Magnum photo of the week

Could someone, please, put some light on what kind of equipment the Magnum PJs use? Are they digital as of today? RF? SLR?

Maybe its a dumb question, but I'm new to all this stuff.
 
larmarv916 said:
I think the cream has gone sour at Magnum. What a shame
Click to expand...
Jeeze Louise. So one photo was chosen as photo of the week for news coverage, and you don't like it, and draw that huge conclusion?

Check out Larry Towell. He's definitely cream @ Magnum. Going to a members reception @ Eastman House tonight for the opening of his new exhibit. If he's there I'll ask him about why Magnum has gone down hill. :D :p
 
Florian: As emra says, it varies. Last time Towell was here, he said "I could still work without my Leica, but don't take my Tri-X away!"

Plenty of others are digital, e.g. Alex Majoli has used a prosumer digicam like the Olympus 5050.

It really doesn't matter what equipment you use, though I sorta doubt there are too many using Speed Graphics very much any more.
 
amateriat said:
To begin at the beginning:

Magnum put this image up for presentation and commentary. I don't think anybody here was spoiling for a scrap over it.

IMO, as general/generic reportage, the photo is okay, i.e. par for the course for contemporary PJ work--no more, no less.

Having worked cheek-to-jowl next to Magnum for a few years (I worked at a lab located next to the old Magnum HQ in midtown Manhattan, and we did a lot of printing work for them), I understood that every day isn't necessarily a good day for a Magnum shooter of any stripe. And, in any kind of PJ work, you've got to deliver the goods somehow, and on-deadline. (I've had just enough of a taste of PJ stuff to decide I'm more a feature-type shooter at best.) But Magnum set a bar for themselves quite some time ago; sometimes they thrive on it, sometimes they choke on it. But it's there. This image doesn't reach that bar, as far as I'm concerned, but Anderson did his job, and on some days it's all one can do to accomplish just that.

Great shooters take so-so shots, too!


- Barrett
Click to expand...


Cool commentary Barrett. Insightfull and balanced.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I am not insulted by these 4 photos. The photographer did his job. Who am I to tell him otherwise?
 
emraphoto said:
i think there is a fine line seperating "not to my personal liking" and "it's crap..."
Click to expand...
Sums up the comments people have been making perfectly to me. Personally I like the photos. You can tell they've been shot with a purpose and a certain look in mind. Anderson set out to do something different from 99.9% of all the other candidate photographers and he succeeded.

You can browse a larger selection here:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StoryDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3RHT8GXT
 
Count me in among those who like the stuff he did. And, based on Mr Anderson's replies, I admire him on his decision to rely on his instincts rather than stay on the safe side.
 
Trius said:
Jeeze Louise. So one photo was chosen as photo of the week for news coverage, and you don't like it, and draw that huge conclusion?

Check out Larry Towell. He's definitely cream @ Magnum. Going to a members reception @ Eastman House tonight for the opening of his new exhibit. If he's there I'll ask him about why Magnum has gone down hill. :D :p
Click to expand...

Tirus...Please do ask.

What is at issue is that when you pick something and hold it up as being "better" or "special" and it is in reality of questionable quality. then you need to ask yourself, why would someone who is in the business of Picking thru photos everyday and is at what is regarded as the foundation of both image marketing and set the standard for the world. Now seemingly unalble to hold themselves to that same standard of quality. Then you have to ask....what was to gain buy going public with that bunch of images and offering them as best ???

Also there is way to much editing based on reasons that have nothing to do with the impact or foundational artistic metal. as we all know that you can have a dozen shooter at the same point in time and get tons of ordinary meaningless stock images and one or two, truely outstanding examples fo the same factual situation.

The ones underdiscussion are seemingly ordinary or much less than should be expected from a professional.

There seems to be a dilution of talent in the image industry in general.

I think that better defines my "issues" with Magnum In the old days those photos would never have gotten out the door anywhere...Period. At some point in time judgement has to be define the line between good and bad. Then define what is really stunning high quality or average documentation image capture.

I know this seems harsh but really it is not.......Lets face it not every talent is equal!

Best Regards.....Laurance Marvin
 
Lets look at the flip side to this discussion.....No one ever expresses discent with the known aurthority figure ?? We all agree to agree to accept every image that comes out of a "chosen" source as superior...regardless of what it is.

Any image released is not done a group decision. It is the choice of a single editor not even the photographer. So NO you are wrong as to the support that went behind this release. I agree that everyone will have differnet tastes for subject matter. Editors choose..not photgraphers. Iam even suggesting that there probably better shots from that assignment. never seen.

That why it was "Picked" for your and then shoved into the spotlight. Someone else told you ( at Magnum) it was the best......not your choice or mine or anyones. That is the danger.

To test this theory go look at other photos at other publications of the same event. The ones I have seen at the same event were better at saving the moment. Even if Magnum had only one shooter at the event. Does it really deserve to be vaulted to any throphy level??

You mean to tell me that you honestly see these images as having the same level of impact and quality as HCB, Capa, or Eisenstadt, Doisneau. Historical perspective of similar imagess is the better standard for measurement.

These images smack of Madision Ave...advertising art directors infulence. Natural light and lack of strobe was always a stlyistic trademark of Magnums founding members. If you people enjoy them...it's not the end of the world for me.
 
I'm very impressed by Anderson's defense of his decisions, and looking back at the photo after reading what he had to say, I have to say he really did succeed in his goals. However, there's very little point in that if the majority of Newsweek readers are going to see it and ask, "gee what on earth is this did they run out of photographers?"

Photography is a medium of communication, and if the photographer's message isn't reaching his audience, then no matter how great the message is, he's messed up. Magazine readers won't be getting his (beautifully written) commentary on his process - they'll just see a tiny blown out subject and turn the page.
 
I personally think the first photo (with the snow flakes) is amazing, and the rest pretty poor.

But I think the quality of the debate on the blog was the best thing, it was interesting to see someone so articuately defend their work, and see the grounds people put forward for why the didn"t like it so much.

Makes a nice change from the usual standard of internet debates.
 
historicist said:
I personally think the first photo (with the snow flakes) is amazing, and the rest pretty poor.

But I think the quality of the debate on the blog was the best thing, it was interesting to see someone so articuately defend their work, and see the grounds people put forward for why the didn"t like it so much.

Makes a nice change from the usual standard of internet debates.
Click to expand...

These are "news" images. They should stand on their own merit without any need for defence. When I looked at the photographs I did as the OP, Jarle, requested and posted what I thought. This hasn't changed. As PJ work, and stand-alone images I think they are well below par.

As part of an "art work" they would be looked at using different criteria and I would be looking to be engaged by the photographer/artist in a two way dialogue. Perhaps as part of a wider portfolio exploring new ways to interpret the political world around us while also offering a critique on traditional reportage photography and the sanitised world of the political photo op. they may have some merit, I would need to see more of the photographer's work and understand what his agenda is. These few photographs neither give me that insight, or are good enough (in my subjective view) to make me want to look further.

Art is something completely different from reportage.

That being said, art can come from reportage, but it is accidental, incidental, or done with that as a specific objective and trumpeted as such - we send out war artists and not to be forgotten the Great War produced some fine poets.
 
Laurance:

Where do you see the word "best" in the Magnum blog? It was picked as "photo of the week", it is only you who are inferring that means someone thought it "best".

I did speak briefly with Larry Towell last night, though as you can imagine he was in demand for conversation. Quite honestly, though, I think he would be not interested at all in the subject as to why Magnum is no good any more. (He will be back March 27 for a presentation at GEH, maybe I will have more time to ask.)

Thanks for authoritatively setting everyone straight, though.

John:

I spent some time chatting with Ann Towell, who is lovely and amazing in her own right. Isaac, one of the younger sons, was there, too. Turns out that as a youngster Ann used to attend church retreats at a camp near Wallaceburg, and I later worked at that camp. Small world indeed. Prior to that I had lived in London (your previous address ;) ), and I know the area pretty well. Ann put out the welcome mat if I'm in the area. I do miss that part of SWO.
 
Trius said:
Where do you see the word "best" in the Magnum blog? It was picked as "photo of the week", it is only you who are inferring that means someone thought it "best".
Click to expand...

Doesn't being the photo of the week imply best? Or maybe most newsworthy... Mr Anderson said he achieved what he set out to do, but was it a good idea?

Steve
 
It doesn't imply "best" to me, because there is no published criteria (that I know of) for what would constitute "best", just as there doesn't seem to be any criteria published by Magnum for the selection of photo of the week. I can think of many different criteria than "best" whatever that means ...

how about most newsworthy; most unusual; funniest; darkest/most foreboding, etc., etc.

I don't really object to anyone not liking a particular photo, series or body of work. We all have our preferences, and the opinion that the cream has gone out of Magnum is certainly a valid opinion because it comes from one's personal, subjective criteria.

What I find strange is that from one photograph published as "photo of the week", people can make leaps of logic and declare Magnum (or any other organization) to be rubbish, irrelevant, "not what it used to be", etc.
 
For me, a photo of the week (as much as the "Soccer play of the week") has to be the best of the week. Otherwise, why would there be such a designation?
 
The goal of Photo of the Week may be to stir up discussion and focus on work that isn't as traditionally or straightforwardly "good." It seems to be a very successful choice in that regard. I don't think "best" is a requirement at all.
 
sjw617 said:
Doesn't being the photo of the week imply best?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. "Best of" are always subjective, and while in principle they do imply that, in years of late the Vox Populi is as wise on every subject as the general population's spelling skills suggest.

Well-formed institutions used to dictate the hierarchies of quality of human output: academies of music, art, sciences, you name it. When you overdemocratize anything, it is as reliable as entropy itself.

If the majority of people believe that the Earth is square, it doesn't make it so. Unfortunately, aesthetics are often shoehorned into "quantifiables" that should only apply to...well, absolutes. Mass and density are measurable. "Bestness" isn't. Only, you could argue, when all things being equal, they rate along a predetermined set of criteria.

Magnum itself has the reputation and authority bestowed upon it by other like-minded photographers. As you well know, unlike-minded photographers (or at least that would like to think themselves as one) with a different set of values (or lack thereof) will challenge this authority.

Human emotion will always override establishment.

And I'll finish by writing two words: "Sanjaya Malakar"
 
Funny, very funny. Nobody talked about Best esthetically but rather as in the most potential or the most current. Now you people are saying that a photo of the week doesn't have to be pleasing esthetically. We all agree on this. But still, if this is the photo of the week, it HAS to mean it was the one with the most potential. In other twords: the best of the bunch in regards to their own criterias, in regards with what they had to offer.

But why is it so difficult for some people to understand?

I could finish with two words such as "ixlungonidis pfeiffertlixingolupus" but I'm not sure it would add anything to the conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom