking heads. They can watch talking heads on TV. And that being said even people that put a ton of time and effort into complicated rich flash and video presentations get very little return.
And honestly Matthias your video is way to long. People one the web have short attention spans. Two minutes is about all they can stand before the click away. |
|
Matthias Krause, Photographer
|
Brooklyn | NY | USA | Posted: 9:55 PM on 08.29.07 |
->> "We produce videos like yours multiple times a day. No body is looking at them."
Rob, do you have a link for me? I looked up your newspaper's website and all I could find was some hastely produced stuff that was more like TV news... if at all. You also can't produce a story with four in-depth interviews and lots of b-roll in one day unless you are a genius. I find it funny that you complain about video being shallow and at the same time think everything that's longer than two minutes is "way too long". Did you actually LISTEN to what people had to say in my piece? Do you also think that everything mediastorm.org or magnum-in-motion produces is "way too long"? How about WP's "On Being" were one person talks for up to four minutes? They get lots of hits... And have people asking, if they don't update fast enough... |
|
Michael Fagans, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Bakersfield | CA | USA | Posted: 6:34 PM on 08.30.07 |
->> It has been illuminating getting up to speed on this thread, parts 1 and 2.
First of all, storytelling and content need to be ‘king’ no matter what the format. Video can tell certain stories better than stills; more often than not, stills can tell the story as well if not better than video. One of ‘videos’ that got the most hits to date here was actually a series of stills, with an awkward voice over, that I put into Final Cut Pro and added some motion via the Ken Burns effect (not to every still). The story caught people’s eye, attention and interest.
Secondly, the industry is changing, accept it, embrace it but do not fear it. I have enjoyed learning about video and have found many of my still skills translate very well. That being said, I would agree with Jake and many others that people, especially students and younger professional still need to learn their/our craft. But, I have seen some amazing audio soundslide projects, that with a little audio can glue the viewer to their seat. I have also seen way too much cr*p audio soundslides.
Thirdly, something I think the industry needs to start thinking about is: How do we best tell this story and on what platforms? Is this story a single photo, a package, video, video and stills? (One of our best pieces to date was primarily stills with some video clips thrown in AND a great photo layout for print).
I have to believe that great storytelling and content will survive this paradigm shift to whatever replaces print, whenever the dust settles. We have some great photographers here who have embraced doing quality video work, creating audio soundslides when appropriate and using the web to get more good content out and seen by our readers than we can run in the paper.
Quality content takes time, no one disagrees; so part of my job is to help our guys be in place and have the time and support to do quality work AS WELL AS get the daily work done and in on deadline.
Some folks are scared of what might come to be. I am enjoying the freedom to imagine what could be and influence where our industry is going, utilizing different storytelling techniques along the way and advocating for strong content, whatever the form. That Darfur piece from the WashPost allows the weather to be part of the story in an amazing way that stills could never do. If you haven’t seen what Colin Mulvaney can and is doing than you don’t know where this whole thing can go and what good and great journalists can do in whatever medium they are using. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|