Chuck Albertson
Well-known
Bill Pierce said:
Also take a look at Christopher Morris' My America, on the 2004 Bush campaign, which he covered for Time. It's a collection of definitely-off-the-menu shots, and presents a much darker take on the White House road show than you usually find in the weeklies. I think he's covering McCain's campaign this week.
furcafe
Veteran
I think it has a lot do w/Bill's point that "the most effective tool for doing a good story was to understand what was in front of you." It doesn't matter whether you're doing PJ, weddings, or nightlife/party shots, the bottom line is that you need to know both your subject(s) (the old beat cop mantra: you have to know people, the things they do, & when they do them) & the environment(s) you're shooting in.
For example, I shoot bands & other performers often enough @ the same local clubs that I have a pretty good idea of vantage points & lighting issues. Since I'm short, I would love to be able to bring a ladder like the wedding photographer, but I'd get my ass kicked, so normally I have to work hard to get in front (or as close as possible) & shoot from down low. I'm confident that I could use the same approach if I were to shoot similar bands/performers in similar venues in NYC or elsewhere. I think the bigger problem is that any decent photographer will figure out the same choice vantage points, especially in a highly controlled environment like a political speech, & you have to figure out a way to award, divide, or share the spoils among the competing photogs.
For example, I shoot bands & other performers often enough @ the same local clubs that I have a pretty good idea of vantage points & lighting issues. Since I'm short, I would love to be able to bring a ladder like the wedding photographer, but I'd get my ass kicked, so normally I have to work hard to get in front (or as close as possible) & shoot from down low. I'm confident that I could use the same approach if I were to shoot similar bands/performers in similar venues in NYC or elsewhere. I think the bigger problem is that any decent photographer will figure out the same choice vantage points, especially in a highly controlled environment like a political speech, & you have to figure out a way to award, divide, or share the spoils among the competing photogs.
sirius said:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
sirius said:
Believe it or not, I'm sitting at my computer and five feet away from a small, folding stepladder that has gone everywhere with me. When I was covering the Presidential campaigns and other media events, I used to ocassionally buy a full sized stepladder at the local hardware store, shoot the press conference or whatever from it and then, as the event wound down, rent it out to other photographers to make my cost back. That way I didn't feel so bad about leaving it behind.
Bill
sirius
Well-known
Ha ha! Well, I better get a ladder.
sirius
Well-known
Someone posted this link to the Cartier-Bresson documentary, the Impassioned Eye, here on RFF. I've always been a great fan of his work for the moments he captures, the humanistic story, and the wonderful sense of form. But, I didn't realize that he had such a nose for news! It's a lovely documentary and tribute to the man. I liked seeing and hearing from all the other famous photographers and the beautiful music throughout. Anyway, it's probably some awful violation of copyright, but I went onto eBay and bought a copy a few minutes ago...so at least someone is making something...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzgLQw3oBOI&feature=related
cheers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzgLQw3oBOI&feature=related
cheers
sirius
Well-known
Back to my first post in this discussion thread...in the documentary someone talks about his portraits and how they look like they were snapped just after the moment someone said something. It's interesting, these in between moments. So many of my favorite photos a la Magnum and such have the feeling of being in between as well. I remember in art history class how people talked about Michealangelo's sculptures having the feeling of the moment before the figure will spring into action, there's a tension in it.
I wonder why these discarded moments are so revealing?
I wonder why these discarded moments are so revealing?
Last edited:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
sirius said:
Perhaps it is because they ask a question. What just happened? What is going to happen?
For a long time critics and editors seemed to choose pictures that told you something. Pictures had a message. Especially in journalism. Pictures were supposed to answer questions, not ask them. Sometimes that's necessary. But, unfortunately, I always liked pictures that asked a question.
sirius
Well-known
Great response, thank-you for the insight.
marke
Well-known
Bill Pierce said:
Me too. When a question is answered, whether in word or picture, the story is done, and all has been told. But a picture that asks a question holds the door open for many possibilities.
sirius
Well-known
Hi Bill,
I thought I would share a couple of videos I found on David Alan Harvey. I like that they show his way of working and apply to this topic. I find it interesting how he gets right in the middle and in front of people. He also takes a lot more photos that I always imagined these decisive moment photographers would take...
