| 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
Gabriel Heinze smacks a cameraman during Argentina v Mexico
Shawn Lynch, Photographer
 |
New York | New York | USA | Posted: 6:26 PM on 06.27.10 |
->> I'm sure a lot of you saw this. I was disgusted with the behavior. The camera man is there to do a job just like the soccer player. He got a little too close but his contact was unintentional. There was no need to hit him back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_IXb0GW9-w |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 6:29 PM on 06.27.10 |
| ->> But the player does not know it was unintentional. He was way to close, isn't that what zoom is for? No need to be right up in someones face like that. |
|
Dylan Lynch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 12:37 AM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> I'm sure the cameraman didn't blame the player, and neither would I. The player's not exactly in the most calm state, especially after such a huge moment. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:47 AM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> Way too close? Really? I will never understand why tv guys all think they are proctologists. Seriously, why do you need to be that close? |
|
Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
|
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 3:51 AM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> I agree with this what Matthew, Dylan and Chuck wrote. There's no need to stick lens into players face. If you do it, you deserve to get it back. Maybe I'm a bit more sensitive to this, since we have one very special sample of cameraman here, who is ruining every single photo, sticking his camera straight into athlete's face (zoom? what is zoom?) So it actually feels good they get their ass kicked from time to time. And if I'm disgusted by someone's behavior, then it's cameraman's behavior. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 3:56 AM on 06.28.10 |
->> why do you need to be that close?
If you look at the video (particularly bottom of frame in the background), it looks like he was trying to work his way around the back and to the side when the entire group shifted. He's a steadicam and was trying to get out of the way and either wasn't fast enough or ran out of room...maybe someone was behind him...got tripped up on the breakaway cable...who knows?
TV guys shoot jube close and wide for the same reasons still guys shoot close and wide. Only difference is TV gear tends to be a lot bulkier and tethered with wires, so they can't move as fast. Usually they don't hit the players...accidents happen, just like with still guys.
Live, close-in jube from a wide angle HD camera with stereo sound looks and sounds amazing at home...that's why they do it. TV pays a lot of money for the rights to do just what they're doing, and people at home love it. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:52 AM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> yeah, david (wink wink) don't mind us poor saps shooting stills....we're just trying to do our job too, only most of us have enough training to know we don't have to ruin a moment by becoming part of the scene......8) |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 10:31 AM on 06.28.10 |
->> Maybe the great John Rhodes will tell us about the time he ran onto the field with Tony Romo thinking the game had ended when there was still another down or so. Tony didn't punch John, of course ...
And while I certainly don't wish anyone any harm and don't think the guy (cameraman mentioned above) deserve to get smacked, I do admit that every time I'm on the receiving end of having my shots ruined by some Steadycam-pointer, so some fat guy on a couch can get the "full experience" on his over-priced big screen TV ... well, let's just say it's not pleasantries that are coming out of my mouth, nor positive thoughts on my mind ...
But, again, I don't blame the dude for doing his job. I just blame fatcat TV execs who are probably too busy bathing in bathtubs of bennies rather than watching the game. My guess is they just wait to read about in the paper the next day. |
|
Eric Isaacs, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 11:16 AM on 06.28.10 |
->> "This video contains content from FIFA, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."
Guess it was bad PR. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 2:28 PM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> Chuck - do you have a case for that chip on your shoulder, or do you use velcro? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:18 PM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> @dave....think tank logistics manager...no chip, just a fact of life. video guys seem to think that to get a great shot they have to have the camera up someone's nose....if you can prove me wrong, I'm willing to listen to your side of the story but categorically I can safely say if I'm in a situation with TV shooters around most of them have no idea what the telephoto part of a lens is for....check out any final four, nba championship, world series, etc etc.....and most of the time the video guys are in the middle of the celebration before members of the durn team....you're going to have trouble finding solid ground in this discussion. sure, TV spends a gazillion dollars for the rights but I think EVERYONE would get a chance at making great video AND stills if EVERYONE was in a one minute hold, not just us poor chumps who couldn't pony up the gazillion dollars. |
|
Jason Joseph, Photographer
|
Dublin | OH | USA | Posted: 3:42 PM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> Its all about the lens optics and the representation of the entire scene. The idea of making those who are watching the game at home feel like they are at the game typically requires shooting with wider angles so that more of the environment is captured in the shots. Sure, you can compress a shot with a zoomed in lens, but then you lose the feel of everything else that is surrounding the celebration or the excited player or whatever else might be happening. And beyond making the viewer feel like they are just at the game, there is certainly the idea that they want the viewer to feel like they are even a part of the action which means close up, wide angle shots. I'm not necessarily condoning it, I'm just communicating the thoughts that go into it. Speaking as someone who has been in the TV market for quite some time from both behind the camera and as a technical director, I have quite often heard and seen the reasoning behind the shot selection. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 4:22 PM on 06.28.10 |
->> First off, don't blame the shooters. They are hired guns doing a job, just like you are. In countless preproduction meetings, they are told, very specifically, where and how to shoot everything...from the National Anthem to jube. They are there because producers and directors tell them, specifically, where to be. If they don't get in there, they get screamed at in their headsets until they do get in there.
Producers and directors call the shots. They're the ones that come up with the budget, block the shots and allocate money for gear and people. The gear one HD Steadycam operator carries can easily cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars. They are not going to waste that type of resource shooting from the edges. When you have access, you use it, and they pay a lot of money for access.
For all of the complaining about video guys ruining shots, I still see a ton of great stills coming out of every game. Obviously shooters are figuring out ways to work through the issue and capture great moments. I would argue video guys are no more of an issue than ref butt, posers on the sidelines, uninformed security guards, or even other still shooters not following the rules. With the video guys, you at least KNOW they're going to be there and you pretty much know ahead of time what they're going to do, so it should be fairly easy to plan accordingly. With other obstacles - not so much. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:25 PM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> david, don't wanna beat a dead horse, but all those excuses still don't make it right. yeah we've learned over the years as it gets worse and worse to try and "work around" the bad manners of television. I know you're a tv guy and we're just going to have to disagree on this. it's the same old excuses, and let's make no mistake they are nothing but excuses....the director's calling the shots, the camera guy is just doing what he's told through the earpiece, we pay a lot of money, my steadicam cost more than your house...blah, blah blah....do I care about ya'll's excuses? nope. you are right about one thing "video guys are no more of an issue than ref butt, posers on the sidelines, uninformed security guards, or even other still shooters not following the rules". with all that combined with the plain rudeness of television policies we're lucky we even make a decent frame. and please explain why CBS had six two man crews run out on the court at the end of the NCAA national championship game, cable pullers, sound guys and at least six cameras....overkill....but, that's right, CBS paid a lot of money...screw us. I'll shut up now...but I really disagree with your POV. |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 6:16 PM on 06.28.10 |
->> He deserved to be smacked for sticking the camera up in the players face. No need to be that close and become a part of the scene.
One thing is to be close, but that's beyond close. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 6:19 PM on 06.28.10 |
->> I agree with Chuck, pretty much. The main issue I see is the cameraperson did a crappy job of anticipating his/her shots. When excited players huddle, it's a given that they don't de-huddle in slow motion. They're excited, and are paid to be really fast, and quick. No way I'm jamming a camera lens in that kind of zone where there's a chance it bumps into an athlete's face as they break huddle.
Heck, if I were the athlete, I probably would have slapped the photographer too, with the intent to warn, not hurt. This is exactly what happened, the photographer didn't get thrown down or beat up, and hopefully will do a better job of spacing next time. I seriously doubt a producer yelled at an already very close camera operator to get even CLOSER. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 6:29 PM on 06.28.10 |
->> Chuck,
No excuses here. It's a food chain thing. Ask the radio guys about food chain - as still shooters crank away at 8fps during press conferences... :-)
I've worked in all three mediums - radio, TV and stills - each for multiple years. It's all media. I like all of them for different reasons. They all have their perks and downsides...even TV.
If you get a chance, try strapping on a Steadicam rig and walk backwards in a crowd while your shot is going out live to several million households. I know it's nothing compared to holding a few pounds of still camera over your head creating images that won't be seen in print for hours, but if you did try it sometime you might get a different perspective on what the guys doing that gig are up against.
