Photojournalism is Dead?

Certainly it has changed as the world has changed... Now video is 99% of all journalism and visual communication... Photojournalism is a very small fragment of journalism long ago, and once was a big part of it, but that was decades ago. I think it will remain, more or less as it is today, in coming years... I guess it will never die, though, and the reasons are the strong power an image can have, compared to the power of video (a line in time with intensity variations, instead of an intense and continuous present), and the different final output media both of them use: an image -to be shown- doesn't require energy or technology in the same ways a video requires them...

Cheers,

Juan
 
In our country, when you say "photographer", the first thing that comes through the people's mind is that you work for glamour magazine, showbiz magazine and the first image it conjures is someone with a gargantuan L lens with loads of studio lights and umbrellas...

nothing wrong with that...

...but one thing that's wrong is that when you say your a photojournalist, they usually say "oh..." followed by uncomfortable silence.
 
The sad thing is that, as the use of images in all media explodes, the monetary value of the photos has declined to little of nothing. Because of the sophistication of modern cameras, everyone is a photographer. "Good enough" means "cheap enough."
 
The days that Neil Burgess refers to had an economy in which the magazine and book was well supported. Photography done then was about state-of-the-art. Some very good photojournalists were supported and rewarded for their integrity.

What is different today? The media has changed, but the economic dynamics remain the same. The economy no longer needs considered photojournalists, nor journalists in general. What it thinks it needs, and what it pursues exclusively is money, just as before, but today without self-reflection and guidance from strident, intelligent and diligent peers. Today the bean counters and PR types run the media, make the news decisions, make the market.

Society, the people, need good journalists but the people are not going to work any harder to support them than they ever did. People take the path of least resistance, and today that is Fast Media - thoughtless junk.

Newspapers fired their proof readers decades ago. You can find poor grammar, typos, and the typical mistakes of rapid typing and inconsiderate writing in almost every popular media article today. Discrimination in writing and imagery was never the forte of the public, but at least at one time the image and print media could inform the public of considered thought and imagery. No longer.

A subtext to what is happening today is the glorification of foolishness, which the public has always fostered but did not have the opportunity to express. Now with the internet anyone can tack utterly idiotic, egoist, self-serving comments to a news article. The very fact that journals encourage the same indicates to me that they will remain uncritical because skimming the surface for schmaltz is cost effective.

We can still have thoughtful journalism, and a great deal still exists, but not in the mainstream, not here, and probably not within the lines of text I just contributed.
 
Last edited:
For a 50 minute documentary on classic photojournalism, go to <http://www.sbs.com.au/>
then click on the tab "Watch Full Episodes" , find the tab "Documentaries" and then look for "My Asian Heart".
It's a broadcast from Australian television station SBS on Sunday night and if you're interested in PJ it's well worth watching.
 
What do you mean there is no in-depth journalism? Look at all the journalists chasing Paris Hilton all the time.

But this point of view is taken from an arbitrary point in time. There were no professional photojournalists before there were. So we are simply closing a circle.

We could say the state of journalism is a reflection of the society it exists in. Society simply does not value it.
 
Also, journalism has died. Slowly coming, since Walter Cronkite stopped digging for the truth but then giving his opinion on the nightly news (Vietnam). Right or wrong it is the reality now.
 
Mainstream photojournalism, circa 1950-2000, is dead as a doornail, as is reasonably-concise TV news journalism (the latter, ironically, pointed to as the cause of death for the former). Look a bit farther on the outskirts, however, and it's still around, with perhaps a few changes.

Pickett and pico do nail the issue, however; I'll only add the fact of the concentration of media ownership and power over the last fifteen or so years, and the cult of "infotainment" (hate that compound as much now as the day somebody or other coined it). When it becomes hard to sift through the crap on CNN to get to the "hard" news, I'm about set to give up.

Finder said:
We could say the state of journalism is a reflection of the society it exists in. Society simply does not value it.
Click to expand...
Sad to say, but I think you're correct. More's the pity.


- Barrett
 
The problem is that there are so many problems. The death of great magazines like Look and Life that were a mainstay of photo journalists. The death of good newspapers that aren't owned by that cretin Murdoch. The fact that the people that teach photo journalism in colleges are pompous know-nothing idiots, and their graduate students are worse than they are. Ever talk to one of them? Good grief, talk about having agendas. It's a sad state of affairs, but these things go in cycles.
 
Last edited:
I think the era of James Nachtwey, Alex Webb, Steve McCurry, etc were the last of their kind. Now photojournalists are regarded as War Photographers. Just look at the first 20 pages of the World Press Award books if you disagree.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
The sad thing is that, as the use of images in all media explodes, the monetary value of the photos has declined to little of nothing. Because of the sophistication of modern cameras, everyone is a photographer. "Good enough" means "cheap enough."
Click to expand...

