| 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
The future of photojournalism?
David M. Russell, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 9:01 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> In an effort to grant Bill Frakes his Christmas wish, I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about the future of photojournalism. In particular, I've been concerned that the trends in consumer digital photography may be a double-edged sword, providing images that play witness to events that, in the past, may have gone undocumented, while also providing a source of inexpensive photography that may change the market forever. My primary concern is the end of good visual storytelling.
Thoughts? |
|
Frank Johnson, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 9:09 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> I don't believe that consumer digital cameras will provide the end of good visual storytelling... As a matter of fact it may enhance the future.
Imagery has been moving man for as long as man has been here and will continue to do so.
People running around with consumer digital cameras will not be unlike those running around hoping to get the cop beating up the drunk driver.
However, it might just be someone's accidental photo overexposed, badly composed and all that may inspire a truly creative photo for someone who cares about the trade.
Thankfully, I had an interest in photos, before becoming a photographer and look forward to seeing more well captured work.
p.s. This is not to imply the contrary exists for David or anyone else by the way. |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photo Editor
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 9:40 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> “I've been concerned that the trends in consumer digital photography may be a double-edged sword, providing images that play witness to events that, in the past, may have gone undocumented, while also providing a source of inexpensive photography that may change the market forever.”
"My primary concern is the end of good visual storytelling. "
Cameras don't tell stories. They don't. No matter how new the technology may be, you will never see a photo credit in a newspaper or magazine that reads: Photo by Nikon D2 (or whatever camera you may be using).
It will always be the people behind the cameras that do all of the work. Good visual storytelling comes from a process of learning how to be a great thinker and observer above all else.
Good visual storytelling comes from learning to anticipate those wonderful moments of serendipity where everything in your frame comes together for the good of the story.
These types of things cannot be accomplished by the most powerful technology in cameras today or tomorrow. Know why?
Because cameras cannot think. They cannot feel. They cannot anticipate. They cannot bring passion or life experience to the assignment. They cannot wake themselves up at the crack of dawn when the competition is still sleeping, just to get that extra edge on the next guy.
Cameras with the greatest technology of today or tomorrow cannot learn from previous mistakes or file away ideas on long drives home from work.
The future of photojournalism has nothing to do with the camera, but with the people who choose to spend their lives using them.
Regards,
Chris |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 9:55 PM on 12.16.03 |
| ->> I am inclined to think that "digital ease" will help feed the desires of more young, energetic potential PJs. I can only hope that this is a good thing. The sooner someone finds out if they truly have the desire and the talent, the better. |
|
Carleton Q. Hall, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:21 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> As far as consumer digitals vs the future of photography goes, I think that we may get a much better crop of photographers in the long run. A lot of the major barriers to entry into the field have been removed.
How many aspiring photographers don't have money for film?
How many aspiring photographers don't have money for processing?
How many aspiring photographers don't have money for prints to see their work?
How many would-be visionary photographers gave up because they couldn't figure out this whole small-apeture-is-a big-f-stop-number-but-little-light-comes-in...thing?
With digital cameras, users get instant feedback and therefore can correct mistakes as they happen instead of seeing the mistakes 3 weeks later when they get the money to pay for the prints from the lab. Learning is undoubtedly faster. Yeah, they don't learn the old school way. But, they are still learning.
I think digital is good. I think that young, up and coming photographers will get the most out of it as a learning tool. And, they would have un-wittingly paid for the bulk of their learning up front by buying an expensive camera when they were excited about photography and didn't mind dropping the dough.
How much money did we all spend on film, processing, and prints just for the prints to never make it past the trash can by the door at the lab? Those were expensive lessons for me.
One last thing. Back in the day, how many times did you get that inkling to just make some images for the hell of it? You know, you got that bug and just felt like making magic! Then...the thought of "wasting" film and having to pay for processing for an experiment kept you from being creative when you may have been at your creative best.
That's what this new genaration of digital photographers won't have to worry about. |
|
Ken Smith, Photographer
|
Mcsherrystown | PA | USA | Posted: 10:38 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> I'm new at this and CQH hit the nail on the head. When I was shooting film (few months ago) it was too expensive to burn rolls of film while just playing with various camera settings. After going digital I'm learning something new within seconds.
I don't think the digital age is much of a threat to photojournalism. I think it will bring a larger pool of talent into the field.