They aren't that different than still photographers - they don't get paid what they're worth and they work long hours carrying heavy stuff in the hot sun, hoping to capture once-in-a-lifetime images. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 8:05 PM on 06.28.10 |
->> David:
Since you're playing devil's advocate, here's a question for you:
In all your years of experience as a TV shooter, were you told to spastically flail about like some kid who just got his first wide angle lens? And when you worked as a radio guy, did they tell you how to stick your shotgun mic right up in front of the subject to block everyone else, or ask a new question while the subject was answering the previous one? How about when you shot stills? Were you taught how to hail mary right in front of everyone so you blocked shots too?
We're not arguing jobs, really -- we're arguing manners. Never mind all the newspaper guys getting blocked on the back side, that TV guy got REALLY close; closer than I've ever felt getting with a professional, college (or, hell, prep athlete) athlete for a shot in that situation. Which leads me to my last point ...
Despite what Capa said, closer isn't always better. It's about composing. If half the knee jerk journalists (still, broadcast and the like; and well paid or not) had confidence in what they were doing, they'd know how to work a scene from near and far to make the best of it, without being obtrusive to the subject or the situation.
You got me on the TV and radio side -- I've never worked those gigs. But I work with a lot of good journalists in this market of all kinds who know how to handle themselves. And I've had the honor of watching some of the best still shooters around work a gig. Even the "pool ones," for the most part, know how to make their needed frames, too, while not screwing everyone else.
So anyway, whatever. This thread had "disagree to disagree" written all over it, and I'm a fool for biting on this lure. |
|
Peter Huoppi, Photographer
|
New London | CT | USA | Posted: 8:12 PM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> Did the front of the camera actually hit the guy? I don't care what medium you work in, hitting the subject with your equipment is bad form. |
|
Matt Brown, Photographer
|
Fullerton | CA | USA | Posted: 9:42 PM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> Way to close, he had it coming. |
|
Rafael Agustin Delgado, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Pasadena | Ca | USA | Posted: 11:20 PM on 06.28.10 |
| ->> Karma will work it out in the end. |
|
Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
|
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 3:09 AM on 06.29.10 |
->> David I don't think it's point in money, or producers or anything you are advocating. Point is simply in being normal person, who has (at least) some respect to others who are working in same environment. From time to time, I'm official photographer on some event. Even though I have right to be wherever I want to be, I still take care, that other guys get their shots. I don't go out there stand infront of them get my shot and don't care for rest. It's fair to everyone, and you don't lose anything doing so.
Those guys could do the same, without risking their jobs. I can see this almost in any race/match I cover, where you have some cameramen who respect others, and we are all happy on the end. But then you have others, who don't care a thing about anyone else but their wide angle lens, and normally they position themself on purpose so they screw up rest of us. So they could easily do it nice way, but because of their attitude they don't do this. And this attitude is problem, not their few $100k worth gear, not their producers, not contracts their TV station has... just their screwed up attitude and nothing else. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:51 AM on 06.29.10 |
->> Those guys could do the same, without risking their jobs.
Primoz (and others),
I'm guessing by your description that you've never worked on a crew doing a live broadcast. Here's a bit of insight into how that works, and how it works to be on a crew doing that job.
When you're a camera operator on a live broadcast, you're on headsets with an entire production crew. The broadcast is going on, and you are listening to follow the flow of the show. Depending on which camera position you're on, you could be on once the entire show, or on nearly all the time. If you're a steadicam operator, you usually fall into the latter category because you're an expensive asset and you have the ability to get really cool shots.
As the show progresses, you will usually have certain shots and positions that you know you have to get, and more important - you know WHEN you'll have to get them. Interviews, hoisting of the trophy overhead, etc. These are shots that you know you have to get because you've been told you have to get them. The director is expecting it, and you'd better have it when it's time.
If I'm on a camera with that type of assignment, you can bet your butt I am not going to let anyone get in front of me when I'm supposed to be getting that shot. Before that shot, I'm not going to take a chance that someone is going to jump in front of me at the last minute. If I see them in the wings and they haven't talked to me (see below), that's what I'm assuming is going to happen, and I'm going to do what I can to prevent it. I'll position myself in front of the pack, and I'll wait for the shot to come around. It's my job. That's what I'm paid to do. It's not about being polite, respectful or anything else. If there is an issue with that, you really do need to take it up with the people who put me there because they're the ones who will fire me (i.e. not use me next time) if I don't get that shot.