"Cuba" from the digital journalist
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9910/video/CubaHi.ram
National Geo documentary
http://davidalanharvey.com/sources/frontsite/display_file.php?file=slideshow/1/David%20Alan%20Harvey%20National%20Geographic.mp4
They are big files and might take a while to load.
cheers
I thought I would share a couple of videos I found on David Alan Harvey. I like that they show his way of working and apply to this topic. I find it interesting how he gets right in the middle and in front of people. He also takes a lot more photos that I always imagined these decisive moment photographers would take...
"Cuba" from the digital journalist
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9910/video/CubaHi.ram
National Geo documentary
http://davidalanharvey.com/sources/frontsite/display_file.php?file=slideshow/1/David%20Alan%20Harvey%20National%20Geographic.mp4
They are big files and might take a while to load.
cheers
sirius
Well-known
Hi Bill,
How do you develop a story? (Research, relationship, personal meaning to the photographer?)
I imagine that each approach is different, but do you take time to get to know people before bringing the camera out, or do you have it out and obvious in case something comes up? One of the things I like most about photographers in the famous photo magazines is the implications of rapport they have with their documentary subjects. They are either very brash with their camera (Capa's "not close enough") or they must have established some bond of trust.
I guess I'm partly asking, how do you communicate that you are not there to do harm...that you want to show respect with your photography?
Another thought about this, is there always a perspective in how you develop a story? It seems that the great photographers are also great autuers in their story-telling ability. They may tell an important story, but they also always communicate a perspective, an opinion, a personal point of view...
How do you develop a story? (Research, relationship, personal meaning to the photographer?)
I imagine that each approach is different, but do you take time to get to know people before bringing the camera out, or do you have it out and obvious in case something comes up? One of the things I like most about photographers in the famous photo magazines is the implications of rapport they have with their documentary subjects. They are either very brash with their camera (Capa's "not close enough") or they must have established some bond of trust.
I guess I'm partly asking, how do you communicate that you are not there to do harm...that you want to show respect with your photography?
Another thought about this, is there always a perspective in how you develop a story? It seems that the great photographers are also great autuers in their story-telling ability. They may tell an important story, but they also always communicate a perspective, an opinion, a personal point of view...
sirius
Well-known
Dear Bill and Others,
I guess my last post was rather an impossibly broad question to answer. No brain downloads, hey?
A photographer friend sent me this wonderful link. I love what broadband is doing now for photojournalism. They combine stills, video interviews, sound-tracks, voice-overs, information graphics, interface and web design. I'm a graphics designer and aspiring photographer/story-teller, so something like this appeals to a lot of my interests at one time.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/07/20/business/20debt-trap.html?scp=1&sq=debt&st=m
I know that times are hard for finding work as a photojournalist: there are so many now, high quality cameras are affordable, and print commissions and stock agencies are drying-up. Do you think multimedia like this is a future revenue model for photojournalists?
cheers
I guess my last post was rather an impossibly broad question to answer. No brain downloads, hey?
A photographer friend sent me this wonderful link. I love what broadband is doing now for photojournalism. They combine stills, video interviews, sound-tracks, voice-overs, information graphics, interface and web design. I'm a graphics designer and aspiring photographer/story-teller, so something like this appeals to a lot of my interests at one time.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/07/20/business/20debt-trap.html?scp=1&sq=debt&st=m
I know that times are hard for finding work as a photojournalist: there are so many now, high quality cameras are affordable, and print commissions and stock agencies are drying-up. Do you think multimedia like this is a future revenue model for photojournalists?
cheers
Last edited:
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Dear Bill and Others,
I guess my last post was rather an impossibly broad question to answer. No brain downloads, hey?
I know that times are hard for finding work as a photojournalist: there are so many now, high quality cameras are affordable, and print commissions and stock agencies are drying-up. Do you think multimedia like this is a future revenue model for photojournalists?
cheers
Newspapers and news magazines are drying up. Already one newspaper in this country has stopped its print version and only appears online. I suspect that number will increase along with the number of news sites that are exclusively web based. I see the photographers from the New York Times, Magnum e.t.c. making a real effort to learn effective ways of presenting pictures and, more important, picture stories on the web.
There was a period when TV experimented with news stories from stills, but the producers were deeply troubled that the pictures didn't wiggle and zoomed and panned the stills so much that they were illegible. We seemed to have grown a little more sophisticated on the web.
To answer your question - I don't think the multimedia internet is a future revenue model for photojournalists; I think it's the future of photojournalism. (The revenue model will be the same old - underpay them.)
A long time ago, an old friend and co worker, Dirck Halstead, turned his website into a forum on digital journalism. That's not just shooting with digital cameras; it's distributing digitally over the internet. The latter is really the more important issue. From the beginning a bunch of us contributed, all friends and co workers, and it has grown. Log onto http://www.digitaljournalist.org. It often has articles that address your question, especially in Dirck's editorials. (And, if you are interested in real world photojournalism, it's a bottomless pit of goodies thanks to the archives.)
Bill
nksyoon
Well-known
Here are 2 interesting reads about the future of photojournalism, from Vincent Laforet (freelance, formerly NY Times) and Jean-Francois Leroy of Visa Pour l'Image.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014
http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/06/11/can-visa-pour-l’image-remain-relevant/
Stanley Greene can't get 10k euros funding for a project while top football players earn more than 25k euros per week?
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014
http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/06/11/can-visa-pour-l’image-remain-relevant/
Stanley Greene can't get 10k euros funding for a project while top football players earn more than 25k euros per week?
tmfabian
I met a man once...
I'm not a fan of Laforet, I've even met him once, but he does hit the nail on the head.
The future of photojournalism doesn't lie in the old tried and true work for paper to paper to magazine...I certainly don't earn my living that way.
I go out every day and hit up companies, agencies, churches, and non-profit groups and pitch documenting their employees/volutneers work as well as their outcomes in order to use the stories in their semianual and anual reports.
Banks and investors like to see where their money is going, and providing documentary photography services to these groups banks in turn provide them with more money after seeing the hard work and outcomes of their investment/donation monies.
The world of photojournalism is changing quickly and one thing I can say at least is that it's got nothing to do with needing a digital camera (I still shoot a TON of film on these jobs) Like laforet stated in his article...it has everything to do with the fact that the general public has become sooo accustomed to getting their news for free on the internet and with the countless addons you can get for browsers to block adverts, advertising revenue is also down....thus impacting payment for the old timer photographers expecting the same old business model to take care of them (why pay a photojournalist to cover a story when thousands of people with cameraphones are willing to simply submit those images to the media for free)
Last edited:
Welsh_Italian
Established
<br />
<br />
Apologies for coming late to this thread.
I was chatting a few years ago with a friend of mine who makes movies and we got onto what movies had the biggest impact and interested us the most. We decided that these were the movies that left questions unanswered or hid them very well within the story by presenting different contexts to the viewer (in other words, the context(s) within a movie were not straightforward). For example, The Usual Suspects (spoiler alert!) seems to be about a weasel-like man who was out of his depth and caught up with some very nasty people indeed. The truth was (when the detective started putting the fake story together) was that the weasel was actually the nastiest criminal of all. A movie like that can leave you wondering how you were fooled which might explain the appeal of magic tricks. Other movies we liked left us both a bit confused with a lack of a good ending. Movies that telegraphed the plot and tied everything up nicely at the end were the most unsatisfying of all.
And I guess that my favourite photographs are like that: their context is not obvious and it takes a bit of effort from the viewer to work one out for themselves. I can see this in a lot of work by Bresson and Winogrand where the people in the pictures seem disjointed - it makes me wonder what is going on because when I first look at a picture, I just don't entirely get the story. From that comes an impact far greater than any picture of a sunset.
The best pictures, for me, are those that present enough of the context for the viewer to infer a certain amount of information, but that also present things that both refuse to expand to a full understanding, and also challenge the context I initially thought of. From a psychological point of view, humans are good pattern matchers and will try to make sense of their perceptions - being able to confound this can help make a photograph have impact.
And the very best photographers also have beautiful composition etc which makes them works of art.