I do feel that there will be more moms and dads with their digital Canon Rebels and a 70-300 Sigma on the ball fields killing the event photographers business. Why buy pictures from an event photographer when Johnny's dad will give you a CD of pictures for free? |
|
Dale D. Gehman, Photographer
|
Lancaster | PA | USA | Posted: 10:45 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> Short term management may fall for the inexpensive. Long term they will realize that a comsumer ditital camera doesn't make a photographer.
Over ten years ago I saw desk-top-publishing scare designers. Some offices let almost everyone be a designer, but within 1 to 3 years they had to pull the reins because administrative assistant with a computer and PageMaker didn't make designers. |
|
Matthew Knight, Photographer
|
Cedar Falls | IA | usa | Posted: 11:11 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> I do not think that the influx of consumer digital cameras will change the way good photojournalism is played out in newspapers and magazines. Photojournalism deals more with good storytelling and less with the ins and outs of brand x camera gear. (I.e. you could give me all the tools you want but I still don’t know how to build a house.)
I also don’t think we should be so naive to think that we alone are the bearers of change. The camera in anyone’s hands can be an awesome tool.
I believe the immediacy in which we will see images of events will be staggering. |
|
George Olivar, Photographer
|
New Brunswick | NJ | USA | Posted: 11:27 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> I agree with Carleton's points. I'm self-taught, and digital helped make my learning curve a lot easier. It allowed me to be more open to experimenting with my camera and trying out new ideas, whereas when I shot film, its costs sometimes made me think twice about trying something new. I didn't study photography in school, so I didn't have access to a darkroom. It was only after I joined the school daily that I was able to learn B&W/C-41 processing & printing in their darkroom.
I think the relative ease of digital will encourage newcomers to explore photography, and allow them to overcome their fear of some of the technical aspects of it, aspects which may discourage some from picking up a camera and satisfying their curiosity. Once they have a handle on the technical side, they can start learning about the creative/storytelling side of it. Eventually, those who have the potential to become good photojournalists will be noticed, and ultimately will help advance and grow the discipline.
I don't think we need to worry about digital photography forever flooding the field with mediocre photographers who lower the standards of the industry. Clients, newspapers, etc., will always be able to tell who produces good, thoughtful work and who is just wasting time. As long as there are people out there who are good communicators, there will be good photojournalists.
-G. |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:27 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> Points well made. Maybe it's more of a business concern, and I haven't phrased it well. I didn't mean to start a "digital: good/bad?" discussion.
I understand the digital revolution has benefited many professional and aspring photographers. I'm all digital all day. There will always be a huge difference between craftsmen (craftspeople?), and snapshooters.
But more and more column inches are being devoted to grabshots of celebrities and less and less to deep, long-term packages. Photo budgets are shrinking, and in a lot of places "good enough" has become the goal. Obviously there are exceptions.
I know I'm not the only one thinkning about this stuff, because I recently saw the "War Photographers" documentary, and Nachtway was saying the same or similar stuff. |
|
Colin Corneau, Photographer
|
Brandon | MB | Canada | Posted: 11:27 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> To Dale Gehman's point, I would only add worry that short term management may not be so short term...let's face it, this industry has too many people in it who will take the cheap ugly route so long as it saves money. Jobs and print space given to well-crafted skilled storytelling is smaller than it used to be; to paraphrase a political challenge: is our industry better off now than it was 10 years ago?
I have no problem with digital photography any more than I do any other innovation or addition to the art and craft of storytelling and journalism. But I guess the cynic in me really worries about the shrinking allotment -- both in terms of space and jobs -- given to photography. And about what effect consumer digitals have on that allotment.
Again, I am not a negative guy or a pessimist (I love this work too damn much)...I only bring up these points because it is part of the whole situation, I feel. |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:30 PM on 12.16.03 |
| ->> Thanks Colin, that's the notion I was getting at originally. I was afraid I might've been speaking in tongues. It's been known to happen. |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photo Editor
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 11:31 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> “I do feel that there will be more moms and dads with their digital Canon Rebels and a 70-300 Sigma on the ball fields killing the event photographers business. Why buy pictures from an event photographer when Johnny's dad will give you a CD of pictures for free?”
Once again, it has nothing to do with the camera but with the person behind it and in this case would include one’s ability to convince the buyer why their photos are worth more than the guy willing to give them away for free.
I'll take this a step further regarding digital. More and more photographers coming out of school these days are lazy because of digital. They've forgotten, or never knew what it was like to think, really think and understand for themselves when it comes to lighting, exposure and selective focus. Sometimes it’s just too easy to let the camera do the work for us. Priority or automatic mode can be a horrible thing. This doesn’t apply to everyone mind you but I know plenty of photographers working at large metro newspapers right out of school who couldn’t shoot or focus on manual if you gave them all the time in the world. On the other side of the token, I know plenty of photographers who don’t know how to use off camera flash with a TTL cord for the simple fact that the technology seems to complicated to grasp so they never bother to learn.
Why is it important to learn you may ask. Why with all of the wonderful technology to do everything for us would we want to do things for ourselves? Appreciation and understanding.
True masters of photojournalism use the camera as an extension of themselves. Believe it or not, tilting long glass up or down 1 1/8 of an inch in either direction can dramatically change the lighting of a subject under a number of different lighting situations. It’s a craft folks, done with our minds first and our cameras second. Digital adds convenience. It’s wonderful. It has revolutionized the way we do our jobs, but it has also taken something away from us and for those who will enter this profession in the future.
To set the path towards our future we must first understand where it was that we came from. The legends of our craft from times past cut their teeth and made their careers on primitive technology during a time when good photojournalism was all about the content, not the camera.
I know a number of people who may disagree and that’s fine. But there’s alot to be said for learning on an old K1000. It forces us to be thinkers first and doers second.
Regards |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:39 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> Digital is a delivery vehicle.....
When I got started in photojournalism...the old timers told me how easy I hade it because they shot football games with Speed Graphics...and 120 Rollie cameras. I had a motordrive. Each generation has had technological advances....motors, meters in cameras, faster lens, zooms, auto focus and now digital.
To quote my agent (and hundreds of others)...."a rising tide lifts all ships"...yes the technology will always bring newcomers into this (and every other) field.
PageMaker and Quark made a lot of folks think they were page designers too.
In the long run the better photographers will benefit from the technology too...if not more so...and widen the gap. Shooters who are counting on digital technology to “make it” will only last until the next round of technology.
These cameras are tools...we need to be proficient with them....and then forget about them.
MOB |
|
Colin Corneau, Photographer
|
Brandon | MB | Canada | Posted: 11:41 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> Bravo, Chris!
Photography is literally "light writing"...light is what we deal in, central to all we do in photography.
A few rolls of film (or some shots in digital) on an all-manual setting will certainly make for a bunch of screwed up exposures for the beginner, but we all know this much: it will produce a solid appreciation for light and what it is a camera REALLY does. I remember doing just that in high school when I first started to learn the craft of photography.
Sorry if this delves into the too-personal for some of you...but there are many times when I get really down about the direction of the industry -- the dwindling job opportunities, the abusive outrageous copyright-destroying contracts that we're sometimes forced to sign, editors sending out reporters to take snapshots instead of dedicated photographers to capture a moment.
BUT...for every downer moment there ARE uplifting ones -- ones where a kid at an assignment looks with wonder at my camera and what I'm doing, the heartfelt thank-you's from someone who was moved by a picture we've created, the story told weeks or months later by someone who was helped by an image we've made.
All of which is a longwinded way of saying, "hang in there". After all, if WE don't beleive in what we're doing, why should anyone else? |
|
Vincent Laforet, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:42 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> I think gear digital etc. is irrelevant - how the younger photographers chose to defend their rights and copyrights - and how good they are as businesspeople will determine PJ's future..
If they all agree to work for nothing and give away their rights due to huge external pressures from large companies/agencies and competition from their peers - then this business will die. It won't be a business if people can't make a living at it afterall...
If you don't know what I mean - read Rick Rickman's columns - anyone one of them - or all of them |
|
Denis Rochefort, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 11:47 PM on 12.16.03 |
->> Chris
I agree with your points, but I also disagree somewhat. History shows that the change from documentary photography to photojournalism as we know it is was because of technology. It wasn't the 35mm camera either, it was being able to reproduce a photo in a timely manner to deam it newsworthy. Mathew Brady was not a photojournalist, despite his (we could have another discussion about whether or not the photos were actually his) photographs of the civil war. He was a documentary photographer. The jump to photojournalism was when printing technology allowed real pictures to be reproduced in print quickly and to a massive audience. That is where the journalism comes in.
Now, the current state of photojournalism is, in my opinion, better than ever. Digital allows photojournalists to produce records of history quickly and effieciently and show them to a mass audience. I would like to think that early photojournalists would envy us. James Nachtwey use digital cameras now for this very reason. His main concern is his story, not his craft- though it is still exceptional.