That's the scenario when you're assigned a specific shot. There are other times when you're expected to have a shot pretty much the entire time you're running the camera ("hot all the time"). This is because in addition to the live feed, you're usually feeding a video recorder back in the truck. The footage is used later for bumps and promos, and they really like to use footage that HASN'T been used on the live feed. So when Chuck says there were six cameras in one location, I'm not surprised. Half of them were probably never intended for air - just ISO feeds. If you look closely you probably saw shots from some of those cameras in the closing montage, or in features about specific players later on. If it's a series of games (final four, etc.) you'll see that footage in the opening sequence for the next game or the finals. That's why that stuff always looks so fresh and different.
If you're an operator on a camera that is "hot all the time", you don't let people block your shot. You can't. It's not doing your job. It doesn't matter how nice of a guy you are, ALLOWING your shot to be blocked is not doing your job - which is not being a professional. Again, if there's an issue, take it up with management.
But here's the deal - not once in those situations have I ever had a still photographer come up to me ahead of time and say, "Hey, I don't want to get in your way, can you tell me where you need to be so I can work around you?" Not once. Usually they hang in the wings right in your blind spot and make a move just as the action starts, so you and your RF guy have to grow eyes in the back of your head to make sure you don't trip over them. Being respectful and professional goes both ways.
When I've been on the other side (shooting stills), I always talk to the camera operator and/or his RF guy and field producer. The results are far more relaxed. Sure they are a big bulky presence in my work area, but at least I know what they're doing and what to expect, and they know the same about me. That's being professional.
Just as you can have still photographers that can be real pains in the rear (to everyone), you can have video guys who are the same way. It definitely depends on the individual, but in my experience the ratio of pita to nice person in TV is the same as what I see in still photographers, reporters, radio guys, etc. Some people are nice, some aren't.
Did this guy, in this situation, deserve to get smacked by the player? Sure he did. He hit the guy. For whatever reason, the steadycam guy couldn't get out of there in time when the guys moved his way. The same thing would have happened if it had been a still photographer. I would almost guarantee the steadycam operator has no ill will against the player. He hit the guy, the guy hit him back. Everyone understands that. But it doesn't mean he wasn't doing his job or being careless, any more than it would if a still shooter had done the same thing. It's live, in the moment stuff, and sometimes things happen. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
|
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 10:21 AM on 06.29.10 |
->> I will write once again this what I already wrote. For example with alpine skiing I cover extensively, you have one TV guy in finish area, and photographers on one maybe 10m long stand on side of finish area (normally it's just one side reserved for us). When skier comes down to finish, tv guy can stand on other side not blocking our view, or he can stand straight between us and skier. There are few people (especially in Austria) who always stand on side, so they don't block us. On the other side, there's always few people (on from Slovenian TV is particularly great doing this) who always, and I mean every single racer, every single race, stand straight in our line.
I believe you as camera operator can't afford to be blocked (and when there's chance I always talk with tv guys to avoid problems later on), but in case I described, there's just some common decency in question. It's not about he would be blocked, or he would have any worse shot if he would stand 30cm more left or right. It's just a way to show everyone else he can do whatever he wants and he can screw up our job... and he does it, over and over again.
I believe sometimes you have to take care of it not to get blocked. But this particular case, just as this one I was writing about has nothing to do with "taking care not being blocked". In any of those two cases, noone else is around. TV guy is onlyone there, so there's no need to "fight for place", yet they are still there pushing cameras straight into their faces. But I totally agree, I'm sure he didn't hit Heinze on purpose. |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:29 AM on 06.29.10 |
->> Me?
I'm blaming Drew Carey for all of this. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 11:21 AM on 06.29.10 |
->> [For the record, they only reason I feel compelled to reply to that is because of the high number of impressionable minds on this site (i.e. students ... "think of the children!"). I've watched you in enough other threads, David, to know that you're sticking to your guns, which is totally fine.]
"It's not about being polite, respectful or anything else. If there is an issue with that, you really do need to take it up with the people who put me there because they're the ones who will fire me (i.e. not use me next time) if I don't get that shot."
