Any tips on being a photojournalist?

[newsgrunt]

From what I know, you'll probably have to be in school in order to qualify for any internship at a newspaper and with that, the FED will have to be relegated to sideshow status. No digital, no internship and most newspapers require you supply the appropriate equipment necessary to do the job. This would be digital cameras, computer and a car.

There are some newspapers that have staffers who shoot film as well as digital and they have no problems with it but pretty well every newspaper darkroom has been gutted and the equipment dispersed. So it's either the happy snap lab or home processing unless one is blessed with a professional lab in their city.

I suppose you'll have to think hard about what type of photojournalism you see yourself doing since the path is different for wires, long form essays etc..

And consider JSU's advice...WFH is a very bad term and part of the problem with the industry. You'll have no back catalogue/ stock to derive income from down the road.

 

[Freakscene]

The AP can open doors and be a source of excellent experience.

But the AP contract is the very definition of work for hire, that is, you shoot pictures, get paid and resign all rights to your images.

This is how I worked for almost 2 years and while I don't regret it, the experience was enough to stop me from continuing to work as a photographer. Photographic skill is a prerequisite, but you have to compete with equivalently and more talented and experienced people to the point where you get sent to photograph more interesting things or with better potential. You only need to mess up once to either get fired or go right back to the bottom of the pile, and have to start working your way up again. Being able to get something publishable in _any_ situation is paramount. In any job 75% of what you do is just dull grind, even if you have a 'great' or 'exciting' job like being a photojournalist.

Marty

 

[tbarker13]

It is a very tough road - and one you will make exponentially harder on yourself by trying to do it only with a rangefinder. Only with a film rangefinder just stacks even more odds against you.
It's like insisting you want to be a professional football player - but one who only wants to wear one shoe. And that one, without laces.
Unless you are simply an amazing photographer, no photo editor at a serious daily newspaper is going to be very receptive to your approach.
(I'm not a PJ myself, but I've worked as a reporter at large daily papers for nearly 20 years.)

At best, you can hope they'd be interested in a documentary project you've done. (and space for those is getting harder to come by.) But you won't be getting any daily assignments if you aren't shooting digital.

Maybe you'd have better luck with an alternative weekly paper.

I don't mean to sound discouraging - chase whatever dream you have. But you asked for advice. And I hate to see someone start down a path without being prepared.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Sabastiao Salgado can carry a rangefinder to a shoot and be respected for it, most other mortals can't. No offense meant to all of the amazing experience here, I'm just pulling Salgado's name out of a very small pool of shooters that are still using film for real work.

Decide what kind of work you want to do. If it's war, think seriously about changing your mind or profession. If it's long-form documentary, just go do it. If it's big-city news, move to a small city and make a name for yourself then move into larger markets.

The big issue today is the question of employment and what the market will be in the near future. The old model of photojournalism is gone, save for the few experienced folks that Salgado is in company with. A modern photojournalist needs to be able to do every job in the newsroom today. That's just to get hired if a job exists and moreso, that's so the photojournalist can run their own business.

There is no reason that you can't start taking photos as a freelancer, find your niche and just making yourself get published on a small-scale. The business end will judge you on what you have produced, the very best of your work.

So, the other things you need to learn are:
How to use on-camera flash and not rely on TTL = guide number will save your butt.
How to white balance, why it matters and what the color differences between Kelvin temperatures are.
How to make your photos look good on as many monitors in the world as possible (because every single one is different.)
How to write in AP style, FAST, and very succinctly.
How to light, shoot, edit and format video.
How to get your product to an editor or a customer faster than your competition.
How to not get sued for what you publish.
How to bill clients with proper itemized invoices.
How to make friends in the business who can help you with tips, sources, etc.
How to read a city budget plan.
the list goes on...

All these things and much more have to do with reporting. A photojournalist has to be a well rounded reporter that can do everything, not just take photos.

Good luck!

Phil Forrest

 

[Vince Lupo]

The AP can open doors and be a source of excellent experience.

But the AP contract is the very definition of work for hire, that is, you shoot pictures, get paid and resign all rights to your images.

Food for thought.

Yes, just take a look at what recently happened with the Shepard Fairey/Barack Obama 'HOPE' court case here in the US (with the artist, the AP freelancer and AP etc), and you'll see the complexities of copyright ownership.

Back in the day (when they still shot film), I'd be allowed to pick up my film from the AP bureau a week after the shots ran on the wire. Fortunately I still have a lot of that film, and interesting to see some of those shots floating around on the web here and there!

 

[Roger Hicks]

There's not much to add to what others have said, especially those with direct experience of news photography (which I've never done). But I do number a few newspaper reporters among my friends, and I have done a certain amount of (paid) photojournalism.

Yes, for news photography, an FSU RF is a joke, and even for photojournalism -- the longer-term exploration of a story -- I'd not give much for anyone's chances of earning a living with one, even though a great deal of photojournalism today is shading into 'fine art', as you'll see at Arles. Although the Rencontres are reputedly the greatest gathering of fine art photographers in the world, there's a hell of a lot there I'd call photojournalism. Many of those photojournalists have to have other jobs to pay for their photojournalism habit, and they're seriously good. Even the successful ones mostly live in small houses with old cars and very few overheads. Many are not very good at staying married, or in any long-term relationship: you have to give up a lot for 'real' photojournalism.

I'd also echo Phil Forrest's point that there's a great deal more to being a successful photojournalist than taking pictures, and that today more than ever, being able to write clearly, with the punctuation and the capital letters in the right places, is essential. Well over 99% of the photojournalism I've ever been paid for involves words as well as pictures, and even if you don't write the accompanying running text, you need to be able to write informative, comprehensive and comprehensible captions. Most of the photojournalists I know (either personally or by reputation) who actually do earn a living from their trade are pretty good writers as well.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Spleenrippa]

If this whole thread wasn't trollbait, I'll eat my left shoe :-\

 

[Roger Hicks]

There are some who are naive as to the totality of working as a PJ or news photographer. They see a movie such as Nachtwey's War Photographer or the older fictional pieces Salvador or Under Fire and have fantasies of tossing their FSU (or Practica or Pentax) , passport and few power bars in a rucksack and saving the world.

I was in J school in the early and mid '70's and the jump in enrollment after Watergate in 1974 was a phenomenon that had to be seen, not just the numbers but many of the individuals who poured-in. Everyone suddenly wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein and take down a president. I wonder what many were doing even 10 years later?

Maybe in the nearly two years I've been retired I have shed some of my cynicism that is an inevitable character trait of many in the news business.

Quite. Unless we respond to the best of our ability to these posts, even if we think they're hopeless fantasies, there's no point in responding at all.

Besides, an advantage of a public forum is that anyone who is interested in the subject can jump in and learn, even if they're too shy to ask the question themselves.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jzietman]

I'm a college student interested in journalism, and I did work at some local papers this summer as both a reporter and a photographer. I am also Photo Editor at my university's paper.

Out of that experience, I can say:

1. If these are small, local papers (or possibly any local, non-national papers), do not expect them to provide anything. Your stipend, if it exists, will not really cover gas or subway fare or food or whatever. Do not expect them to provide you with tons of equipment, even if they have a locker for their staff.

2. Digital is almost definitely the only way to go in the journalism world now. Film is slower, less reliable, and more expensive in the long run. Film, darkrooms, and prints take lots of space to store, while digital does not, using digital even allows the offices to be smaller and therefore less expensive. Since local news outlets are struggling across the country to stay afloat, they will all be digital. Don't expect them to even have a film scanner.

3. Especially if you're just beginning as a photojournalist, you need to shoot a lot of photos all the time. Your yield rate will be low. Film in this case will cost you a ton of money.

I currently have an internship in the photo department of a very prominent journalistic magazine, and while some of the greater photographers shoot film for us, they get away with it because a) they are amazing and b) they have a long time to do these projects, since the magazine is weekly and planned far in advance.

However, none of those who shoot film for us shoot 35mm. The quality is just not high enough. The images, especially black and white, just aren't clean enough. The smallest contact sheets I've seen are 6x6 MF, and I've seen a lot of large format, too. Only these qualities of film still surpass digital for cleanliness. Many of these guys scan film, particularly if they're shooting slides, but still, it's all medium format at least.

Please, do shoot film, but do it for yourself. I've tried doing it myself for longer-term assignments, but it takes far, far more fussing about for frequently inferior results. I love film, I have a darkroom, but when you're working for someone else and you're on a deadline, you need digital.

 

[tonal1]

I was a newspaper PJ for 33 years. No truer analysis has ever been made than that above.

About the 75% quote: I'll second that. Great way of looking at it. First thing that pops into my head is high rise window cleaners. How many people know how much of that job is hauling heavy gear up stairs and elevators... But is looks so fun!

As for PJ work - I am not a PJ, but stay in school for as long as possible! If you don't believe me believe Salgado, that's his advice too. And define well, for yourself, what it means to be a photo journalist, and what you want it to mean.

If one day you find yourself professionally fulfilled, what tools you used to get there will probably be the least interesting/important aspect of that career.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I repeat the post I made four weeks ago - anyone contemplating being a PJ should read this book first and decide if it's really for them.
Quote:
I suggest you first study the textbook. Available from Amazon, title "Little Bunch of Madmen", subtitled "Elements of Global Reporting", author - Mort Rosenblum. List price $12 plus postage. Published 2010. ISBN 978-098259082-9
First Chapter - "Cotton Underwear". It's a very practical book!
__________________

 

[Freakscene]

About the 75% quote: I'll second that. Great way of looking at it. First thing that pops into my head is high rise window cleaners. How many people know how much of that job is hauling heavy gear up stairs and elevators... But is looks so fun!

I wrote the 75% comment. I am a marine biologist, another 'great, fun' job. Right now I would revise that percentage up to 85-95% dull grind, but this is a busy time of year for reports and mid-grant accounting.

It goes on and on.

Marty

 

[Nikkor AIS]

F8 and be there.

 

[JayGannon]

Yes, just take a look at what recently happened with the Shepard Fairey/Barack Obama 'HOPE' court case here in the US (with the artist, the AP freelancer and AP etc), and you'll see the complexities of copyright ownership.

Back in the day (when they still shot film), I'd be allowed to pick up my film from the AP bureau a week after the shots ran on the wire. Fortunately I still have a lot of that film, and interesting to see some of those shots floating around on the web here and there!

I've recently found the hassle of getting Ap to even let you know what shots were yours when they ran on the wire, I had an old backup fail and went looking for some old work and they refused to indicate what shots were mine (non commercial personal use clause in stringers contract)