The days of Life magazine and 25 page photo essays are long gone, but digital and the internet has opened new doors. Instead of fighting for space in magazines, documnetary photographers and photojournalists can publish as much as they want on the internet worldwide for as long as they wish. Much more powerfull than a magazine. Go over to viiphotos.com. See real photojournalists using the power of digital and the internet to pass their message on.
Books are the last good outlet for documentary photography, but they are only accessible to a limited audience.
I still agree with you completely on the craft issue, but it has little to do with the state of photojournalism in its true sense.
-Denis |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:07 AM on 12.17.03 |
->> Vincent, you're right. Copyright protection is crucial, but to echo some of the sentiments from other posts, it's a lot easier for just anybody to make an decent, in-focus photo these days. Great news for taking your holiday photos, but when young photographers are holding out for good compensation and copyright protection, other people who aren't trained photographers or journalists are going to provide the photos for nothing. Not to single out Getty, but if one of their up-and-comers suddenly held out for better pay and a cut of future sales,Getty will just get their photos from anyone with a camera. The emphasis is on money, not quality.
Also, Denis, excellent points. You've given me some things to think about. But publishing great photo stories on a website might be satisfying, but it's hardly a sustainable approach. As much satisfaction we get from putting everything we have in my work, we still need to eat. |
|
Vincent Laforet, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:30 AM on 12.17.03 |
->> David - true. But ultimately - how many sales or published photos do you see you there today made by point and shoot weekend photogs... not that many. Sure perhaps more than in the part - but I'd say less than 1% of things published out there are from these sources.
What is clear to me is: documentary photography - most noteably long essays/series are fewer and fewer by the day... the internet has opened news doors- but until they start to generate revenue - it's a dead end.
I'm an optimist though - I think that day will come - and that we might see a revival of photo essays. I know the essays we put up on the NYTimes site are some of the most popular draws for our readers - and that's the best sign you could ask for - (ever notice how there used to be fewer pages with less ads - and how now most photo packages are spread out amongst many pages each with its own ad... someone in the ad dept is paying attention...) |
|
Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Yarmouth | ME | USA | Posted: 12:38 AM on 12.17.03 |
->> "In particular, I've been concerned that the trends in consumer digital photography may be a double-edged sword, providing images that play witness to events that, in the past, may have gone undocumented, while also providing a source of inexpensive photography that may change the market forever."
David: I spoke with an old timer (pre WWII) he said they feared some of the AGFA labs that made it so the average people could get prints, and have their film processed.
He went on to say how quality always seems to win.
To restate what Chris said, it is the person who makes the image, not the camera.
Denis: I would also expand your thread about Mathew Brady, and other Civil War documentary photographers. Have it include a discussion that some of their work was fueled by capitalism around the business of photography, and the technological advances in processing. |
|
David Albers, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Muskegon | MI | United States | Posted: 12:52 AM on 12.17.03 |
->> I agree with the parallel between the craft of non-digital photography and the state of photojournalism. For me the educational value that came from pouring my blood, sweat, and tears into a print made from a hand developed negative stemmed from a forced interaction with my product and the realization along the way of every last improvement I could have made.
It is similar to hindsight. [or like posting an inconsiderate thread on sportshooter :-( ] Something great is lost in point-shoot-point-click photography because the necessary dedication is no longer there to create an image.
If delayed gratification is a sign of intelligence, then one would think you would learn more from it. |
|
Bill Frakes, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 4:28 PM on 12.18.03 |
->> I firmly believe that quality and hard work will not only lead to survival but to triumph.
I think there are more forums now than ever before to showcase photojournalism. Are we taking proper advantage of the net? Probably not, but as time goes on we certainly will. John Loomis has a very interesting site, www.blueeyes.com where he publishes photoessays. Do you look at www.aphotoaday.org? Some terrific things going on there. I manage to browse a few different photographers sites a week and I see incredible images posted that I couldn't have viewed five years ago because I wouldn't have seen them. How much enjoyment have we all gotten from the Eugene Register Guard photographers work that is posted on this site? Without the net how much of it would have you seen unless you were in Eugene?
I'm not seeing a shortage of photo books out there. Last fall in Perpignan I spent 10 hours just trying to get through the bookstore. Have you gone on www.photoeye.com and looked at their listings? Or those available from ICP?
I also think there maybe more magazine space available than ever before. My old friend Michel DuCille had a terrific essay from Africa published in Fader. Is that publication on your radar screen for seriuos photojournalism? It should be, they don't do it all the time but they do it. That's part of all of this. The markets are changing, the publications are scrambling to keep up. But if you make the photographs, you will get them seen.
There are other factors to consider. The cameras have made things easier. Medicore photographs are easier to capture now. No question. Some of them will get published, and that will take some space away from better images. You just have to live with that and keep making the pictures your heart and mind demand, because if you feed your passion you can suceed.
To truly understand a photographer's angst read W.Eugene Smith's biography, Shadow and Substance. Look at his book, Pittsburgh Project. This is a man who was the star at Life Magazine who quit at the zenith of their success because he couldn't get his work published the way he thought he should, with the space he thought it deserved. He walked away from the situation many would judge to be the best ever, and rose to greater heights with his Pittsburgh essay, Minimata and many other projects.
Lastly, you should have one major advantage. You should be able to make a picture on demand. Right now, with whatever situation you are given. A camera pointer won't be able to do that. And that's what will ultimately make you valuable. |
|
Michael J. Treola, Photographer
|
David A. Cantor, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 4:40 PM on 12.18.03 |
->> Let's not forget www.foto8.com and the magazine "eight" for another view of the future of photojournalism.
Kudos to photographer Jon Levy who started his own magazine for photojournalism when he realized more outlets were needed. The magazine is an affordable quarterly and because Jon is based in London, it has a nice international depth to its subject matter and roster of photographers. |
|
Denis Rochefort, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 5:09 PM on 12.18.03 |
->> This is an example of the future of photojournalism and the power of the internet:
http://www.theevidenceproject.org/
Embrace it and take advantage of it.
-Denis |
|
Nick Doan, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Bill Frakes, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 6:04 PM on 12.18.03 |
->> Thanks Michael. John Loomis excellent magazine, blueyes, can currently be accessed through John's website www.johnloomis.com which is under reconstruction.
This is just one example of what a committed talent photographer working with arguably limited resources can do. I especially enjoy that John is intersted in moving the message of photography and giving others a place to exhibit their work. |
|
Nathan Pier, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Madison | WI | USA | Posted: 8:11 PM on 12.18.03 |
->> I think it is important to remeber that just because Mr. or Mrs X gets a digital rebel and a laptop, it doesn't mean that they will automaticly know what to do with it or how to conduct business. I recently was in a photo work room and someone asked me what photo mechanic was for and how to use it to send something that was on deadline... over 15 grand in camera gear and no idea how to manage workflow, captioning etc.
I think that better and cheaper DSLRs will give rise to a lot of hacks as well as allowing serious up and commers to experience all the good things about digital. In the end, I am going to call it a wash. I don't think that anything will be any better or any worse than it is now. Maybe a new outpouring of young photographers who were at the right place at the right time selling pictures but other than that, I don't see how this changes things as much some make it out to. I wory more about media convergence. |
|
Colin Corneau, Photographer
|
Brandon | MB | Canada | Posted: 10:01 PM on 12.18.03 |
->> A little perspective: did autofocus ruin our industry? Did the original digital series cameras?
I think looking at the big picture, instead of every innovation that comes around, will do a lot to put a lot of minds at ease. Photogs have to keep on top of the business of photojournalism as much as ever...I can't remember a time that it's ever been effortless. |
|
Francis Specker, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 11:57 PM on 12.18.03 |
->> The first forms of capturing a person's likeness was sculpture and painting. When photography was invented, sculptors and painters probably thought of the demise of their professions too.
The attraction to photography has always been its instant gratification. Whether that was several hours in the early days of photography or in minutes currently needed to produce a print.
Having bridged eras where captions were written on manual type-writers and stuck on photos transmitted on revolving drums, I haven't seen much change in the way we photographers operate.
We are still using pretty old technologies to light a photograph and still utilize glass lenses and shutters that are remnants from the 19th century.
What I see in the future is the democratization of how images are distrubuted via the internet. Anyone can show their photos on a website whereas in the past, few venues were open.
I think the next step is the direct selling of photos to clients through a universal online site like Ebay. If there was a way to distrubute images like that in one centralized site, clients and producers of images can meet in a more efficent way. Clients now have to do time-consuming research, looking for images from photo agencies and photographers. Why not have a search engine that would look for all images available world-wide?
The current infrastructure of the media doesn't always support great photography. There are many consumers of news that don't want the tabloid driven news thats available. The internet provides alternatives but I think it's still in its infant stages. Maybe in the future we can
match up providers and consumers more effectively. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Amherst | MA | USA | Posted: 12:10 AM on 12.19.03 |
->> David:
I showed up for an assignment with an EOS 10D, as I prefer it to the 1D bodies for portraits. The client's "boss" who was my subject watched me put my 1D down, and set the STE-2 onto my 10D, then stated "we are paying you to use the professional body, not the same body I bought my daughter for a photo class."
I had a brief conversation with the subject/boss, and asked them if their daughter knew how to set up three lights for a portrait, if she owned umbrellas or softboxes, or a wireless trigger to set off the strobes. I also asked if she knew how to use the cameras functions to get the desired effect from multiple lights, and the proper use of the aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc etc.
So, people often think that they are getting what the pros get in terms of image quality since they have similar equipment, but in the end it is really the skill and experience which makes your photos stand out.
I am more afraid of big corporations and bad contacts than I am of some "consumer" buying an EOS 1D and 400f2.8, then putting me out of business. |
|
Edmund Fountain, Photographer
|
West Lebanon | NH | | Posted: 1:06 AM on 12.19.03 |
->> Photojournalism is not dying, I think it is actually quite healthy. Instead I think that it's function in our society is shifting.
I am a newspaper photographer and my trade is limited by the fact that the paper is published once a day. If some big news story breaks and I photograph it, chances are that same story has been broadcast around the world on TV before my disks are even copied into the computer. By the time the story makes it into print, it is often out of date.
This in my opinion gives us print photojournalists a different role. Since it is often not possible for us to "break" the news to the public anymore, we must instead interpret it for them and help them find context for these events through our images.
9/11 being the example, nearly everyone in the world heard of the disaster in NYC on the television, yet for months afterwards a flood of still imagery and printed stories helped people come to understand the magnitude of what had happened. Yes, TV continued to cover the story, but I bet anyone that you ask will say that the still images are what they remember most.
I think that the opportunities that are afforded to us as a result of this shift offer us with more possibilities to do meaningful still photography. Sure, I may not be able to cover a some breaking story in the traditional sense, but I can still photograph the effect of that event on my community and I think that meaningful work will be created in the process.
I think that the internet represents a huge resource for us. We have the opportunity now to display as many pictures as we want if we care to spend the time to make the site. We are no longer constrained by the fact that advertisements limit space for pictures, or that there simply isnt enough space to run an in-depth story in the paper. The best part is that anyone with internet access can see them...the ultimate democracy! This resource also allows us to incorporate things such as sound and video. If used properly these tools can help viewers of our work better understand what they are looking at. check out Don Bartletti's "Enrique's Journey" story on the LA Times website for an example of how powerful good multimedia presentation can be:
http://www.latimes.com/enrique
The Journal E/Musarium website (www.musarium.com) has been publishing great multimedia work for years. Look there too.
So yes, the Life and Look magazine era is over, and I think that the people that grumble about photojournalism being dead are people that are still living in that era. Those people will gradually be replaced by people who see the potential of new technologies as a storytelling medium and who understand that the role of the photojournalist is not the same as it was 40 years ago. |
|
George Olivar, Photographer
|
New Brunswick | NJ | USA | Posted: 1:46 AM on 12.19.03 |
->> Some of it is kind of a reiteration of one of Edmund Fountain's points above, but I found the article below (and the quote from it) very interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1009309,00.html
"Of course, TV is the first medium you look at. But there is dissatisfaction with TV because there are no good images. There may be newsy images - if you look at CNN, you can see the action as it unfolds - but you rarely see a strong image. What is surprising is, it was the same thing for September 11. All the TV images you have seen, they kind of disappear, evaporate from your mind. What stays is still images. People told us when we brought out the book that they wanted something they could hold in their hand." |
|
Kevin Saitta, Photographer
|
Groveland | CA | USA | Posted: 8:51 AM on 12.19.03 |
->> I do not know if the future is gone but I think the power behind B&W images are. I scan the media day after day and see nothing but color photographs and very rarely do I ever see B&W let alone images that pierce through your heart.
There is a certain visual magic, power that comes from images taken in B&W.
It can be the grain that helps enhance the image or just the medium itself, the tones within the image.
I think digital has hurt this aspect of photojournalism as people only see in color these days and it seems like BW is a dying breed which is upsetting, as some of the best images ever brought before our eyes were in B&W.
Just my opinion and nothing more. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|