Fair enough. Maybe myself and the other folks I work with regularly are some sort of crazy exceptions to the rule. I've been doing this job pretty well now for the last seven or so years without having to be a dick (my word, not yours).
I'm sorry, but I hear the above excuse all the time, and I call it for what I genuinely think it is -- horse shit. It's the easy way out.
In a scrum like that, getting blocked is a fact of life and it can and will happen. To my mind, the key is to be a fast enough thinker and competent enough in what you're doing to still get "the shot" or whatever at nobody else's expense but your own.
I get that you've been part of a live TV production and I appreciate your insight therein. But I've been in plenty of similar situations on the other side (stills) and I'm telling you, students and newbies, it doesn't have to be all pushing and elbows and nonsense; that's bush league right there.
And you know how I know so? Because any time I've ever called someone on that, post incident -- be they TV, still, scribbler, etc. -- I get the same, semi-stunned, dumb look on their face that says to me they know they effed up ... plain and simple.
Sorry to harp on this (pun not intended, seriously), but the kind of thinking behind all this (do what it takes to get the shot) drives me up the wall. If you learn to anticipate situations and not react to them, you'll still get your work done without turning into a arm flailing ogre.
OK, no more from me out of this. I've done my part to sway the point of this thread into a totally different direction. And I swear my blood pressure has jumped a bit as I wrote this.
- gerry - |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 11:54 AM on 06.29.10 |
->> i haven't seen this response yet. So let me put this out there. I support the TV cameraman's right to get in close in this case, but if he had just backed up A FEW FEET none of this would have happened.
In fact, every other goal celebration has been filmed without incident this World Cup simple because the cameramen allow a few feet between them and the wildly celebrating players.
What does this prove?
First, the cameraman in this case got TOO CLOSE. I don't think there's any dispute here. And if you watch the footage, while he circles the celebration, he makes no effort to back off after he moves in on top of the players. That was bad form.
Second, since no other cameramen are getting hit (or running into players) it's safe to say that they agree with the above opinion. Otherwise it would be happening more than once. |
|
Matthew Cavanah, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | US | Posted: 12:05 PM on 06.29.10 |
| ->> Because a still shooter won't get yelled at by their boss if they don't get the shot because they were blocked... |
|
Martin Beddall, Photographer
|
Horsham | West Sussex | UK | Posted: 2:23 PM on 06.29.10 |
| ->> What was it Robert Capa said....? :-) |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 06.29.10 |
->> While reading over all this, I'm deciding: What was the big deal? Some people are acting like Heinze grabbed the photographer's camera, smashed it, kicked him in the junk and kneed him when he was down.
The player got bumped in the face, was peeved, and gave the photographer a little slap. I've been punched before, and I wouldn't call what's on the video an over-the-top violent act.
While I do think the photographer was too close and screwed up, was it that big a deal? Really? |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 3:38 PM on 06.29.10 |
->> I've been doing this job pretty well now for the last seven or so years without having to be a dick (my word, not yours).
First, everyone is a dick (your word, not mine) at some point in their career, yourself included. Everyone has a bad day, and if you don't think you have been at some point you're just not being honest with yourself. That said, yeah, there are some folks like yourself where being a jerk is a rare exception. There are also those who are the other way around. I've met people who were jerks in all professions. Only reason I mention this is by putting it the way you did, you make it sound like everyone in TV by default is a dick...and it just isn't the case. Not by a long shot.
Comparing the two jobs is basically pointless. A still photographers job is to return one, two, maybe a few dozen images over the course of an entire day. Those few images, standalone, have to be excellent. That is a highly skilled thing to be able to do.
When you do a live show, you are constantly making images. But not only do you have to get the shot, you have to move with the action while maintaining a stable shot, all live. A lot of times you're walking backwards, sometimes you have to move where you can't see. If you're live, or live to record, you can't just back off and try for another angle like a still photographer can do. A lot of times you just can't back off every few minutes to let others shoot and have any hope at being able to get back into position. It just doesn't work that way. You have to hold your position and your shot until you are cleared. That is the job. If you've ever worked on a crew you know that. It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. It's not saying that it is harder or easier to do live TV versus shooting stills. Both require a lot of skill. They're both different - a lot different.
There is no argument on this end that the guy in the original video got what was coming to him, but I would argue with the contention that he didn't try to avoid it. No shooter I know of - still or otherwise - wants to hit someone with their camera. It was an accident. If you look at the video (edge of the frame) you can see he's starting to back up when the hit happened. We can't see around the frame - someone may have been behind him. It's also quite possible he was looking behind so he could get out of the way when the hit happened. We don't know.
I dunno. I see both sides because I've worked both sides. If I'd only worked stills maybe I'd feel the same way many of you in this thread seem to feel. But one thing is certain - it's very difficult to eliminate griping regardless of the trade. I've been at high school games without a TV camera in sight and you'll still have someone griping about parents with cameras. Or refs who won't move. Or some coach who picks a beef about strobes. It's part of human nature I think. |
|
Jack Megaw, Photographer, Assistant
|
Philadelphia | PA | America | Posted: 4:25 PM on 06.29.10 |
| ->> Did anybody just see Ronaldo spit at the camera as he was walking off the pitch after being knocked out by Spain just now? |
|
Eric Seals, Photographer
|
Detroit | MI | United States | Posted: 4:30 PM on 06.29.10 |
| ->> yeah I just saw Ronaldo do that, the spit came really close to the camera and I bet it ended up getting on the camera guys sleeve or jacket. Sore loser he is! |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 4:35 PM on 06.29.10 |
->> "Only reason I mention this is by putting it the way you did, you make it sound like everyone in TV by default is a dick...and it just isn't the case. Not by a long shot."
I don't think that -- I work (and have worked) with a lot of skilled TV videographers who are kind and careful when they work. They get the shots they need at no one else's expense but their own.
Secondly, I do shoot video -- most of us here at the DMN do. It's been done for years here now and some of the folks here are pretty amazing at it. Suffice to say, I understand how the two differ; but I understand how they're fundamentally the same. Good planning and thinking ahead will always be better than reactive shooting. That's true in all kinds of journalism, visual or not.
Robert, you're right. Nothing about this is a big deal. I disagree with what David feels is a certain approach one needs in certain situations. But hey, maybe he's right and I'm wrong.
I'm wrong lots. Just ask my wife.
Peace out, all. No mas from me on this or anything. This message board thing is no bueno for the karma.
- gerry - |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 3:54 AM on 06.30.10 |
->> GJ,
Not to beat this anymore than needed, but shooting video for edit is not the same thing as doing live TV. The only real similarity is the equipment. Everything else - from composition to mission to strategy - is completely different.
Shooting video for editing can be a lot like shooting stills - contemplative, lots of time to stop start, lots of room to move around, and yeah...you can be flexible with where and when you shoot. If you miss one shot because you're out of position, it's no big deal...you just shoot more footage and edit around it. Most of the time you work alone or with a small one or two person crew. You're usually self-directed - you can shoot what you want. It's a lot like doing stills.
Live TV is not like that - not at all. As a live TV shooter you are a part of a large crew that you're communicating with constantly, coordinating moves and taking direction. Time is an important element, and you have specific places you have to be and things you have to shoot, all at specific times. When you shoot to edit, you're responsible for all the parts and pieces. When you're doing live TV, you are responsible for smaller, very specific pieces of a much larger production. It's the difference between playing as a session musician in a recording studio versus playing live in front of 30,000 fans...you approach things completely differently, and there is little room for error.
If you get a chance, try it sometime. It's difficult, but it can be very fun and rewarding.
Dave |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:21 AM on 06.30.10 |
| ->> G.J. you are AWESOME!!!! |
|
Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 11:11 PM on 07.09.10 |
->> "After looking at video footage of the incident Tour de France officials later said that a cameraman, working for international broadcasters, had been at fault.
They handed him a sanction by excluding him from Saturday's seventh stage from Tournus to Les Rousses ski station."
One stage? He should be excluded from the rest of the tour. |
|
Alexander Pylyshyn, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Newmarket | ON | Canada | Posted: 9:54 AM on 07.12.10 |
->> Unfortunate about McEwen crashing. That's the worst case scenario nightmare for a member of the media in terms of interference. One thing to bump someone and become "a part of a moment" rather than document it, another thing completely to botch an athlete's performance (and risk his safety).
Good way for your working reputation to get flushed down the toilet. Hopefully he isn't put into a similar role again for awhile. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|