This is all that needs to be said. Oh and that one particular stock agency has reduced a once profitable industry to it's own playground. I work primarily in entertainment, which is possibly the most profitable industry currently, and now it's suffering due to all the new 'photographers' entering just to shoot celebrities, using their contacts to work their way in for free....unfortunately when free is offered, where does one go from there? No where.

Photojournalism, integrity and profits are dead. The closest thing to it are the new breed of digital photographers heading out to war zones in search of World Press Award glory.
 
Don't believe everything you read ;). Photojournalism is not dead.
I'm personally working on a long-term project about the destruction of the habitat in my local area. Instead of whining about what used to be ... blah, blah, blah ... get out there with your camera and make it happen. Post on the Internet. Who cares if you make money. Is money the only meaningful gauge of a photo's worth? It's about the image, isn't it? And raising awareness. It's about getting images out, right? I'm not buying into this doom-and-gloom mind set. You shouldn't either. There are important stories that need telling and we photographers are in a unique position to self-publish.
It's a brave new world. Get out there. And show us.



























Here is a selection of images from my little project. These were all taken within a couple of miles from my place in Airdrie, Alberta, the fastest-growing city in Canada. The pressure of urban sprawl is intense. Wildlife is being pushed aside. Habitat is being destroyed to make more shopping malls and condos.
Sure, it's an old story but someone has to tell it. I don't see anyone else stepping up. What's going on around you? I'm sure if look around, you will find something worth documenting with your camera and showing the world. No one said it was going to be easy.




Gregory Rogalsky
 
Last edited:
Well Gregory, I dont think anyone is lamenting the loss of the ability to go shoot some PJ work for free, but the ability for those who are in the industry to continue earning their livelihoods from it or for new individuals to get into the industry as a career. To those for whom it puts bread on the table, I think your comment about the whining is perhaps a little insulting.

I am glad you have enjoyed photographing your local issues, but there is more to the issue of changes to photojournalism and news reporting than that. It has a global, informational and educational impact.

PS there are plenty of people doing what you are doing. The whole point is that there are so very many doing what you seem to think unique that those who used to get paid to do so as professionals cannot get paid for it any more i.e. rather than you being the solution, you are in fact the problem!
 
Nikkor AIS said:
Dont believe everything you read;). Photojournalism is not dead.
Im personally working on long term project about the destruction of the habitat in my local area. Instead of whining about what used to be..Blah blah blah, get out there with your camera and make it happen. Post it on the internet. Who cares if you make money. Is money the only meaningfull gauge of photo's worth?. It's about the image isnt it?. And raising awareness. It's about getting images out right? Im not buying into this gloom and doom mind set. You shouldnt either. There are important storys that need telling and us photographers are in a unique position to self publish.
It's a brave new world. Get out there. And show us.

Here are a selection of images from my little project. These are all taken with in a Couple miles from my place in Airdrie Alberta, the fastest growing city in Canada. The presures of urban sprawl is intense. Wild life is being pushed aside. Habitat is being destoyed to make more shopping malls and condos
Sure it's an old story but someone has tell it. I dont see anyone else stepping up. What's goning on around you? Im sure if look around you will find something worth documenting with your camera and showing the world. No one said it was going to be easy.

Gregory Rogalsky
Click to expand...

Following on from Turtle, I think we're discussing photojournalism as a profession here right? In a photographic sense, no, PJ will never die as long as there are keen, dedicated people willing to pursue such projects that bring attention to important issues....but in a professional sense, there needs to be profit in it for photographers to make a living and support themselves and their families, as I do. That profit, or these days, the 'lack of' is what makes such ventures prohibitive to many great full time working photographers, who need to pass on an interesting documentary for a paid job from a school, local council etc just to pay the bills.

I know of a few friends who are quite wealthy and can give up their day job when they see fit to pursue such ventures. I first became a photographer to pursue such a career following in the footsteps of the great ones before me, but those days and opportunities are limited, especially since digital, and I, on the other hand am stuck shooting celebrities in LA for a living :bang:
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure "Issue" photojournalism really works anymore. Because of the success of these great photographers from the past in showing us that the world is filled with almost unlimited and incomprehensible misery and suffering, compassion fatigue has set in. It's the perfect storm: publishers that no longer place financial value on photos and a public that doesn't want to see any more misery and suffering. Add in advertisers who no longer want to see their full page ad next to a photo of a kid blown up by cluster bombs, and you have the death of photojournalism.
 
Nikkor AIS said:
Don't believe everything you read ;). Photojournalism is not dead.
IWho cares if you make money. Is money the only meaningful gauge of a photo's worth? It's about the image, isn't it? And raising awareness. It's about getting images out, right?

Well, some of us do this for a living. And I wasn't born rich. So, without money, my bills don't get paid. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom